Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Determinism: The Death knell of ethics!

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:30:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Free will when deconstructed, is essentially the capacity to will without determining factors. It's an animistic belief that actions, such as those that process thought and motion, can be uncaused and spontaneously originate from nothing but "will".

We seem to rely on simple and irrational theories when we cannot accurately explain events. The running river was once caused by river spirits, humanity originated from 2 random, documented individuals, and that maggots appeared on rotten meat through Biogenesis! ....but one by one, science demolished these assertions, from Biology to Chemistry to Physics such that all these fields have become deterministic in nature. The Final science that withholds this primitive animism is psychology - where of course we blame human behavior on this mystic concept of "free will".

It's time for more people to open their minds to the possibility that such does not exist, and from thereafter abandon the ridiculous doctrine of ethical codes.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:34:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Aw, my clever chap, but you miss the point. For if you truly knew, hands on, our imaginary distinction between will and not will, you could just as easily conclude that in-fact NOTHING is mechanical and EVERYTHING is will, not the other way around.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:42:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:34:44 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Aw, my clever chap, but you miss the point. For if you truly knew, hands on, our imaginary distinction between will and not will, you could just as easily conclude that in-fact NOTHING is mechanical and EVERYTHING is will, not the other way around.

No, you could conclude no such thing. Empirical evidence increasingly supports the inherent mechanic nature of the universe. Everything is caused by something else. The idea that all things are willed, as in having no traceable origin, contradicts science.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:43:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
*emphasis on traceable
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:45:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
Free will when deconstructed, is essentially the capacity to will without determining factors. It's an animistic belief that actions, such as those that process thought and motion, can be uncaused and spontaneously originate from nothing but "will".

We seem to rely on simple and irrational theories when we cannot accurately explain events. The running river was once caused by river spirits, humanity originated from 2 random, documented individuals, and that maggots appeared on rotten meat through Biogenesis! ....but one by one, science demolished these assertions, from Biology to Chemistry to Physics such that all these fields have become deterministic in nature. The Final science that withholds this primitive animism is psychology - where of course we blame human behavior on this mystic concept of "free will".

It's time for more people to open their minds to the possibility that such does not exist, and from thereafter abandon the ridiculous doctrine of ethical codes.

If everything is determined... then so are ethical codes.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 8:05:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:42:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:34:44 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Aw, my clever chap, but you miss the point. For if you truly knew, hands on, our imaginary distinction between will and not will, you could just as easily conclude that in-fact NOTHING is mechanical and EVERYTHING is will, not the other way around.

No, you could conclude no such thing. Empirical evidence increasingly supports the inherent mechanic nature of the universe. Everything is caused by something else. The idea that all things are willed, as in having no traceable origin, contradicts science.

Aye, it is against science. But only may a thing which, by it's nature, can come to conclusions through testability, will all things be reduced to a testable answer. But, of course, what is The Test? The invisible yardstick; the hodge of the podge; the painting which creates the painter. Only through self-manifested contrasts may we draw the lines for which we can submit our measurements upon. What is will? What is cause? What is The What Is? Why do we not understand that the particle is in two places and two times at once but plainly observe it by our own standards, when it is obvious that we wrote the map which puts things in their place?

Every living creature is a robot.
And every robot is a living creature.

Those who have eyes to smell, let them hear.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 8:05:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:45:05 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
Free will when deconstructed, is essentially the capacity to will without determining factors. It's an animistic belief that actions, such as those that process thought and motion, can be uncaused and spontaneously originate from nothing but "will".

We seem to rely on simple and irrational theories when we cannot accurately explain events. The running river was once caused by river spirits, humanity originated from 2 random, documented individuals, and that maggots appeared on rotten meat through Biogenesis! ....but one by one, science demolished these assertions, from Biology to Chemistry to Physics such that all these fields have become deterministic in nature. The Final science that withholds this primitive animism is psychology - where of course we blame human behavior on this mystic concept of "free will".

It's time for more people to open their minds to the possibility that such does not exist, and from thereafter abandon the ridiculous doctrine of ethical codes.

If everything is determined... then so are ethical codes.

Correct. Does that prove them logical? I think not
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 12:22:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
Free will when deconstructed, is essentially the capacity to will without determining factors. It's an animistic belief that actions, such as those that process thought and motion, can be uncaused and spontaneously originate from nothing but "will".

We seem to rely on simple and irrational theories when we cannot accurately explain events. The running river was once caused by river spirits, humanity originated from 2 random, documented individuals, and that maggots appeared on rotten meat through Biogenesis! ....but one by one, science demolished these assertions, from Biology to Chemistry to Physics such that all these fields have become deterministic in nature. The Final science that withholds this primitive animism is psychology - where of course we blame human behavior on this mystic concept of "free will".

It's time for more people to open their minds to the possibility that such does not exist, and from thereafter abandon the ridiculous doctrine of ethical codes.

Or, perhaps, we should mold ethics with a view of influencing future behavoir as opposed to punishing for perceived wrongs.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 1:06:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 1:00:11 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
How does Determinism disprove ethics?

I don't believe he mentioned or implied anything about ethics.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 1:11:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 1:06:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/27/2012 1:00:11 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
How does Determinism disprove ethics?

I don't believe he mentioned or implied anything about ethics.

Er... "The Death knell of ethics".
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 1:13:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 7:34:44 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Aw, my clever chap, but you miss the point. For if you truly knew, hands on, our imaginary distinction between will and not will, you could just as easily conclude that in-fact NOTHING is mechanical and EVERYTHING is will, not the other way around.


This.

Those who have eyes to smell, let them hear.

I'm going to steal that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 1:14:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"If I define myself as the whole field of events, we'll say the 'organism-environment field' which is the real me, then all the things that happen to me, may be called 'my doing.'"
-- Alan Watts
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 1:17:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 1:11:34 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 3/27/2012 1:06:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/27/2012 1:00:11 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
How does Determinism disprove ethics?

I don't believe he mentioned or implied anything about ethics.

Er... "The Death knell of ethics".

You're right. That didn't occur to me. I don't see what it has to do with ethics either.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 1:17:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 1:14:43 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"If I define myself as the whole field of events, we'll say the 'organism-environment field' which is the real me, then all the things that happen to me, may be called 'my doing.'"
-- Alan Watts

Every philosophy thread needs some Alan Watts.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 3:44:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 1:17:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/27/2012 1:14:43 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"If I define myself as the whole field of events, we'll say the 'organism-environment field' which is the real me, then all the things that happen to me, may be called 'my doing.'"
-- Alan Watts

Every philosophy thread needs some Alan Watts.

Eh.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 3:57:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think philosophy needs to be broken down into two large catagories..

The Philosophy as coined by greek philosophers. Lover of wisdom. aka salvation through knowlede.
One which is knowledge based.
-philosophy of science
-logic-math
-Philosophy of mind.
-critical philosophy.
-philosophy of language
-natural science
-Foundatinalism
-anaylitic philosophy
-objective ethics

Salvation Philosophy
The other, which is salvation based:
-conteninental
-existentialism
-spiritualism
-relativism/coherentism
-post-modernism
-Philosophy of religion
-critical lit and theory.
-theology
-social sciences
-Anything Alan Watts!!.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:14:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 1:00:11 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
How does Determinism disprove ethics?

Ethics relies on free will. That you ought to do X implies that you had the option of doing X over Y. The decision, however, to do X over Y necessitates a will. Where it is, beyond our scope of comprehension, determined whether one shall do X or do Y....ethics is disproved.

It's a forced conclusion, I don't see how you could dispute it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:25:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:14:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/27/2012 1:00:11 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
How does Determinism disprove ethics?

Ethics relies on free will. That you ought to do X implies that you had the option of doing X over Y. The decision, however, to do X over Y necessitates a will. Where it is, beyond our scope of comprehension, determined whether one shall do X or do Y....ethics is disproved.

It's a forced conclusion, I don't see how you could dispute it.

Found it:

"Argument that Free Will is Required for Moral Judgments

1. The moral judgment that you shouldn't have done X implies that you should have done something else instead

2. That you should have done something else instead implies that there was something else for you to do

3. That there was something else for you to do implies that you could have done something else

4. That you could have done something else implies that you have free will

5. If you don't have free will to have done other than X we cannot make the moral judgment that you shouldn't have done X
"

(http://en.wikipedia.org... )
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 7:10:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 8:05:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:45:05 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/26/2012 7:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
Free will when deconstructed, is essentially the capacity to will without determining factors. It's an animistic belief that actions, such as those that process thought and motion, can be uncaused and spontaneously originate from nothing but "will".

We seem to rely on simple and irrational theories when we cannot accurately explain events. The running river was once caused by river spirits, humanity originated from 2 random, documented individuals, and that maggots appeared on rotten meat through Biogenesis! ....but one by one, science demolished these assertions, from Biology to Chemistry to Physics such that all these fields have become deterministic in nature. The Final science that withholds this primitive animism is psychology - where of course we blame human behavior on this mystic concept of "free will".

It's time for more people to open their minds to the possibility that such does not exist, and from thereafter abandon the ridiculous doctrine of ethical codes.

If everything is determined... then so are ethical codes.

Correct. Does that prove them logical? I think not

Neither does it prove them irrational. In fact, whether or not something is determined to be has no bearing on whether or not it is rooted in a sound logical foundation.

Obviously any ethical code rooted in Free Will is illogical, as its fundamental premise (that we have Free Will) is false, but I don't see that ethical codes need to rely on said premise.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 10:12:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is going to be a pretty weak argument because its long and I figure I will post it sometime later. But as far as this is concerned its not the death of ethics. Its only the death Knell of religious based free will and ethics.
In that we can't be judged in a religious sense.
But there are combatiblist ways to articulate free will, within a determinist framework.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 1:40:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:25:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/27/2012 5:14:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/27/2012 1:00:11 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
How does Determinism disprove ethics?

Ethics relies on free will. That you ought to do X implies that you had the option of doing X over Y. The decision, however, to do X over Y necessitates a will. Where it is, beyond our scope of comprehension, determined whether one shall do X or do Y....ethics is disproved.

It's a forced conclusion, I don't see how you could dispute it.

Found it:

"Argument that Free Will is Required for Moral Judgments

1. The moral judgment that you shouldn't have done X implies that you should have done something else instead

2. That you should have done something else instead implies that there was something else for you to do

3. That there was something else for you to do implies that you could have done something else

4. That you could have done something else implies that you have free will

5. If you don't have free will to have done other than X we cannot make the moral judgment that you shouldn't have done X
"

(http://en.wikipedia.org... )

I agree with determinism, but Premise 5 is flawed. Lets assume that I implant a mind controlling device into your brain. You are at my complete mercy and are forced to do everything I say. I use the device and force you to kill 5 people.

Even though your action was "determined" I can still make the moral judgment that it was wrong of you to do it.

Determinism would just mean that people don't deserve to be *punished* for violating morality. It doesn't mean that if I do something immoral against my will, its not immoral anymore.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:16:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 1:40:17 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 3/27/2012 5:25:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/27/2012 5:14:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/27/2012 1:00:11 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
How does Determinism disprove ethics?

Ethics relies on free will. That you ought to do X implies that you had the option of doing X over Y. The decision, however, to do X over Y necessitates a will. Where it is, beyond our scope of comprehension, determined whether one shall do X or do Y....ethics is disproved.

It's a forced conclusion, I don't see how you could dispute it.

Found it:

"Argument that Free Will is Required for Moral Judgments

1. The moral judgment that you shouldn't have done X implies that you should have done something else instead

2. That you should have done something else instead implies that there was something else for you to do

3. That there was something else for you to do implies that you could have done something else

4. That you could have done something else implies that you have free will

5. If you don't have free will to have done other than X we cannot make the moral judgment that you shouldn't have done X
"

(http://en.wikipedia.org... )

I agree with determinism, but Premise 5 is flawed. Lets assume that I implant a mind controlling device into your brain. You are at my complete mercy and are forced to do everything I say. I use the device and force you to kill 5 people.

Even though your action was "determined" I can still make the moral judgment that it was wrong of you to do it.

Determinism would just mean that people don't deserve to be *punished* for violating morality. It doesn't mean that if I do something immoral against my will, its not immoral anymore.

I disagree. In the scenario you posed, it is the puppeteer that is held responsible for your actions, not you. Would you think it logical to tell a rock not to hit someone, or would you blame the rock thrower?

Immorality thus has no meaning as the actions whether or not they agree with those codes, are inevitable. Ethics necessitate blame. Where there is no moral agent to blame, ethics really has no basis. OR, ethics becomes perverse and blatantly absurd....commanding things that lack will to employ will. Would you command a pen to write autonomously, or would you consider such a thing insane? That's the case for ethical codes in a determined universe.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:24:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:


Immorality thus has no meaning as the actions whether or not they agree with those codes, are inevitable. Ethics necessitate blame. Where there is no moral agent to blame, ethics really has no basis. OR, ethics becomes perverse and blatantly absurd....commanding things that lack will to employ will. Would you command a pen to write autonomously, or would you consider such a thing insane? That's the case for ethical codes in a determined universe.

The Fool: Ike you are over looking compatiblst definitions of free will.
Where we call as being free if it fall between such and such lines.

Thus even if we say that we couldn't help it. The compatiblist will say well, such punishment is to effect your determistic system to it doesn't happen again.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:29:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Immorality thus has no meaning as the actions whether or not they agree with those codes, are inevitable. Ethics necessitate blame. Where there is no moral agent to blame, ethics really has no basis. OR, ethics becomes perverse and blatantly absurd....commanding things that lack will to employ will. Would you command a pen to write autonomously, or would you consider such a thing insane? That's the case for ethical codes in a determined universe.:

If you did away with all moral codes then there would be no basis for law. All law is is a codification of morality. You do away with that, not even the cry of "natural rights" has to be honored and the only recourse is kill or be killed. That, of course, is the inherent problem with anarchism.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:39:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:29:21 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Immorality thus has no meaning as the actions whether or not they agree with those codes, are inevitable. Ethics necessitate blame. Where there is no moral agent to blame, ethics really has no basis. OR, ethics becomes perverse and blatantly absurd....commanding things that lack will to employ will. Would you command a pen to write autonomously, or would you consider such a thing insane? That's the case for ethical codes in a determined universe.:

If you did away with all moral codes then there would be no basis for law. All law is is a codification of morality. You do away with that, not even the cry of "natural rights" has to be honored and the only recourse is kill or be killed. That, of course, is the inherent problem with anarchism.

The Fool: a good portion of Laws are for practical reasons. To keep a state functioning, aka most traffic laws are to keep the flow of traffic. parking is not a moral issue. But rather a practical issure. Giving you tickets makes money and also prevents parking in un wanted area. But only sometimes.

Laws are not necessary moral at all. They are suppost to capture morality but they can't.

Another example is that it may be just as worse to harm someone emotionally. but its to hard to judge practically, so it doesn't really become a Law. But an phyisical injury is there for everyone to see. So its just more practical to be accounted in lawy. but it may not be morally different. Somebody cheating on you is way can be way more hurtfull and longer lasting. Then a punch in the face. But the later is illigal
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:40:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:29:21 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
If you did away with all moral codes then there would be no basis for law. All law is is a codification of morality.

What's immoral about jaywalking other than "it breaks the law?"
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:57:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:

I disagree. In the scenario you posed, it is the puppeteer that is held responsible for your actions, not you. Would you think it logical to tell a rock not to hit someone, or would you blame the rock thrower?

So your argument is that Determinism means we shouldn't be held *accountable* for wrong actions. Ok then, see below.

Immorality thus has no meaning as the actions whether or not they agree with those codes, are inevitable. Ethics necessitate blame. Where there is no moral agent to blame, ethics really has no basis. OR, ethics becomes perverse and blatantly absurd....commanding things that lack will to employ will. Would you command a pen to write autonomously, or would you consider such a thing insane? That's the case for ethical codes in a determined universe.

Even if I can't be "blamed" for violating ethics, we still need ethical codes. For instance, assume a Utilitarian morality. If I go out and kill 5 people, Determinism accurately says that punishing me for it is nonsensical because it wasn't something I could control.

However, if we abandon Utilitarian ethics entirely and do not hold anyone accountable for violating it, then we send a message that anyone can kill, rape, steal, etc without repercussion. Crime would skyrocket astronomically if we abandoned Utilitarian ethics.

So while its wrong to *punish* people for violating morality (we seem to agree on this) we still need the codes in place to maintain societal order and deter people from violating morality in the first place.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 3:20:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 2:57:25 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 3/27/2012 2:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:

I disagree. In the scenario you posed, it is the puppeteer that is held responsible for your actions, not you. Would you think it logical to tell a rock not to hit someone, or would you blame the rock thrower?

So your argument is that Determinism means we shouldn't be held *accountable* for wrong actions. Ok then, see below.

Immorality thus has no meaning as the actions whether or not they agree with those codes, are inevitable. Ethics necessitate blame. Where there is no moral agent to blame, ethics really has no basis. OR, ethics becomes perverse and blatantly absurd....commanding things that lack will to employ will. Would you command a pen to write autonomously, or would you consider such a thing insane? That's the case for ethical codes in a determined universe.

Even if I can't be "blamed" for violating ethics, we still need ethical codes. For instance, assume a Utilitarian morality. If I go out and kill 5 people, Determinism accurately says that punishing me for it is nonsensical because it wasn't something I could control.

However, if we abandon Utilitarian ethics entirely and do not hold anyone accountable for violating it, then we send a message that anyone can kill, rape, steal, etc without repercussion. Crime would skyrocket astronomically if we abandoned Utilitarian ethics.

So while its wrong to *punish* people for violating morality (we seem to agree on this) we still need the codes in place to maintain societal order and deter people from violating morality in the first place.

If that's the case, then the employment of morality violates and contradicts itself. Codes founded on such values as "fairness" and "consistency" are in their enforcement unfair and inconsistent. However, will you agree at least that Determinism invalidates objective morality?

Your argument seems like it can only function under subjective morality...as it is contingent on our desire to "maintain societal order and deter people".
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault