|
I was going to post this as a reply to a thread in the general forum. It got closed before I could post it. Here is the thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=178577
I love how the OP opened with a quote from the Bible. So often people completely shut themselves out to ideas simply because those ideas are associated in some way with something (and perhaps even something more insignificant) that is contrary to their beliefs. But the OP here seems to understand that being an atheist, an agnostic, or whatever, does not mean that you cannot find good things to take away from religion.
Personally, I'm a materialist and believe that reality is objective, just as he does. I also strongly believe in determinism: the idea that we have no control over our future. This is because, just as the singularity of the big bang forced the distribution of matter throughout the universe, eventually leading to the advent of life on our planet without any thought or purpose, so it is with the organic matter we call human beings as well. Just as in Milton's Paradise Lost, when Adam cried out to God after being banished from Paradise to live a meek and wretched life on the earth,
"Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay to mold me man? Did I solicit thee from darkness to promote me?"
so it is with us. We have no control over the way in which we are brought into this world. Our genetics and the circumstances with which we are raised are determined by nature, by chance, and nature and chance are determined by a convoluted series of natural events that has led to this point in time. And yet, it is our genetics and the manner in which we are nurtured that in turn determines our character and our decisions, which we necessarily have no control over as well, those things being a product of nature just as it is with the shape and form of a landscape.
That is why no one can truly be blamed nor praised for what he does, because in a fundamental sense, he has no control over what he does. His decisions, choices, and actions are all products of nature. Too often people (including myself) will, in contemptuous scorn, reprimand those who have committed some serious offense, e.g. a murder, or some treasonous or malicious act. But when we do this we are quite forgetting that it is us who would commit the exact same offense if we were unfortunate enough to be born and brought up under the exact same conditions as those of the one who committed the offense.
Because everyone is essentially blameless, even the cruelest and most malicious of human beings deserve some sympathy and compassion. Most of the time, I believe, people with great cruelty are people with great suffering, similar to the henchman from Macbeth, who declared in the conspiracy to murder Banquo,
"I am one, my liege, whom the vile blows and buffets of the world have so incensed that I am reckless in what I do to spite the world."
But even if that if that is sometimes false, even if men will sometimes do things out of pure, unfounded cruelty, it does not change the fact that they essentially have no control over who they are and what they do.
 
|
I thought this thread was about the Rolling Stones song which is a pretty good song. 
If nothing you do is in your control then how can we hold people accountable for what they do? People make choices, and your upbringing or genetics doesn't change the fact that you made a choice.
|
Are you nuts? Before I slaughter you with counter-arguments - Do you truly blame genetics for every wrong action?
|
Part of the tragedy is that people necessarily have to be held accountable because society must enforce moral standards. It doesn't change the fact that, fundamentally, no one is truly accountable for anything.
On December 22 2010 01:48 Qzy wrote:
Are you nuts? Before I slaughter you with counter-arguments - Do you truly blame genetics for every wrong action?
Not only genetics. Read my post more carefully.
|
The problem I've always found with that argument for predetermination is that it assumes in absolute terms that we as a species are the pinnacle (or at least a significant part) of existence.
It's the same fault I find in the idea that humans are somehow different from other animals in some significant way.
I'm not really sure what makes us so special, to be honest.
Why can't existence just be existence with the profundity of existence being that it's there? Why mar it with a bunch of abstract rhetoric?
|
On December 22 2010 01:54 Seltsam wrote:
The problem I've always found with that argument for predetermination is that it assumes in absolute terms that we as a species are the pinnacle (or at least a significant part) of existence.
It's the same fault I find in the idea that humans are somehow different from other animals in some significant way.
Why is it that two people now have misinterpreted my post? Is my writing that ambiguous? I was never arguing this, nor do I assume or believe it. If anything, my post implies what you seem to believe: every species on the earth is simply organic matter and has no control over its existence. Therefore we are all equal in a sense.
|
Fundamentally, I agree with you. I think a great tragedy is the willingness of people to be close-minded and condemn others for their actions and never once consider the circumstances that led up to those actions. It's all too easy to close one's mind and render judgment from on high. I think an integral component of this is that many people find the idea - that is, the idea that given the same luck and chance, all of us could have easily been in the same situation as another - quite frightening, it often goes against a lifetime of accumulated egotism.
I find this most prevalent amongst Americans as there is this pervading American belief that you are what you make of yourself - that independence, ambition, and the drive to succeed has shaped and formed yourself and made you who you are. I was not raised this way, and thus I was shocked at how quick many people are to slam down judgments on others. I personally believe the ultimate purpose behind the entire concept of civilization, since the dawn of recorded history, is to overcome this process, the entire coagulated mire of chance and genetics that has led to people's entire lives being defined by what they were born into, to create a society where everyone starts off with an equal chance at life, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. But this is getting into political rant territory now and is just my opinion, so no need to take this any further.
On a related note however, the one thing I find most frightening are the people who operate on the other side of this dichotomy. It can be frightening or comforting based on your perspective, the idea of chance and genetics such conforming one's life and behavior to any certain point, but what I find more frightening than that are the people who do things... just because. Of course I am not just referring to your garden-variety psychopath, a great number of people, in fact I believe the majority of people, who are otherwise logical and rational and operate by the same mental mechanisms as the rest of us, are capable of behavior that simply cannot be explained, by nurture or genetics or otherwise. Otherwise good or just morally gray people who are capable of great cruelty, just because. No great suffering, no set of circumstances in their life that has led up to such behavior. Just because. Most of the time it is usually very hypocritical behavior as well. I have encountered many such people in my life.
|
Hungary11291 Posts
On December 22 2010 01:33 NeVeR wrote:
That is why no one can truly be blamed nor praised for what he does, because in a fundamental sense, he has no control over what he does. His decisions, choices, and actions are all products of nature. Too often people (including myself) will, in contemptuous scorn, reprimand those who have committed some serious offense, e.g. a murder, or some treasonous or malicious act. But when we do this we are quite forgetting that it is us who would commit the exact same offense if we were unfortunate enough to be born and brought up under the exact same conditions as those of the one who committed the offense.
Because everyone is essentially blameless, even the cruelest and most malicious of human beings deserve some sympathy and compassion. Most of the time, I believe, people with great cruelty are people with great suffering. But even if that if that is sometimes false, it does not change the fact that they essentially have no control over who they are and what they do.
This address makes absolutely no sense in light of your deterministic beliefs. Why would you appeal to anyone not to reprimand those who fall in error? Either they were going to do it, or they were not, but nothing you write will (in a deterministic framework) change anything about it. Either you are not serious about this or it's a performative self-contradiction.
|
@Aesop: First off, thank you for subtly correcting me. I called it "predetermination", but you are right: it is indeed determinism. I fixed it in the OP.
I'm not sure I understand how what you quoted is inconsistent with everything else I've said. What I'm basically pointing out is that, fundamentally, no one deserves neither blame nor praise. However, I do think it's unavoidable that people be blamed and punished in society. A society needs to punish to deter actions that go against its moral standards. I just want people to realize that no one actually has control over who they or what they do, so they should be thought of not with so much contempt, but rather with pity.
|
Even if a crime was predetermined, that doesn't mean the criminal is free from blame. They still weighed up their options and chose to commit the crime. That is why they should be punished or rehabilitated or whatever your recommended choice of action is to create a better society. We don't know whether the criminal will re-offend or feel remorse, even if everything he does is predetermined, so the knowledge that his actions were predetermined are entirely useless and irrelevant.
And to entertain the idea that people have no control is ludicrous. I am controlling myself right now, even if there is a predetermined outcome.
|
Hungary11291 Posts
On December 22 2010 03:21 NeVeR wrote:
@Aesop: First off, thank you for subtly correcting me. I called it "predetermination", but you are right: it is indeed determinism. I fixed it in the OP.
I'm not sure I understand how what you quoted is inconsistent with everything else I've said. What I'm basically pointing out is that, fundamentally, no one deserves neither blame nor praise. However, I do think it's unavoidable that people be blamed and punished in society. A society needs to punish to deter actions that go against its moral standards. I just want people to realize that no one actually has control over who they or what they do, so they should be thought of not with so much contempt, but rather with pity.
You are pointing stuff out to us as if it would change anything. If you were consistent with your own ideology, you wouldn't do that since it's pointless anyway.
|
On December 22 2010 03:25 Aesop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 03:21 NeVeR wrote:
@Aesop: First off, thank you for subtly correcting me. I called it "predetermination", but you are right: it is indeed determinism. I fixed it in the OP.
I'm not sure I understand how what you quoted is inconsistent with everything else I've said. What I'm basically pointing out is that, fundamentally, no one deserves neither blame nor praise. However, I do think it's unavoidable that people be blamed and punished in society. A society needs to punish to deter actions that go against its moral standards. I just want people to realize that no one actually has control over who they or what they do, so they should be thought of not with so much contempt, but rather with pity. You are pointing stuff out to us as if it would change anything. If you were consistent with your own ideology, you wouldn't do that since it's pointless anyway.
Ahhh, I see what you're saying, but no, that's actually a common misconception regarding determinism. This goes for you as well, Wohmfg.
Just because everything is already determined doesn't in any way mean that we shouldn't try to change our lives, or the opinions of others for that matter. People are certainly capable of change; it's just that they have no control over those changes. We can never know what the future brings until the present moment leads us to it, so there is no sense in denying that we have the potential for change. There is no fatalism here.
|
Hi, I'm the OP of the thread you linked. Actually, my reasons for quoting the bible were much more practical than you imagined. A lot of christians seem to back up into a 'you just gotta have faith' alley, when confronted with difficult questions. I wanted to prevent that attitude by starting out with a bible quote about a christian's obligation to provide reasoning for his or her beliefs.
On topic:
I have no problem with you trying to 'change' your life, even though you feel like everything is deterministic in nature. In order to avoid confusion, however, you should distinguish between change over time, and the changing of timeless things (such as facts, truths or abstract constructs like 'your future'). You don't seem to believe that changing your future is possible, because every change (over time) you try to effect, is in itself the result of stuff you have no control over. I don't have a problem with that.
I do have a problem, however, with your statement that no-one can truly be blamed or praised for what he or she does. If you're going to argue that everything is deterministic, you have to factor in that what we, as a society, decide to praise and punish, has a huge effect on individuals in society, and therefore, the lives of everybody in these societies. So, if you want your life to be a certain way, it makes sense to praise and blame people and actions in order to effect the desired outcome. If punishing murderers makes people less likely to murder, and you don't like murderers in your life, than blaming murderers for murder makes perfect sense, even in a deterministic world view. You may believe that they could not have acted any other way. That doesn't mean that what they did was right.
|
On December 22 2010 05:24 WilbertK wrote:
I do have a problem, however, with your statement that no-one can truly be blamed or praised for what he or she does. If you're going to argue that everything is deterministic, you have to factor in that what we, as a society, decide to praise and punish, has a huge effect on individuals in society, and therefore, the lives of everybody in these societies. So, if you want your life to be a certain way, it makes sense to praise and blame people and actions in order to effect the desired outcome. If punishing murderers makes people less likely to murder, and you don't like murderers in your life, than blaming murderers for murder makes perfect sense, even in a deterministic world view. You may believe that they could not have acted any other way. That doesn't mean that what they did was right.
Thanks for replying. It may surprise you to know that I basically agree with what you're saying here. Like I said before, it's inevitable that society must place blame and punishment. To do otherwise would result in chaotic anarchy. The key words to keep in mind are that one cannot truly or fundamentally be blamed or praised for anything. We as a society formally judge those who have committed offenses that we would not want done to us. That doesn't change the fact that one's offense is outside of his control.
|
Well, I guess I don't understand what you mean by 'truly' or 'fundamentally' then. If we, as a society, can establish that there are rules to follow, that people who don't follow those rules will get punished, and if we can agree that we have the right to do that, I don't see how this judgement can get any more 'true' or 'fundamental', from a naturalistic point of view. You seem to think that the materialistic world is all there is. Yet you seem to seek some supernatural justification for the punishment you feel is right. You conclude this supernatural justification does not exist, as if that is some kind of major insight. Instead, I think it is something you assumed right from the get-go. If the natural world is all there is, and if that world is deterministic, a punishment is the truest and most fundamental form of blame there can possibly be.
|
There's absolutely nothing in what I'm saying that implies a belief in the supernatural. I'm not asserting my moral views as an objective fact, but merely expressing my own opinion. I'm mainly pointing out that people do not have any control over their actions. What you make of that is up to you. If you choose to be contemptuous of people whose actions you disagree with, I cannot criticize you for it, and I often do this as well. I was merely suggesting that people have more pity for those wrong-doers, despite all the harm they may inflict.
|
I didn't say you implied a belief in the supernatural. On the contrary, I said you assumed the supernatural doesn't exist. But I said you seem to be looking for a justification that I don't think is logically possible in the naturalistic realm. If I'm mistaken here, please explain in what kind of naturalistic worldview you feel people can 'truly' and 'fundamentally' be praised and blamed for their actions.
|
Well then I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that because I accept that society must punish, this goes against my belief that people cannot truly be held accountable for their actions? Or are you saying that because I claimed to be a materialist I should have no opinion about subjective judgments concerning blame or praise? What you said is, "you seem to seek some supernatural justification for the punishment you feel is right", but I can't say I have any idea as to what you're referring to here.
|
On December 22 2010 03:21 NeVeR wrote: A society needs to punish to deter actions that go against its moral standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner
BF Skinner's ideologies pretty much perfectly contrast yours. It would probably prove an interesting read.
The Wiki article, while providing a clear outline for his ideas, doesn't really do him justice, and I would recommend further reading if it piques your interest. Essentially, Skinner believes (and is backed up by countless experiments, which is why I find it so interesting) that the most important factor in development is environment, and after years of experimentation, came to the conclusion that punishment doesn't directly alter core behaviors.
It's really an awesome ideology, and also presents an almost perfect contrast to your thoughts.
|
On December 22 2010 10:00 NeVeR wrote:What you said is, "you seem to seek some supernatural justification for the punishment you feel is right", but I can't say I have any idea as to what you're referring to here.
I'm referring to what you call 'true' and 'fundamental' blame. I think that I'm misunderstanding what you mean by that. That's why I asked you to clarify what that would mean in a world view where such a thing would exist or be justified in your eyes. If you could give me such an example, I think I would understand what you mean. If such an example doesn't exist in any possible worldview, I'm not sure it's useful to even talk about it. So in order to further this discussion, could you give me an example of a hypothetical situation, in a hypothetical (maybe non-deterministic) universe, in which someone could truly and fundamentally be blamed for something in your eyes?
|
@WilberK:
When we as a society accuse someone of a crime, it is actually a superficial type of blame, because we're not taking into account that people don't have any control over their actions. I was using the words truly and fundamentally to distinguish between this superficial blame and the real blameworthiness that I'm talking about. If we had any free will, then we could truly and fundamentally be blamed for our actions. Sorry if that was unclear.
@Seltsam:
Thanks for the reading suggestion. I'll look into it later.
|
I disagree that the type of blame we were talking about is superficial, but let's get on with it.
So you're saying that there needs to be free will in order for an action to be 'truly' and 'fundamentally' blameworthy. The very idea of free will would contradict your proposed deterministic world view, as free will implies that there's multiple options that could be realized. That wouldn't be a change over time, but that would be changing the future. I'm sure you realize this, but I'm repeating it because I think it's important.
So, if (I'm not saying you are) you're looking for a justification for blame that is in your eyes 'true' and 'fundamental', and such a justification needs free will to exist, you will have to look for a justification that is outside the naturalistic world you proposed. That's why I said it seemed like you were looking for a supernatural justification.
Now I don't mean to imply that you are secretly looking for supernatural causes, and that you aren't a true deterministic naturalist. I'm just saying that from the perspective of a deterministic naturalist, nothing gets more true than matter and stuff, and nothing is more fundamental than cause and effect. So a punishment (or blame) that's real in the physical sense, and is justified by the effects it has on society is quite literally as true and fundamental as it gets from a deterministic naturalistic point of view.
:EDIT: In the end, I think we're basically arguing the same thing. I understand that it doesn't feel like someone is truly responsible if he didn't have a choice in the first place. But in a deterministic world, responsibility as defined through free will is meaningless. So I just want to make clear that there's nothing wrong with blame and punishment in a deterministic world. If there's no free will, responsibility as you would intuitively use the word would not exist, but that doesn't mean we aren't truly or fundamentally justified in blaming and punishing people for their crimes.
|
I don't see why you think I'm looking for a justification for blame. My argument is that there can be no such justification. No one can truly be blamed because such a justification does not exist. You seem to be saying that my thinking differs from common "deterministic naturalist" points of view, but if you have a concrete argument, please state it plainly.
|
I'm not going to be able to make myself more clear than I did in my previous post. I'd like to reiterate that I'm not saying your stance on the matter isn't deterministic or naturalistic, I just have a problem with your observation that the only possible blame in a deterministic world is superficial. I think it's as real as it gets, for reasons mentioned in the previous post.
We can continue to argue about this, but it's going to be largely an argument about semantics, and that's really not my cup of tea, so I'd rather don't go there.
|
That is why no one can truly be blamed nor praised for what he does, because in a fundamental sense, he has no control over what he does. His decisions, choices, and actions are all products of nature.
If you believe this is true, how can you expect me to change my mind and feel pity for things I don't care about? No one deserves anything at a fundamental level and basically everything is pointless. Stop worrying about it and just do what you want to do.
|
On December 23 2010 00:53 Sotamursu wrote:Show nested quote +
That is why no one can truly be blamed nor praised for what he does, because in a fundamental sense, he has no control over what he does. His decisions, choices, and actions are all products of nature.
If you believe this is true, how can you expect me to change my mind and feel pity for things I don't care about? No one deserves anything at a fundamental level and basically everything is pointless. Stop worrying about it and just do what you want to do.
Let me quote my conversation with Aesop:
On December 22 2010 03:37 NeVeR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 03:25 Aesop wrote:On December 22 2010 03:21 NeVeR wrote:
@Aesop: First off, thank you for subtly correcting me. I called it "predetermination", but you are right: it is indeed determinism. I fixed it in the OP.
I'm not sure I understand how what you quoted is inconsistent with everything else I've said. What I'm basically pointing out is that, fundamentally, no one deserves neither blame nor praise. However, I do think it's unavoidable that people be blamed and punished in society. A society needs to punish to deter actions that go against its moral standards. I just want people to realize that no one actually has control over who they or what they do, so they should be thought of not with so much contempt, but rather with pity. You are pointing stuff out to us as if it would change anything. If you were consistent with your own ideology, you wouldn't do that since it's pointless anyway. Ahhh, I see what you're saying, but no, that's actually a common misconception regarding determinism. This goes for you as well, Wohmfg. Just because everything is already determined doesn't in any way mean that we shouldn't try to change our lives, or the opinions of others for that matter. People are certainly capable of change; it's just that they have no control over those changes. We can never know what the future brings until the present moment leads us to it, so there is no sense in denying that we have the potential for change. There is no fatalism here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
