-->
@3RU7AL
Right but we can't measure morality only with the physical but prettiness we can, no?
Can Morality Be Objective Without God?
Posts
Total:
438
-->
@secularmerlin
Why I do things is irrelevant to whether or not I'm free to do them.
If I can go against the inclinations of deterministic laws of physics, how do I lack free will?
If I can go against the inclinations of deterministic laws of physics, how do I lack free will?
-->
@secularmerlin
If determinism is true, rationality isn't possible because rationality entails the ability to choose between competing outcomes. That alone would make each and every statement you make a-rational and you would have no rational basis for any of your arguments or statements.
-->
@Fallaneze
You are welcome to your subjective opinion. I dare say beetles fancy other beetles.Imagine a woman being morbidly obese, smelling like rotten cheese, acne all over her face, patchy and stringy hair, deep and raspy voice, a beard under her neck, has only two rotten front teeth, a giant and crooked nose, and ears that stick out of her hair.She is just as beautiful as Jessica alba.
-->
@MagicAintReal
Does that mean you don't have any answer as to why? Do you simply do things for no reason?
-->
@Fallaneze
Choose is simply the wrong word. We can rationally determine the difference between two outcomes or ideas.
-->
@Fallaneze
Well maybe never to exchange her and I'm sure they'd love her more, but they'd be irrational for seeing her as physically more beautiful.
No true Scotsman.
It is very handy to imagine you can categorically discredit anyone who disagrees with your opinion.
I've seen many old couples who look lovingly into each others eyes and say, "you're just as beautiful as the day we met" and apparently believe it wholeheartedly.
Those lucky couples have a lifetime of love that makes mere movie stars pale in all measures of attractiveness compared to their true love.
Can you invalidate that judgement out-of-hand? Based on your whim? I don't think so.
You are not the all knowing all powerful holy judge of human physical attractiveness.
-->
@Fallaneze
If determinism is true, rationality isn't possible because rationality entails the ability to choose between competing outcomes. That alone would make each and every statement you make a-rational and you would have no rational basis for any of your arguments or statements.
Are you suggesting that the brain function we call "rationality" is NON-CAUSAL?
An artificial-intelligence approximates a simplified "rationality".
We do not presume that artificial-intelligence REQUIRES free-will.
A dog makes choices based on their personal preferences, however, we do not presume that a dog REQUIRES free-will.
-->
@secularmerlin
No, I simply can do things for ANY reason, not just because of some deterministic physical law
-->
@MagicAintReal
Right but we can't measure morality only with the physical but prettiness we can, no?
Not strictly speaking. Prettiness depends a lot of context. The clothing the person wears and their general attitude. You'll notice that certain actors/actresses seem, in some roles to be more and in other roles to be much less attractive, even though they have exactly the same body.
Prettiness is not a purely physical property and is not rigorously defined and is therefore not scientifically quantifiable.
Symmetry and athleticism do not account for a myriad of other factors, even strictly physical factors.
Are blue eyes always more attractive than green or brown or amber eyes?
Is red hair always more attractive than brown or blonde?
Are women always more attractive than men?
Are 30 year olds always more attractive than 50 year olds?
Are people from France always more attractive than people from Peru?
Are people with above average intelligence always more attractive than those of average intelligence?
Are famous people always more attractive than those you've never heard of?
We have a general (temporal, geographical, cultural) consensus on what is more attractive.
But consensus is not evidence of a hypothetical "objective standard".
-->
@3RU7AL
The OP title is "Can Morality Be Objective Without God?"
I think the possibly surprising answer must be no, because morality is not objective in the first place.
but i don't think we have pinned down what morality is at all!
-->
@MagicAintReal
If there is ANY reason the reason is a cause. If there is a cause then cause and effect is demonstrably taking place. Can you equally demonstrate freewill or do you just feel (Are of the subjective opinion/have a gut feeling) that your "choices" are free?
-->
@secularmerlin
My position is that rationality must entail the ability to choose between competing outcomes. This is why we don't consider robots to be rational.
How about you and I just lie down on the floor and trust that the outcome would've been the same had we wanted to continue the discussion. We're as "in control" of ourselves as much as a boulder is in control of itself rolling down hill.
-->
@MagicAintReal
Are your "reasons" causal or are they non-causal?No, I simply can do things for ANY reason, not just because of some deterministic physical law
If your "reasons" are logical, then they are causal.
If your "reasons" are non-causal, then they are not logical.
If your actions have causes, and your actions have consequences, then causality (determinism) is true [FREE-WILL IS FALSE].
If your actions do not have causes, then your actions are indistinguishable from random, and non-causality (indeterminism) is true [FREE-WILL IS FALSE].
If some of your actions have causes and some of them don't, then some of your actions are determined and some are random [FREE-WILL IS FALSE].
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm suggesting that choices are not predetermined by material causes, yes. AI is programmed by algorithms. It's not rational at all.
-->
@Fallaneze
Robots and dogs can "choose between competing outcomes".My position is that rationality must entail the ability to choose between competing outcomes. This is why we don't consider robots to be rational.
You're going to need a better definition.
-->
@3RU7AL
Here is the claim: rationality must entail the ability to choose between competing outcomes.
Something is not rational if it cannot choose between competing outcomes. What you said about robots and dogs would neither affirm nor disconfirm the claim.
-->
@Fallaneze
You can have any position you like but until you demonstrate that position it would be irrational to accept it. What you call choice may simply be determining the cost/benefit of any possible action, not that different from a robot actually. Also why would an advanced enough robot not be considered rational?
-->
@secularmerlin
i'dsay 'one size doesn't fit all'. I just made myself a coffee, but I feel I could have made a tea instead. But for any things I don't have a choice at all. i can't fly around the room so i am sitting in my chair. i am so aware i can't fly aroundteroom Idon't consider it an even an option - perhaps that is the extreme of 'unfree will'.
oh dear,,,, now i wonder if 'unfree will' is a thing.
-->
@Fallaneze
Choose is simply the wrong word. Rationality only requires that we can determine the difference.
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm suggesting that choices are not predetermined by material causes, yes. AI is programmed by algorithms. It's not rational at all.
Nobody said they were "predetermined" (except maybe Mopac).
Quantum (random) noise makes predicting the future at any long term scale highly unlikely if not outright impossible.
However, that is absolutely moot.
(EITHER) your actions have causes and are therefore the logical consequences of your experience and biology (OR) your actions do not have causes and are indistinguishable from random noise. Remember your favorite law of excluded middle?
You can mix caused and random in any ratio you can imagine, but you never end up with free-will.
-->
@keithprosser
Free/unfreewill may be nonsense terms. There is either determinism (cause and effect) or indeterminism (completely random chance) neither requires will at all and that you have a will does not make it automatically free or unfree. It is rather determined or undetermined.
-->
@Fallaneze
Here is the claim: rationality must entail the ability to choose between competing outcomes.Something is not rational if it cannot choose between competing outcomes. What you said about robots and dogs would neither affirm nor disconfirm the claim.
So you accept that dogs and robots can choose between competing outcomes and are THEREFORE rational according to your presented criteria.
-->
@secularmerlin
Someone who is a pawn of mindless forces like chemistry or physics has no choice in what positions they accept or reject so their positions can't be based on good reasons or bad reasons. I'm sure you'd agree that something mindless, the thing that's causing our positions, has no ability to act according to good reasons.
-->
@3RU7AL
No, I did not accept that. But even if I did, even if robots and dogs are considered rational, this does not show that rationality doesn't need to entail the ability to choose between competing outcomes.
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you suggesting that a reason does not qualify as a cause?
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm saying if my choices weren't free, wouldn't I just make the deterministic choices that the cells of my body are inclining me towards?
-->
@MagicAintReal
That and reacting to external environmental factors.
-->
@secularmerlin
That would refute your position if it were since you're the one arguing that deterministic, material processes determine outcomes, not abstract reasons.