Not a trick question: Why is violence bad?

[Boy@n]

First chose a viewpoint then see when violence 'becomes' bad.

It can be, and usually is, a very different level of tolerance based on initial viewpoint, which might rang like this: personal viewpoint, family, friends, coworkers, town, national, continenal, world, galaxy, universal viewpoint.

Simply put, the 'higher' viewpoint of social entity the lesser tolerance for violence, or to better put it, the higher the understanding of life as whole, of existence being one, where all we do affects everyone, the higher the desire to wish and do personal best for everyone (in practical terms) not just for oneself and close ones.

 

[Borek]

You could say the desire is for you both to survive. But this is not sufficiently general (and not even true of the cow). You have to step back to the evolutionary view, and then even the thermodynamic view. Which is as general as we know how to go.

Please elaborate, or at least post links to some resources. I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[JoeDawg]

Simply put, the 'higher' viewpoint of social entity the lesser tolerance for violence, or to better put it, the higher the understanding of life as whole, of existence being one, where all we do affects everyone, the higher the desire to wish and do personal best for everyone (in practical terms) not just for oneself and close ones.

I'd say this is highly dubious. People often find violence much more acceptable when they think in terms of 'greater good' or society... or the group.

In fact, from a galactic or universe viewpoint, we are so unimportant that any violence humans do to each other is of negligible effect or significance. Even ALL the violence done by every creature that has ever lived on the planet is nothing but an infinitesimal blip to the universe. Entropy increases, no matter what we do.

 

[apeiron]

Please elaborate, or at least post links to some resources. I have no idea what you are talking about.

For instance...

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverEgan2008v2.pdf

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Can you explain what that example is bad? I'm curious to see by what standards we (that is, society) decides what is good/bad, permissible/impermissible, legal/illegal, etc.

Ref Post 47

The assumption is that the purpose of the democratic state is to protect our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" by instituting and enforcing a social order that reflects the will of the people. To that end, we give the state a monopoly on violence to be used only to enforce just laws to maintain a social order that provides greatest benefit to the greatest number of people and guarantees everyone "certain inalienable rights."

The problem then is when the state is seen to abuse this monopoly. The calculus is that the state should use violence/coercion only to the extent that is justified to bring violations of the social order into balance. If someone does something 'bad' by breaking a law they should be punished and the victims compensated only to the extent of rectifying the violation. Too much, and the state becomes abusive. Too little, and society tends toward anarchy.

My example is intended to show that even when the state appears to achieve this goal, our idea of justice may or may not realized. In this example enforcement of contracts and property rights is seen as a social good. I simply ask if you think that when the laws to protect these social "goods" are properly enforced, the result is really compatible with some of idea of justice (which is presumed to be "good"). I didn't say that the outcome was 'bad'. At best it was neutral which is what is it should be. The social balance was restored after it was violated. But are you happy with the outcome? Maybe it's not so simple. Maybe your question doesn't have an obvious answer.

EDIT: I'm departing from a trend in this thread to respond in terms of evolutionary and theoretical biology, as interesting as that might be. Analogies to the complex dynamics of modern human society are not easily found in other mammalian societies. I'm simply accepting as an initial assumption that the laws of a democratic society in 2010 are "good" and breaking those laws is "bad."' It's not hard to find ambiguities. Building the "good" society is a work in progress.

 

[DaveC426913]

1] There is (and can be) no objective good or bad unless there really is a higher power that can judge.

Not a tenable assumption for this thread, since I'm explicitly trying to discuss ethics. I don't very much care how you come to your ethical decisions,

Right. I was simply laying some groundwork to establish that we all pretty much agree that right and wrong are entirely human (subjective) concepts - rated by humans about humans.

but I *do* want to discuss them and *not* simply what actions lead to a stable society. (For my application, this distinction is important.)

Well I'm hypothesizing that cause and effect are reversed.
You: our ethics lead to a stable society
Me: a stable society defines our ethics
We define right and wrong by what works. And that "what works" is directly proportional to how prosperous society is.

 

[poor mystic]

Hi Everybody
I believe that the fundamental 'wrong' in violence is the destruction of happiness.

In attempting to determine right and wrong, I try to visualise an ideally happy human relationship, and from there I go on to wonder what would be the outcome if violence were to come in.
For my example - I believe all will recognise the image of a child content with its mother; all complete human beings will understand the child's distress at violence suddenly introduced, so disturbing a prior, happy relationship.

I am older now, and presumably tough, but I believe the same part of me that might have shrunk in grief and horror at violence as a child is the same part of me that is offended by violence now.

In short, violence is wrong because it hurts people.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Hi Everybody
I believe that the fundamental 'wrong' in violence is the destruction of happiness.

You got it! It's (almost) that simple. Like Jefferson wrote; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (That's not the US Constitution though.). However the devil is in the details. Whose happiness? Adolf Hitler's happiness? Jack the Ripper's happiness? How about the convicted corporate outlaws of Enron? That's still pretty easy. They're established bad guys. They don't deserve to be happy; only treated "humanely".

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.)

 

[GeorgCantor]

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

 

[poor mystic]

You got it! It's (almost) that simple. Like Jefferson wrote; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (That's not the US Constitution though.). However the devil is in the details. Whose happiness? Adolf Hitler's happiness? Jack the Ripper's happiness? How about the convicted corporate outlaws of Enron? That's still pretty easy. They're established bad guys. They don't deserve to be happy; only treated "humanely".

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.)

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?"
Acknowledging this change of subject, it seems to me that if all the involved parties in the transaction had everybody's happiness as a goal everybody would end up happy.
It is my axiom that it is good to work for others' happiness, the sight of a happy smile excites pleasure in me; I find that happiness is identified with beauty, life and love.

 

[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. Langauge 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. Langauge 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.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

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?

Disposed of the issue of free will? Because you objected to my disposing of it, I now raise the issue of intentionality. See the post above. I was saving it to see if you or anyone else might bring it up to 'save' free will. The existence of objective good and evil by humans has in no way been accepted since they require willful action.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Determinism just means things will follow from what has gone before, it doesn't mean they have already happened.

If things will follow from what has gone before, then where does the causal chain begin? Why isn't this a script for predetermination?

 

[poor mystic]

SW VandeCarr has brought us the following link :http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/27/34/9141.
In a paper in neuroscience I found following the link, an area of the human brain is found to have been excited during decisions whether or not to act.
I'm not sure how to interpret it, though.
I don't think that locating this set of cells proves anything about consciousness, but what of relevance does it prove?

 

[disregardthat]

apeiron, you seem to generally take the behavioristic line of reasoning in questions regarding ethics. Purely in interest of hearing your opinion about it; how do you make up for the loss of individual perspective?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

SW VandeCarr has brought us the following link :http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/27/34/9141.
In a paper in neuroscience I found following the link, an area of the human brain is found to have been excited during decisions whether or not to act.
I'm not sure how to interpret it, though.
I don't think that locating this set of cells proves anything about consciousness, but what of relevance does it prove?

Your posts are getting tiresome. Either you strive for more accuracy in your posts or will have to report you. What I quoted above is considered a side comment referencing me by name in a negative way. This is a clear violation. I will report you if you do it again,

1.The issue is intentionality, not consciousness..

2. This or any investigative paper provides evidence, not proof.

3. If you don't know how to interpret something then don't try (as you did in the following sentence.)

If you have something intelligent to contribute, do it. Otherwise don't post in response to any of my posts again. I will consider that harassment, another violation.

 

[GeorgCantor]

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.

If you manage to unambigously define what 'physical' is, i will unabiguously define what 'spiritual' is.

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

You thought we were making progress on what free will is?

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.

This is a description, not an explanation and deterministic causal events predclude free will.

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.

Yes, we have deterministic internal processes. How exactly does that point to free will? What kind of logic requires you to use reductionistic approaches to emergent behavior? And what makes you think it will EVER work?

And no, its not magical.

So free will is determined by our internal processes(i.e. we don't have free will), but in the end you are saying we somehow have free will. You just proved that it must be a magical process, even by your own standards.

But you see that's the flaw in your logic. There is no script. We write our own script.

So the deterministic internal processes cause 'free will'? What exactly are you talking about??

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.

And 'we' is simply the deterministic internal processes as you said. Sounds vey contradictory if you push the free will notion.

Determinism just means things will follow from what has gone before, it doesn't mean they have already happened.

Happened or not, deterministic causal events are pre-determined at the dawn of history(that includes your 'internal processes' that you believe cause you to have 'free will').

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.

As far as free will is concerned it must be magical if no one can explain it. Your own theory is self-contradictory and the best you could say is that we don't have free will.

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.

Oh i see, it doesn't make sense. So what? The universe with observers originating from a quantum fluctuation makes sense? Or a whole galaxy being reduced to the size of an atom or even zero by a black hole makes sense? Or single molecules going through 2 separate slits makes sense? Or a universe that has a malleable 'structure' makes sense? Which fundamental concept makes sense at all?

What is it about 'making sense' that makes it so obsessive that you appear intent to push it everywhere at all costs? Do you believe you are in the reality of common-sense? If you think so, you need to find yourself another reality.

 

[apeiron]

apeiron, you seem to generally take the behavioristic line of reasoning in questions regarding ethics. Purely in interest of hearing your opinion about it; how do you make up for the loss of individual perspective?

Not sure that I understand your question. But my view is that dichotomistic divisions intensify both the local and the global, so it is never a matter of either/or, always both. And that would mean here that greater social constraint would also produce greater individual autonomy.

It sounds paradoxical perhaps, but the more developed the social context regarding our actions - our knowledge of what should be done - the more starkly we must be aware of the fact we are making individual moment-to-moment choices. So there would be a gain in the individual perspective from culture encoding really strong principles.

For example, in some asian cultures, there is a high tolerance of social ambiguity. The social rules are not so clear cut and the sense of self is likewise more muddy. Ethics occupies more the middle ground of what is good for the family, the clan.

Western society created a much stronger separation so that the rules of society became the abstract laws of the land, and individuals became completely "free" to behave within that now very rigid framework of law.

So generalising the constraints creates the counter-move of an even more heightened sense of individuality. Freewill is then the effort we have to make to negotiate a path through all the extra choice we seem to have.

Really, this is why it is bizarre to have a constant debate about freewill when we perhaps have so much choice it is perhaps confusing.

Chance and necessity, randomness and determinism, are a correct dichotomy for micro-physics, the simplest systems. But when we are talking about brains and societies, the dichotomy is really spontaneity~autonomy.

Complex systems seem to have a creative spontaneity (developing to the edge of chaos) which allows bottom-up "unchosen" behaviour that is neither random nor determined. And they also have a top-down power of "chosen" behaviour.

More is different, as Polyani said. Complexity has its own character that just does not reduce neatly to micro-physical concepts.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Right. I was simply laying some groundwork to establish that we all pretty much agree that right and wrong are entirely human (subjective) concepts - rated by humans about humans.

Fine.

Well I'm hypothesizing that cause and effect are reversed.
You: our ethics lead to a stable society
Me: a stable society defines our ethics
We define right and wrong by what works. And that "what works" is directly proportional to how prosperous society is.

That's not my position. I have no interest in "what works" except insofar as modern ethics matches that. ("What works" as discussed here won't translate into my application at all.)

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Chance and necessity, randomness and determinism, are a correct dichotomy for micro-physics, the simplest systems. But when we are talking about brains and societies, the dichotomy is really spontaneity~autonomy. More is different, as Polyani said. Complexity has its own character that just does not reduce neatly to micro-physical concepts.

Apeiron, we clashed once before, but these are concepts that I can agree with. Determinism is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. It's an assumption that most scientists feel comfortable with, but it cannot be proven to a scientific standard. When it comes to complex or chaotic systems, science will adopt deterministic models and that's fine if you don't confuse the model with reality. QM is also deterministic, but it's probabilities, not outcomes, that are well determined. I'm certainly not anti-science by any means, but I recognize its limits.

In terms of this thread, this philosophical view of scaling is important. We can't talk about objective good and evil if we can't make a non-theistic case for the possibility of willful action.

 

[poor mystic]

In regard to the original question of why violence is bad.

Given that this forum is materialistic, perhaps the challenge is to derive a moral theory from materialistic axioms.

I think a simple set of arguments involving the irrational destruction of order and implicit loss of energy to a parent society could be mounted. We could start from the judgement that "waste is bad" and carry on from there.