(May 16, 2017 at 10:47 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: [edit]

I think all arguments for "free will" are nonsense.

The whole idea of "independent actions" (as in, actions independent from causation) is just hocus pocus.

[edit]

Of course you do. It gives you the perfect excuse for your behavior. Why even try to change?

(May 16, 2017 at 11:55 am)Whateverist Wrote: But I presuppose naturalism without doubting free will. Given a choice, why would anyone presuppose supernaturalism? I am fiercely pro natural world, proud to be a natural animal and think everyone with a lofty idea of themselves as a free floating/radically free willing disembodied mind is just off their rocker.

Personally, I find somewhat parochial to maintain a dichotomy between natural and supernatural. Since the distinction is based on what people would consider ordinarily and or possible given what they know at the time. If, as in Newton’s time, someone doesn’t know about nuclear forces the source of the sun’s power would be considered supernatural since no known source of power could keep it burning. Why presuppose supernaturalism? Because every time we think we know all the answers about how the world works something comes along that challenges that paradigm and naturalism gets redefined, as it already has been countless times.

I think all knowledge is derived from experience. As such the idea that you have a physical body comes after already tacitly accepting one’s self as a conscious being. It seems quite plausible to me you could possibly experience yourself without having knowledge of what is supporting that experience.

(May 16, 2017 at 11:55 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(May 16, 2017 at 8:45 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That's exactly right. The notion that the physical universe is causally closed is the unfalsifiable second-order principle.

But I presuppose naturalism without doubting free will.  Given a choice, why would anyone presuppose supernaturalism?  I am fiercely pro natural world, proud to be a natural animal and think everyone with a lofty idea of themselves as a free floating/radically free willing disembodied mind is just off their rocker.  Being an animal is a great privilege, being a deluded and pompous non-naturalist is ... unnatural!

You can't have free will without a non-physical process that is capable of physical causation (a mind) because if not, all you have are 100% physical causal processes that would only give you the illusion of free will. So, on your presupposed naturalism, how did a non-physical mind come from purely physical processes? Is there another example in the known universe that the physical has produced anything other than physical?

You presuppose the mind isn't physical. Sources please?

---

Also, lack of free-will does not negate responsibility. If a rock falls on someone and kills them, the rock is still responsible for their death, even if the rock has no free will. We would not allow other rocks to balance precariously above people's heads, knowing the possible consequences.

Consciousness does not = free-will, but it does equal a responsibility to change for the better when the tools are there to do so.

I hate tarring myself with the same brush, here. :p

(May 15, 2017 at 8:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 1. It makes it objective because Natural Law is integral to how the universe was made and how the universe works. Just as rules to a game a person creates are integral to how the game was framed and how it is set up to work. For this reason, Natural Law is the objective reality of the world around us. 

It occurs to me that anything that is asserted to be objectively true should be demonstrable - else how can you assert that something objectively exists? I note that you didn't choose to share what you mean by "objective", as I asked earlier. I feel like we're at an impasse as a result.

(May 15, 2017 at 8:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 2. They are moral because they are in accordance with God's nature. And God created the world in accordance with His own nature. So the two things (morality and God) cannot be separated.

This answer indicates to me that you would deny that the Euthyphro dilemma is a dilemma at all. I don't really find the answer satisfying.

(May 16, 2017 at 1:15 pm)Aroura Wrote: You presuppose the mind isn't physical.  Sources please?

Well, if you suppose that it is purely physical (physicalism), we are really not distinguishing anything from the brain and we are right back where we started--no free will. I should have said: non-physical mind.

(May 16, 2017 at 11:20 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So you think suffering because you're working out or doing homework is still wrong, just not AS wrong as not doing those things?

Oh, I see what you mean.

I should be more specific. When taking action the right action is the option that produces the least suffering of all available options.

But, sure.... we could say that 'thoset hings are wrong but not as wrong as not doing them'.... but that's just a matter of semantics. It is indeed a little weird... hence my correction in the above line. But either way the ontology is the same. The only difference there is semantics.

Quote:Also, the fact that I'd be stealing to buy cigarettes wasn't the point lol. Fine, let's say I stole $10 from a rich person to buy myself a pretty necklace.

And they didn't know about it?

I'd say that's not necessarily wrong in all cases if the person stealing the necklace was omniscient and GENUINELY ABSOLUTELY KNEW that the rich person would never know the money was missing and never be hurt by it.

But.... that's in principle and in theory. In general the moral is: Stealing from people is almost always going to cause people harm and we're imperfect beings who aren't smart enough to figure out the weird exceptions when it won't (except, perhaps, times like when a homeless family is starving to death and they need to steal bread from a rich and greedy Sultan or something.... I think we can realistically see that's reasonable).... it's all about the difference between the principles and theory of the matter and the practicle and realtiy of it.

In reality, rules and virtues are what it's all about.

My view is the whole REASON you think there are absolute rules to follow is because 99.999999999999999% of the time they produce the best moral consequences.


 

Quote:Your argument that suffering = wrongness isn't getting any better.

I disagree. I think the refinements to my arguments are only making it clearer.

(May 16, 2017 at 1:15 pm)Aroura Wrote: You presuppose the mind isn't physical.  Sources please?

---

Also, lack of free-will does not negate responsibility.  If a rock falls on someone and kills them, the rock is still responsible for their death, even if the rock has no free will. We would not allow other rocks to balance precariously above people's heads, knowing the possible consequences.  

Consciousness does not = free-will, but it does equal a responsibility to change for the better when the tools are there to do so.

I hate tarring myself with the same brush, here. :p

Sorry, I replied between your edits. 

You have to distinguish between 'responsible' and 'morally responsible'. Just as the rock is not morally responsible for killing someone, neither is a person who is just responding to a very long string of only physical causes.

(May 16, 2017 at 12:19 pm)Aroura Wrote: Harm reduction is the basis for most morality in most society. That does not make it objectively correct,

It doesn't make it ontologically objectively correct.

Quote:but at least it has a testable basis that makes sense.

What's not objective about a testable basis? Isn't science all about having a testable basis?




The standards of objectivity that many people hold to objective morality are standards of objectivity that no branch of science can meet.












P.S. I think we found something we disagree on.

See here, and read it thoroughly (in your own time and only if you want to): https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/clar...-landscape

And perhaps you will change your mind

---

(May 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 16, 2017 at 10:47 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: [edit]

I think all arguments for "free will" are nonsense.

The whole idea of "independent actions" (as in, actions independent from causation) is just hocus pocus.

[edit]

Of course you do. It gives you the perfect excuse for your behavior. Why even try to change?

You just completely ignored my arguments, quoted me out of context and conflated determinism with fatalism. Congratulations.

Believing we're independent from causality is akin to believing we have magical powers or souls. As a fellow atheist I hope you realize the irrationality of that metaphysical conclusion of yours.

I've actually read the book already, Ham, and watched his lecture on the subject. I already agree that it is the best basis for morality, I just disagree that it makes it objectively true. Maybe ontologically, as you've said, but that is not what most people mean when they say the words "objectively true", or just refer to morals being objective.

Also, I can test for the existence of something (harm), but assigning en emotional value to it is what makes it subjective. I can objectively say that oxygen molecules exist. Adding that Oxygen is good because mammals breath it, is subjective.