Free will and the necessary evil

[Belacqua]

Why?

Because of the author's flabbergast-inducing decision to use the word "must". Here is what the word means:

must (definition) be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)

Source: I searched google and used these 2 keywords "define + must"

It's a complete and total non-sequitur to me. 🤦‍♂️

This may surprise you, but I know what "must" means. I am a native speaker of English. 

Could you give me an example of something which doesn't have some reason or cause behind it?

[Jehanne]

Because of the author's flabbergast-inducing decision to use the word "must". Here is what the word means:

must (definition) be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)

Source: I searched google and used these 2 keywords "define + must"

It's a complete and total non-sequitur to me. 🤦‍♂️

This may surprise you, but I know what "must" means. I am a native speaker of English. 

Could you give me an example of something which doesn't have some reason or cause behind it?

Life.

[Nay_Sayer]

Why?

Because of the author's flabbergast-inducing decision to use the word "must". Here is what the word means:

must (definition) be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)

Source: I searched google and used these 2 keywords "define + must"

It's a complete and total non-sequitur to me. 🤦‍♂️

Perhaps but what if I told you said author got his info from a magic hat?

[Nay_Sayer]

Because of the author's flabbergast-inducing decision to use the word "must". Here is what the word means:

must (definition) be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)

Source: I searched google and used these 2 keywords "define + must"

It's a complete and total non-sequitur to me. 🤦‍♂️

This may surprise you, but I know what "must" means. I am a native speaker of English. 

Could you give me an example of something which doesn't have some reason or cause behind it?

Pineapple on pizza.

[Ranjr]

Science was originally natural philosophy. At some point physicists kicked philosophy to the curb so they could have their own department at Uni, to their own detriment, because they've been unable to come to grips with the quantum measurement problem for a century now, and lately they think constants aren't (fine-tuning).

You might almost have a point if scientists weren't also philosophers.  We use the same thinking tools.  Taking so long to solve quantum gravity has more to do with the difficulty involved and much has been learned along the way.

[The Grand Nudger]

The difficulty of generating sound propositions that stand the test of time and repeated observation as well as attempts to falsify them, I'd say, yeah. The same would seem to be true of contemporary moral philosophy - our musts as they relate to necessary evils, for example - being no more or less approachable by scientific tools than quantum gravity, at least in principle.

If we posit morality as an item of subjective circumstances then morality is biology.
If it's purely norm setting it's sociology.
If it's a matter of observation, then it would be physics.

(and I know our forum physicists would love to remind me that's it's all physics, down there at the bottom of the well, )

Without getting into the weeds of which it is (or even asserting that it must be one or the other exclusively) it seems like we could use the tools at our disposal to make observations and form a hypothesis about each potential case and then see which best fits the evidence - which is a surprising amount of what contemporary moral philosophers do even if we learn about the subject as a matter of classical history. People may have once wondered about magical morality makers but, today, people wonder about our ability to predict moral response based on some rule or set of behaviors we can model, and describe through math. That may not, ultimately, settle the metaethical question, but it's sure as shit helping to settle the human questions.

[HankMoody316]

This may surprise you, but I know what "must" means. I am a native speaker of English. 

Could you give me an example of something which doesn't have some reason or cause behind it?

Re: 1st point -- Allow me to greet you in my 2nd language of Tagalog (the language of the Philippines): "mabuhay!" 👋

Re: 2nd point -- If I were to do that, it would make a part of me die inside. I am a "reality scientist" and on other forums, I sometimes speak on behalf of reality. It is like when the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee emails you, the entire group doesn't email you -- just one member. And that member will begin all/some of his statements with the prepositional phrase "For ArbCom," and since it was pleasing to my ears, I co-opted it and it motivates me to speak "For reality" due to my confidence at understanding reality to a profoundly-satisfying degree! 😁 (pardon my giddy exuberance)

Suppose there are 4 people in a room and you are (by far) the smartest person in the room, do you really care what the other 3 people think? 🤔

[HankMoody316]

Because of the author's flabbergast-inducing decision to use the word "must". Here is what the word means:

must (definition) be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)

Source: I searched google and used these 2 keywords "define + must"

It's a complete and total non-sequitur to me. 🤦‍♂️

Perhaps but what if I told you said author got his info from a magic hat?

Then I would link you to the wikipedia article (which I can't link to due to the 30/30 rule) and ask that you provide commensurate evidence in accordance with what Wikipedia stipulates you must do:  

> When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.[2]

Then I would find the Abraham Lincoln meme from Reddit (about not everything on the internet being true) and send the meme to your PM inbox like it never went out of style. 😎

If you want to know why Carl Sagan is important, then I gave a reason 20 minutes ago because a fellow atheist PM'ed me and told me to write a post on the #introductions forum. I gave it my all and left no stone unturned. 👍

[Nay_Sayer]

Perhaps but what if I told you said author got his info from a magic hat?

Then I would link you to the wikipedia article (which I can't link to due to the 30/30 rule) and ask that you provide commensurate evidence in accordance with what Wikipedia stipulates you must do:  

> When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.[2]

Then I would find the Abraham Lincoln meme from Reddit (about not everything on the internet being true) and send the meme to your PM inbox like it never went out of style. 😎

If you want to know why Carl Sagan is important, then I gave a reason 20 minutes ago because a fellow atheist PM'ed me and told me to write a post on the #introductions forum. I gave it my all and left no stone unturned. 👍

I don't need evidence, I actually have the hat.

[Belacqua]

This may surprise you, but I know what "must" means. I am a native speaker of English. 

Could you give me an example of something which doesn't have some reason or cause behind it?

Re: 1st point -- Allow me to greet you in my 2nd language of Tagalog (the language of the Philippines): "mabuhay!" 👋

おはようございます

I am a "reality scientist" and on other forums, I sometimes speak on behalf of reality.

Interesting field. Do you call it Realityology, or is there some more limited field you work on?  

Suppose there are 4 people in a room and you are (by far) the smartest person in the room, do you really care what the other 3 people think? 🤔

Well, for example, if I'm teaching a group of Chinese students about Dante's Divine Comedy, it's pretty likely that I know more than they do on that subject.

It's crucial for a good teacher to keep in mind that each and every one of those students knows more than I do about a different field of study, and the more I can get them talking about what they know the better the class will be.