Not a trick question: Why is violence bad?

[GeorgCantor]

However read my post 47. An elderly woman is forcibly evicted from her home of sixty years because she defaulted on her mortgage. She violated a contract with a private party and broke the law by not obeying a lawful order to vacate. In theory she could be charged criminally and sent to jail. In fact that might be a good thing because she has no place to go.

So her happiness is destroyed. But if we did not enforce contracts and protect property rights, a viable economy could not exist. So what's the answer? (And don't say "providing for the poor and needy" unless you have a detailed plan as to just how you do that. In any case, placing the woman in some kind of facility will not likely restore her happiness.)

Ours doesn't look like a universe of happiness but of survival. All options are fundamentally wrong, unless they pertain to survival. Or so it seems from what looks like facts to us( i am aware that this position is assuming things that i cannot prove).

 

[poor mystic]

Yes, survival is very much part of everyone's self-interest.

However, the practitioner of love gives up his interest in himself that others may become happy; he loses himself in love.
This is the sacrifice of self, the outcome of which is not sorrowful, for the more he loves, the more the lover becomes love, which is hardly a poor experience.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Yes, survival is very much part of everyone's self-interest.

However, the practitioner of love gives up his interest in himself that others may become happy; he loses himself in love.
This is the sacrifice of self, the outcome of which is not sorrowful, for the more he loves, the more the lover becomes love, which is hardly a poor experience.

Yes, (self-)sacrifice cannot be accounted for within the framework of evolution and natural selection, except as an emergent societal property. We don't have a solid theory of anything anyway, that's why i used "from what looks like facts to us" at the end of the sentence. Your remark is appreciated.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Ours doesn't look like a universe of happiness but of survival. All options are fundamentally wrong, unless they pertain to survival. Or so it seems from what looks like facts to us( i am aware that this position is assuming things that i cannot prove).

I believe GR wanted the modern societal basis of values and the attitudes toward of violence in this context, but I might be mistaken. In an earlier post I did say that "good" and "bad" have no meaning in nature absent humans and human ethical systems. GR indicated that's not what he was looking for.

 

[poor mystic]

As well as having a pretty good ol' time himself, in an ideal society the lover would succeed in his goal of universal happiness, and who would there be to enforce mortgage contracts?
Also, just because someone might keep the goals I have mentioned in high regard doesn't mean he necessarily gives himself up utterly. There's still plenty of human being left to enjoy the sunshine, take pleasure in birdsong or the sight of your lover's eyes...

 

[SW VandeCarr]

If Violence is wrong, then what is right?
In answering the question of what is to be done for the poor woman of post 47, we go well beyond the question of why violence is wrong, and enter the realm of the question "what is right?"

Well I don't think you can disconnect the notions of right/wrong, good/bad although they are not strictly complementary. The issue is the ambiguity that arises in modern societies in trying to decide what is right and what is wrong. The woman suffered violence at the hands of the state under well intended and indeed necessary laws for no great crime other than being poor and just wanting to live out her days in peace and relative happiness.

 

[poor mystic]

Well I don't think you can disconnect the notions of right/wrong, good/bad although they are not strictly complementary. The issue is the ambiguity that arises in modern societies in trying to decide what is right and what is wrong. The women suffered violence at the hands of the state under well intended and indeed necessary laws for no great crime other than being poor and just wanting to live out her days in peace and relative happiness.

I think that the difficulty we have in determining this kind of question arises because we are not all reading from the same page; we do not share a common set of values.

Without a common goal, we can never achieve secure happiness.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

If we have no free will as most here seem to assert, violence isn't bad. It's that simple.

Violence is 'bad; for the sentient being that suffers it, so it's not so simple. The empathy principle (Golden Rule) as well as self interest would dictate that social animals take collective action to minimize, or defend against, threats and to seek comfort and safety. It really doesn't have much to do with free will. Bad actors must be excluded, isolated or killed.

 

[JoeDawg]

Yes, (self-)sacrifice cannot be accounted for within the framework of evolution and natural selection, except as an emergent societal property.

This is incorrect.

Evolution functions on the level of populations, not individuals. Self-sacrificing behavior is common throughout the animal kingdom.

If a creature with a self sacrificing gene has 10 offspring with that gene, some may have the opportuntity to sacrifice themselves, others won't, but the ones that do not, will benefit from the sacrifices of those who do, and then pass on the gene.

There is a similar evolutionary argument for the existense of homosexuality. Homosexuals siblings do not compete for mates, but do contribute to group survival. And even bacteria form communities.

 

[JoeDawg]

Bad actors must be excluded, isolated or killed.

So... we send them to california?

 

[JoeDawg]

Without a common goal, we can never achieve secure happiness.

In my experience very few people want to achieve happiness. They are way to busy with other things.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Evolution functions on the level of populations, not individuals. Self-sacrificing behavior is common throughout the animal kingdom.

Seemingly altruistic behaviour is common. What evidence do you have that evolution functions on the level of populations, rather than of reproductive individuals?

 

[JoeDawg]

Seemingly altruistic behaviour is common.

You could characterize all observed behaviour that way. Not sure what your point is though.

What evidence do you have that evolution functions on the level of populations, rather than of reproductive individuals?

Biology class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

 

[GeorgCantor]

This is incorrect.

Evolution functions on the level of populations, not individuals. Self-sacrificing behavior is common throughout the animal kingdom.

If a creature with a self sacrificing gene has 10 offspring with that gene, some may have the opportuntity to sacrifice themselves, others won't, but the ones that do not, will benefit from the sacrifices of those who do, and then pass on the gene.

There is a similar evolutionary argument for the existense of homosexuality. Homosexuals siblings do not compete for mates, but do contribute to group survival. And even bacteria form communities.

Makes sense but i am not willing to push Evolution theory that far(yet). There are clear emergent traits in our development that cannot be solely attributed to Evolution. Can you explain art in terms of evolution? Or free will? I am not certain that self-sacrifice is entirely a gene-caused behavior, we are not entirely deterministic machines. I can contemplate whether to self-sacrifice or not, so in the end it's me who decides. But i agree with you that respective genes can and probably do play a role.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Biology class?

I think what you were describing is a more controversial topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection"

 

[JoeDawg]

There are clear emergent traits in our development that cannot be solely attributed to Evolution.

Evolution is an evolving field. :)

Can you explain art in terms of evolution?

Communication via language facilitates group action, which increases survivability in social animals. language is a form of symbol manipulation. Art is another form of symbol manipulation.

Or free will?

Is much less free than most people would like to believe.

I am not certain that self-sacrifice is entirely a gene-caused behavior, we are not entirely deterministic machines.

Like any human behaviour, its rarely a matter of one gene... likely many, and it only gives us a certain predisposition, environment also plays a role. The latter is how we are able to adapt.

And... Freewill requires determinism. You can't make a choice, if the result is random.

I can contemplate whether to self-sacrifice or not, so in the end it's me who decides. But i agree with you that respective genes can and probably do play a role.

You decide... based on your previous inputs. I'm not afraid of determinism, and I don't think it negates free will.

 

[JoeDawg]

I think what you were describing is a more controversial topic:

Actually no, altruism is very complex. In animals, an altruistic male often attracts females, because his selflessness manifests as bravery... and thus an ability to provide. Altruism can also lead to his death, but not always.
So this is different from the claim that:

regardless of the alleles' effect on the fitness of individuals within that group.

Some, of course will make the group selection claim about altruism, but that I think oversimplifies a very complex topic.

Regardless, I stand by my earlier quote, evolution is about populations, but this is not the same as group selection, which is a very specific claim about how populations affect evolution.

 

[disregardthat]

Violence is good or bad depending on the group classification of the individual or group of individuals violence is acted upon. It seems that in any case of violence classification into the in-group and out-group is essential.

- Criminals is successfully classified as an out-group. Using violence towards people in the role as criminals as means to stop them doing crime is "good". Violence towards people not in the role of a criminal is "bad", because these are characterized (in the context of crime) as members of the in-group.

- The same goes for the opposing side in a war. Violence as means to stop people in the role of an enemy soldier of achieving their goals is "good". The moment their step out of their role as enemy soldiers; desertation, taken as prisoner, etc, their classification has changed.

Group classification is in my view necessary for determining whether an action is good or bad, although of course not sufficient. It is not "good" to use violence against the opposing football team. I also think this can be extended to a larger set of moral actions.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Communication via language facilitates group action, which increases survivability in social animals. language is a form of symbol manipulation. Art is another form of symbol manipulation.

Sounds cool but i don't agree that Shakespeare and Michelangelo were a gene mutation. We are bound to our genes but we are also spiritual beings now and we relate to each other through spiritual ideas and values.

Is much less free than most people would like to believe.

I, as a mortal human being, know very little about anything in the grand scheme of things(mind, consciousness, fundamental concepts, causality, reality) but in my view what you say is wrong. If free will is an illusion, it's nearly a perfect one as far we are able to tell.

And... Freewill requires determinism.

You are assuming way more than is justified. You implicitly assumed that free will is something to be explained through causality and the laws of physics as we know them. Free will is by far not the only thing that is yet to be explained(in fact we are merely scratching the surface of that which we call reality).

You can't make a choice, if the result is random.

You can't make a choice if you don't have choices. You can't explain free will within the current scientific paradigm.

You decide... based on your previous inputs. I'm not afraid of determinism, and I don't think it negates free will.

There is no way there could be a deterministic reality in a locality populated with beings of free will. If, on the other hand, every event plays out according to a script, then there is no concept of objectivity and consequently no truth.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

There is no way there could be a deterministic reality in a locality populated with beings of free will. If, on the other hand, every event plays out according to a script, then there is no concept of objectivity and consequently no truth.

I share your dislike for strict determinism, but the alternative, truly random process, is no better regarding free will. A third option is the effectively deterministic process as a statistical convergence of random processes. But that doesn't get us free will either. So what is a scientific hypothesis for a basis of free will?

 

[GeorgCantor]

I share your dislike for strict determinism, but the alternative, truly random process, is no better regarding free will. A third option is the effectively deterministic process as a statistical convergence of random processes. But that doesn't get us free will either. So what is a scientific hypothesis for a basis of free will?

The usual label - 'Emergent property'. It's well described but not understood.

Think about what:

"Corgito ergo sum" means if we had no free will. The abscence of free will negates the existence of objective reality, there can be no reality at all. The author of "I think therefore i am" is therefore reduced to a simple character in the Sims. You've correctly perceived my general predisposition of not letting go of free will. I don't particularly care about how reality is or what's underneath it(we are all one-way travelers to 'somewhere' anyway) but i will not accept that i don't exist in some way(different than information). Maybe the self-sacrifice gene is not present in my DNA.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The usual label - 'Emergent property'. It's well described but not understood.

Emergent properties still must be explained in terms of determinism and/or randomness. What else is there?

 

[poor mystic]

Dear SW VandeCarr
There is a principle which holds that your conclusion that "emergent properties still must be explained in terms of determinism and/or randomness" is unjustified.
In the following sentence, even you admit: "What else is there?"

What else indeed!
The conclusion cannot be verified without complete knowledge of all possible explanations of emergent properties. Since this knowledge is not available (to me), I recognise the un-testibility of the proposition, which I call a "null hypothesis" - a hypothesis that cannot be tested.

It has usually been my experience, when faced with a seeming null hypothesis, that some third way into the problem will present itself. Whenever this has happened in the past, the result has made the very question from which the difficult explanation arose, redundant.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Dear SW VandeCarr
There is a principle which holds that your conclusion that "emergent properties still must be explained in terms of determinism and/or randomness" is unjustified.
In the following sentence, even you admit: "What else is there?"

What else indeed!
The conclusion cannot be verified without complete knowledge of all possible explanations of emergent properties. Since this knowledge is not available (to me), I recognise the un-testibility of the proposition, which I call a "null hypothesis" - a hypothesis that cannot be tested.

It has usually been my experience, when faced with a seeming null hypothesis, that some third way into the problem will present itself. Whenever this has happened in the past, the result has made the very question from which the difficult explanation arose, redundant.

What I said is probably true in the context of current scientific knowledge. I asked the question because I might have missed something. So far no one, including you, has proposed an answer. What might be discovered in the future is not relevant. That can be said about almost any proposition. We can only make meaningful statements about the current state of knowledge. What makes science work is that it is tentative. New knowledge is always possible.

Although you can't say for certain, can you speculate as to what new principle that might be the basis of free will? I (and others) have an idea. Maybe you have the same idea. (It's not in any way metaphysical). It's a fairly familiar term.

We can't discuss anything too speculative, so I won't reveal the word unless you type it. If so, I'll tell you and we'll not discuss it further. The word itself and quite acceptable in a scientific forum, but is not thought of as some new philosophical/mathematical principle such as determinism and randomness, at least not at the same level. It's also relevant to the topic.

EDIT: By the way, your statement about the null hypothesis is wrong. We test the null hypothesis against an alternative hypothesis all the time.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Although you can't say for certain, can you speculate as to what new principle that might be the basis of free will?

What is the basis of anything? Why is 'free will' given a special treatment? I mean with the shocking realization that the universe doesn't have a structure(well certainly not a solid, physical structure) as depicted in GR, we lost the basis of everything. There are no simultaneous events in this reality, 2 events that appear simultaneous to an observer at rest are not simultaneous to an observer in motion(you can only calculate what the other observer will perceive or has perceived, but not what actually is). There is no objective picture of what actually is, and those involved in the actual research of the foundations aren't certain they know what they are talking about either. With that in mind, your question transforms into "What is the basis of anything?"(not just free will). What is 'causality' and 'determinism' in a universe with no universal simultaneous events?

I (and others) have an idea. Maybe you have the same idea. (It's not in any way metaphysical). It's a fairly familiar term.

We can't discuss anything too speculative, so I won't reveal the word unless you type it.

.



Why? The foundations of our knowledge are mostly speculative and hypothetical. As long as there is some evidence(even circumstantial) for your propositions and they are rational(in as much as reality is rational and you don't insist that your propositions are necessarily the only ones valid) i think the philosophy forum is the right place to discuss these issues. But you know better than me if your idea is taking things too far. If you can show that free will could have a rational explanation(and exists), it'd be relevant to the question if violence is fundamentally bad.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

If you can show that free will could have a rational explanation(and exists), it'd be relevant to the question if violence is fundamentally bad.

That would be very ambitious and of course I cannot 'show' there's anything more than the choice of a fully deterministic universe (GR) or one that is probabilistic at the most fundamental level (QM). Neither is friendly to free will and I challenged anyone to suggest a third alternative. That's not to say there's something else besides GM and QM or some future merged theory. But perhaps the basis of what we think of as free will is emergent in very complex networks like the brain or some future AI that is not fully deterministic but not random either. There is fairly common term that encapsulates this concept. It's not consciousness, but something that appears earlier in evolution, but only manifests in a massive and obvious way with modern humans and our technological civilization. Moreover, it can be seen in action in functional MRIs of the brain.

 

[Pythagorean]

I largely agree with apeiron's general point. On an individual level, there is a lot of subjectivity involved in what is bad and good. After a certain point though, it's pedantic to dismiss the significant congruences between large groups of people. That is, we have systems of good and bad.

The systems are objective things. This shouldn't be confused with a constant good/bad set (i.e. objective morality) but I think it's becoming more obvious from a game theory point of view that this system is governed by rules.

In the end it's a question of what people like and what they don't like, which emerges from how people respond to stimuli. Obviously, violence causes pain, and pain causes suffering. We have a negative response to suffering (quite the opposite response, in fact, than we do for pleasure). This can be shown even at the neural level in the basil ganglia with reward-based learning, but more importantly, on the level of consciousness I think (hope) must of understand the difference between a negative experience and a positive experience. And furthermore, we tend to avoid negative experiences and pursue positive experiences. If we all agree and what experiences belong under which category, we'd all love our laws. On the other hand, there are a few select laws (no killing, stealing, or hurting, for example) that the majority of us can agree on.

I'm also intrigued by the "free energy principle of the brain" I've always found the consequences of Maxwell's Demon very interesting.

Where I would disagree with apeiron is that the general point of view is the best. I think a general point of view is necessary but insufficient (as is a specialized point of view). A more dynamic and adaptive point of view should be able to scale their perspective from the general to the specific as needed because both perspectives have their flaws. This is especially true in law and morality, where we have general rules to follow, but still handle cases... well, case by case.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm also intrigued by the "free energy principle of the brain" I've always found the consequences of Maxwell's Demon very interesting.

The free energy energy principle has important implications regarding anticipatory states and the focusing of widespread brain activity for coordinated action.

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/27/34/9141

oops! This was the link I was saving. Well, cat's out of the bag. This is the link for intentionality. Here's the link for the free energy principle of the brain:

http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/The free-energy principle A unified brain theory.pdf

 

[poor mystic]

Surely we might have disposed of the question of free will in another discussion, for in accepting that good and bad exist don't we imply the liberty to be good, to be bad?

 

[JoeDawg]

Sounds cool but i don't agree that Shakespeare and Michelangelo were a gene mutation. We are bound to our genes but we are also spiritual beings now and we relate to each other through spiritual ideas and values.

Spiritual?? I don't even know what that means. If you mean some supernatural mumbo jumbo, then I don't see how it is even useful to talk about it.

There is more to Shakespeare than genes... there is more to you and I than genes, we have our whole lives, and the whole world, as influence, how we grew up, a very complicated process. Genes is just the starting point, but spiritual... that just sounds like magic. Spiritual is an empty word that explains nothing.

You implicitly assumed that free will is something to be explained through causality and the laws of physics as we know them.

If it can't be... we're just puffing around about nothing.

Free will is by far not the only thing that is yet to be explained(in fact we are merely scratching the surface of that which we call reality).

Consciousness is a complicated thing... but I don't see any reason that it requires a non-physical process, even if we don't understand it yet. We're still scratching the surface on a lot of things.

You can't make a choice if you don't have choices.

This is where I think you are making the mistake. Like many others you have a self-contradictory view of what 'freewill' is. You imply that because we make choices based on a history, we are not free. But that is how choices get made.

We are not billiard balls, we don't just react to force and velocity in the things around us. We have internal processes. That is where choice is. And no, its not magical.

There is no way there could be a deterministic reality in a locality populated with beings of free will. If, on the other hand, every event plays out according to a script, then there is no concept of objectivity and consequently no truth.

But you see that's the flaw in your logic. There is no script. We write our own script. What most people forget with this kind of analogy is that there is a writer for every script. That is us, and no one, even us, knows what we are going to write, until we do it. Determinism just means things will follow from what has gone before, it doesn't mean they have already happened.

Many people want freewill to be some magical thing... and if you look to history... the main reason for this idea of freewill is the sin blame game. The world is imperfect, there is suffering, if god is good... then why ... but...humans are free... so its our fault. Its a theological shell game.

If that is the kind of freewill you think must exist... then yes, you'd need to be spiritual, because that makes no sense at all.