RE: morality is subjective and people don't have free will
May 17, 2017 at 8:10 pm
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2017 at 8:40 pm by Whateverist.)
(May 17, 2017 at 4:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think computers have free will lol. They are machines, designed to respond in certain ways you certain commands. They don't have the ability to understand consequences and right from wrong.
Do you mean to suggest that an elevator which over and over again delivers me to the floor I request is not intelligent? How high is your standard, dear woman?
But I agree with you of course.
(May 17, 2017 at 5:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(May 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Well, it would seem that in order for that to work, the world would have to be intelligible and at least partially conceivable.
You're chasing your own tail, Chad. I never said that the world was completely unintelligible. All that means is that there is some order to the world. It doesn't mean, for instance, that all our perceptions, from sensus divinatatis to the moral sense pick out features from the world. That would be an absurdly hasty generalization. Nor does it mean that reason reflects that order like a mirror.
(May 17, 2017 at 5:19 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: People on the forum I posted are describing free will as the ability to make moral choices. I think that's the best and simplest way to put it. Of course, in order to do that we need to have a certain level of sentience, intelligence, and rational thought. Not sure if animals or any future machine have enough of all those things to attain the ability to make moral choices.
That reflects a doctrinal choice, that free will has to do with God's grace and our responsibility or lack thereof for said gift. As Whateverist intimated, tradition is the illusion of permanence; the fact that somebody before us has thought it through does not grant it any more gravitas.
Are you implying that the monkey isn't acting on a moral impulse? On what grounds?
The monkey pretty much expresses moral indignation the same way I (and, I suspect, Chad) would. That is one moral monkey. Notice that he doesn't spank his monkey at any time during the video.
(May 17, 2017 at 7:07 pm)SteveII Wrote:(May 17, 2017 at 5:56 pm)Aroura Wrote: I am frankly nauseated by this doctrine. As if a child learning how to behave (through often misbehaving) is sin.
I sincerely hope you do not taint any little minds with this sick perversion that will instill in them an unnecessary self hate for the rest of their lives. Ick.
Two-years-olds are absolutely willfully disobedient and do things to others that are intentionally wrong. You are confusing the child sinning with being held to account for those sins. I, and most Christians, do not hold a child morally responsible for their actions.
What purpose does the word "sin" add to a discussion of a child's behavior? From a secular point of view, I would say a child is born acting from unchecked impulse without taking into consideration the rights and desires of others. (It might be useful to add that a child's brain is not capable of doing so at birth or for some time after.) Child rearing works with the increasing capacity of the child's developing brain, leastwise it should.
Once the capacity to take others into account appears, there is still the matter of tapping into the natural capacity for prosocial behavior. It's there, but it must be taught; just as with language, if there is not teaching and socializing to accompany that capacity, neither language nor moral behavior will just arise on its own. Parents have a vital responsibility to perform.
How does talk of sin add anything to this discussion?
(May 17, 2017 at 11:36 am)Whateverist Wrote:(May 17, 2017 at 11:31 am)mh.brewer Wrote: I'm sorry, what?
I think it means you lack pity for God because of the straw man this Galen fellow keeps bringing up.
(May 17, 2017 at 7:36 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:(May 17, 2017 at 11:36 am)Whateverist Wrote: I think it means you lack pity for God because of the straw man this Galen fellow keeps bringing up.
Huh? Galen's argument that I quoted is against free will; not against God.
Just a play on words from what you had said, which didn't print in the quote. Of no consequence. Sorry.
(May 17, 2017 at 7:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Original sin, is best described as the fact that we will all do things that are wrong if given the chance to.
While we may not agree on religion, I'm sure we all agree that no one is perfectly good and none of us have never done anything wrong.
(My bolded) unless we decide for reasons -which need not have anything to do with any religious tradition- not to do things which are inconsiderate of others. I know it is hard for the self righteous to imagine such a thing, but it has been known to happen.
