A rational discussion presupposes free will. If have no hand in determining outcomes, then let's all lie down and sleep and trust that the outcome would've been the same no matter what we think.
Can Morality Be Objective Without God?
Posts
Total:
438
-->
@Fallaneze
Wether the reason sighted is abstract or concrete if you have a reason to choose between one action or the other then you are subject to cause (the reason you are doing something) and effect (the thing you are doing). If there is no reason to do something and you do it anyway then you are not behaving rationally.
-->
@keithprosser
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!
Well, can Morality have an Imaginary-Property without an Imaginary-Being?
I'd say, hypothetically, the property of "objectivity" does not require, or in any way necessitate "gods".
"NTURTTGgTS" = "Noumenon, The Ultimate Reality, The Truth, [G]god, The Source" is as close as you are going to get, and 99.99999% of religious adherents are not going to accept "noumenon" as their gods.
Except maybe the Ancient Greeks.[LINK]
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, and you can quell your reactions.
-->
@secularmerlin
Is a reason a material thing or an abstract, non-material concept?
-->
@Fallaneze
Based on what?A rational discussion presupposes free will.
I've seen a lot, and I do mean a lot of discussions about free-will and I've never heard of such a thing.
Please elaborate.
-->
@Fallaneze
So "abstract reasons" are non-causal?That would refute your position if it were since you're the one arguing that deterministic, material processes determine outcomes, not abstract reasons.
If "abstract reasons" are non-causal, then they are indistinguishable from random.
-->
@MagicAintReal
Why would you quell your reactions? If there is ANY reason the reason is a cause. If there is a cause then cause and effect is demonstrably taking place.
-->
@Fallaneze
Is a cause a material thing or an abstract, non-material concept?
-->
@3RU7AL
If our positions are installed by mindless forces beyond our control then we're just experiencing the results that play out. Deterministic processes don't make choices or decisions. So when the day comes that physics or chemistry can behave otherwise, then we'll see if free will isn't required for rational decision-making.
-->
@secularmerlin
Right and I'm willing the cause, because it's clearly going against instinctual inclinations.
-->
@secularmerlin
You're avoiding my questions with more questions.
But I don't blame you because chemistry and physics is calling all the shots anyway.
-->
@MagicAintReal
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?
You are dismissing experience and brain function.
Your actions/motives/thoughts are either caused (and determined) or uncaused (and random).
You can mix these options together any way you want and you end up with the same result.
FREE-WILL IS FALSE.
-->
@MagicAintReal
Why would you go against instinctual inclinations? If there is ANY reason the reason is a cause. If there is a cause then cause and effect is demonstrably taking place.
-->
@Fallaneze
You're becoming a noticeably better person already!!But I don't blame you because chemistry and physics is calling all the shots anyway.
-->
@Fallaneze
A reason may be concrete (A boulder is falling so I have reason to move) or abstract/nonmaterial (I am of the subjective opinion that a story is sad so I have reason to cry) in both cases cause and effect is demonstrably taking place. My point in my last post to you is that it doesn't matter if a reason is concrete or abstract.
-->
@Fallaneze
If our positions are installed by mindless forces beyond our control then we're just experiencing the results that play out. Deterministic processes don't make choices or decisions. So when the day comes that physics or chemistry can behave otherwise, then we'll see if free will isn't required for rational decision-making.
You're forgetting it is a mix of deterministic forces and random noise.
So when the day comes that may never come, then we'll see if your naked appeal to ignorance is enough to preserve the irrational concept of free-will.
Do dogs and robots make choices?
I'm pretty sure they do.
Do you stop going to movies and watching television shows because, "the outcome is predetermined"?
No.
The ending of the movie doesn't change while you're watching the movie, but it is still interesting to watch.
-->
@secularmerlin
If you are fine with something non-material causing something then I don't see any useful distinction between this and mental causation/free will .
-->
@Fallaneze
Why would mental causation necessitate Freewill? Mental causation only necessitates cause and effect so far as I know. You are falsely conflating the two.
-->
@secularmerlin
Free will doesn't mean that there's no cause and effect. It means that you have the ability to have chosen otherwise. This is compatible with mental causation but not determinism.
-->
@Fallaneze
How do we demonstrate the ability to have chosen otherwise? We cannot go back in time and choose again. Even if we could our knowledge of the future outcome would be a potential cause and the test would be inconclusive. If You have a method of testing your hypothesis please present it.
-->
@3RU7AL
Your actions/motives/thoughts are either caused (and determined) or uncaused (and random).You can mix these options together any way you want and you end up with the same result.FREE-WILL IS FALSE.
Unless brains are infused with special stuff that follows different rules to regular matter and energy. maybe 'Dualium' is what allows brains to manifest consciousness and real free will :(
-->
@secularmerlin
Mental causation.
"The phenomenon of mental causation, as may be apparent, is thoroughly commonplace and ubiquitous. But this is not the only reason why it is significant. It is absolutely fundamental to our concept of actions performed intentionally (as opposed to involuntarily), which, in turn, is central to those of agency, free will, and moral responsibility. An action, as philosophers use the term, is not a mere bodily motion like involuntarily blinking one's eyes. It is something one does intentionally, as when one winks to grab someone's attention. The distinction between a mere bodily movement and an action hinges on the possibility of mental causation, since actions have mental states, such as intentions, as direct causes. This distinction, in turn, is critical for gauging moral responsibility, since we attribute or withhold judgments of moral responsibility depending upon whether the agent acted intentionally."
-->
@keithprosser
maybe 'Dualium' is what allows brains to manifest consciousness and real free will :(
That pushes us further down the chain of proof it doesn't resolve anything. Now we have moved from having to demonstrate freewill to having to demonstrate dualism and freewill.
The person who claims that there is no free will had this position installed in them by mindless forces beyond their control. Mindless forces are not rational. Therefore, their position is not rational.
At the least, free will is prima facie true. The burden of proof would fall on the person who believes it doesnt exist.
-->
@Fallaneze
Mental causation."The phenomenon of mental causation, as may be apparent, is thoroughly commonplace and ubiquitous. But this is not the only reason why it is significant. It is absolutely fundamental to our concept of actions performed intentionally (as opposed to involuntarily), which, in turn, is central to those of agency, free will, and moral responsibility. An action, as philosophers use the term, is not a mere bodily motion like involuntarily blinking one's eyes. It is something one does intentionally, as when one winks to grab someone's attention. The distinction between a mere bodily movement and an action hinges on the possibility of mental causation, since actions have mental states, such as intentions, as direct causes. This distinction, in turn, is critical for gauging moral responsibility, since we attribute or withhold judgments of moral responsibility depending upon whether the agent acted intentionally."
Our concept. That is key I feel. Because our concept of reality is not reality. If you were programmed to think that you had freewill how would that be distinguishable from actual freewill from your perspective. What is an intention anyway? How do we get them? Is there A reason you might intend to wink (like getting someone's attention?) If so then we are still discussing cause and effect. If there is no cause then you are not behaving rationally.
-->
@Fallaneze
Appeal to ignorance. Burden of proof fallacy.At the least, free will is prima facie true.
Free-will in incompatible with cause and effect.
Free-will is incompatible with non-causal effect (random).
The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)
1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.
Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
-->
@secularmerlin
@keithprosser
maybe 'Dualium' is what allows brains to manifest consciousness and real free will :(That pushes us further down the chain of proof it doesn't resolve anything. Now we have moved from having to demonstrate freewill to having to demonstrate dualism and freewill.
(EITHER) ghosts, spirits, souls, and angels and gods act based on previous influences (OR) they don't.
(IFF) ghosts, spirits, souls, and angels and gods act on previous influences, (THEN) they are part of the causal chain.
(IFF) ghosts, spirits, souls, and angels and gods do not act on previous influences, (THEN) they act randomly.
So called "dualism" solves none of the fundamental logical problems with free-will.
-->
@Fallaneze
Logic and reason are human systems of thought. We have evolved into rational beings. Evolution is the cause and our past evolution would seem to be a mindless force that is beyond our control.
We agree that cause and effect are demonstrably real so I don't need to fulfill a burden of proof in that regard so I'm not sure what you are asking for proof of. It is impossible to prove a negative that is why the burden of proof always lies.upon the shoulders of the one making the undeminstrated claim not the one denying it.