Let's go into a hypothetical future

[Spock]

As for your statement in red, again, free will is NOT removed just because all the choices but one are removed. We can choose not to choose.

So you say that someone who is trapped in a locked room within a burning building, still has the “option” of staying put and die, even though his fervent desire to survive is impossible due to his predicament?

Your experiment is hypothetically interesting but practically impossible if you want human beings to be human beings.

How do you define “human” beings?

God made the best of all worlds.

No, the best of all worlds would have to have one more attribute: it cannot be destroyed.

Too bad Adam and Eve sinned and lost Paradise.

To be more precise, if the story is taken literally, they committed an error, not a sin (since they were not moral agents, not knowing good from evil) and God cursed them and his creation.

Yet, “Oh happy fault!” (Maybe someone can reference the origin of that phrase. I think it’s part of the rubrics of a liturgy). Happy? Yes, because Jesus, our Savior, came into the world, into our history, into each of our lives in a personal way. “Let us rejoice and be glad!”

The same stuff came up just now in another thread. Sorry, I don’t accept this as a “happy fault”.

 

[seductus_sum]

Now, tell me if my psychological profile, which occurred due to my upbringing and which prevents me from engaging in random acts of violence, or even cheating, robs me of my free will? There were no chemicals involved, just “natural” processes of instilling desirable behavioral patterns. What is the difference between a natural process and an artificial one? What is the difference between being **unable **to commit a violent act and **not wanting **to do one? The result is the same.

I am not concerned about the who does what to achieve it. I am only interested in the abstract concept of creating a society with a certain attitude.

Hmmm a very good question, Spock. I am not sure if I have a satisfactory answer at this time.

My initial response is to say that training someone not to act on certain emotions is different than taking away the emotions entirely. If the emotions are there the person can still use their free will to choose to do whatever they want. If the emotions are gone, then the person cannot even choose to choose.

Ultimately, I disagree that not wanting to commit evil is the same as being unable to do so, since I do things I think are undesirable on a regular occasion (like putting off studying or talking about people behind their backs). I don’t really want to do those things–at least on a certain level, the level of emotion–but I do. This is totally different than being unable to do them.

Before I get to far off track, were you talking about emotion in your original post? I am reading it that “aggressive intent” is actually “the emotion of anger.”

 

[4Horsemen]

So you say that someone who is trapped in a locked room within a burning building, still has the “option” of staying put and die, even though his fervent desire to survive is impossible due to his predicament?

I would say that a person could make the choice to stay trapped in a burning building. (Most likely someone who is mentally unbalanced). However, if a person has a “fervent desire to survive,” s/he will of course make the choice to try and get out. We choose because we have the ability to make a particular choice or to not make a particular choice. Free will is instrinsically within each one of us.

How do you define “human” beings?

I did read part of your new thread with your “mathematical proof.” I’m still trying to find enough time to read all the posts. Very interesting.

 

[tobias]

Of that I can assure you. I have no desire to push my worldview onto anyone by using force. To use a method of conviction is much more palatable… even though - if accepted - it would be tantamount to brainwashing For the rest of your questions I will answer them in another post.

I’m not sure you answered back on either post???
I feel you’ve still failed to digest how this end result would be achieved. If merely synapse firing is changed, or redirected, behavior is not neccessarily abated. If one emotion is mechanically stopped, something must take its place. Though it seams your saying it would be replaced with some sort of apathy, wich really is just another emotion. Replacing one emotion with another, or if you prefer the absence thereof, is brain control, or emotion control.

If a human being is unable to express an emotion or through an emotion that it wills it will find another outlet. What would be inevitable is the expression of certain desires through other means (emotions), or through complete apathy as do some sociopaths or drug altered minds. As I said in my first post, it would not suffice to negate a specific emotion or response mechanism in the brain, because we are not all wired the same. History teaches us that many attrocities and horrendous acts were and are commited by individuals who believe they are right, so aggression is not neccessarily part of the equation. In order to eliminate all murder, rape, torture, war and whatever other act we may wish to stop, it would require complete and utter manipulation of the human mind. How could we ever justify that?

If we’re merely talking about a punitive measure, for such crimes, then I could say yes, that may be justifiable.

By the way, the Scifi reference is disturbing, if heroic action is nullified. Will all stand on shore and watch a child drown? Will the fire fighter risk his life for another? Not to sound flippant, but I’d be building a ship real quick as well.

‘Give me liberty, or give me death.’

 

[Spock]

If we’re merely talking about a punitive measure, for such crimes, then I could say yes, that may be justifiable.

Now tell me, why do you think that prevention is “worse”, or less desirable than retribution?

By the way, the Scifi reference is disturbing, if heroic action is nullified. Will all stand on shore and watch a child drown? Will the fire fighter risk his life for another? Not to sound flippant, but I’d be building a ship real quick as well.

Of course I could not tell you all about the story, but I hope I emphasised that the world it describes is safe, safe beyond any measure we can imagine. There is no heroism, partly because people are disinclined to risk their life, and because there is no need. All the dangerous professions are being done by robots. Of course there is love not reciprocated, there is sadness, there is disillusionment, but these feelings are “decoupled” from evoking violent behavior. People simple talk about their differences, they respect each other opinion. There is no “drama”. Personally, I like it. I would not miss the wars, would not miss the weekly statistics of murders, the reports tallying the number of fatalities on the highways. Maybe it would be “boring” to those who like bloody movies, and watching car races (and some secretly hoping that there will be some “nice” crashes). But there are so many wonderful things to fill your life with, enjoying a symphony, or creating one. There is the world of art… and zillions of things.

‘Give me liberty, or give me death.’

Liberty to do what? Committing murders? Surely not. I am sure you don’t want to go on a killing rampage. Why let others do it?

 

[tobias]

Now tell me, why do you think that prevention is “worse”, or less desirable than retribution?

The question you pose is out of context. Prevention of horrible acts is certainly desirable. However this hypothetical prevention is an affront to the freedom of all. If it is wrong for a rapist to infringe upon the will of his victim, then it follows that it is wrong for the prevention of rape to infringe upon the will of the would be victims. In both cases, one because of the act and one to prevent it, the will of the innocent is restricted because of the will of the criminal. You have yet to demonstrate a justification for this.

Of course I could not tell you all about the story, but I hope I emphasised that the world it describes is safe, safe beyond any measure we can imagine. There is no heroism, partly because people are disinclined to risk their life, and because there is no need. All the dangerous professions are being done by robots. Of course there is love not reciprocated, there is sadness, there is disillusionment, but these feelings are “decoupled” from evoking violent behavior. People simple talk about their differences, they respect each other opinion. There is no “drama”. Personally, I like it. I would not miss the wars, would not miss the weekly statistics of murders, the reports tallying the number of fatalities on the highways. Maybe it would be “boring” to those who like bloody movies, and watching car races (and some secretly hoping that there will be some “nice” crashes). But there are so many wonderful things to fill your life with, enjoying a symphony, or creating one. There is the world of art… and zillions of things.

Exactly my point, there are no more humans, only automatons. Violence is stopped, eliminating heroism, in turn eliminating admiration and with it aspiration and gratitude, etc…

Let’s take the drowning analogy to another level— an airplane has total electrical failure, causing it to crash into the middle of a skyscraper. There would be a populace impotent to act, because it is an act of violence to self to enter a burning building to save another. This citizenry would apathetically watch the building and the people in it burn to death.
What justice is there in preventing those who would aspire to heroism to do so?

Have you bever considered that there are no ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ emotions? Rather, there is ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ use of emotion. I deny that violence, in and of itself is wrong. If I am deprived violence then I cannot act heroically, or sacrifice, or perform difficult labors etc…

You might still be able to enjoy a symphony, but will anyone be able to orchestrate or emote with instruments this music dripping with every emotion of man? Who could compose symphonies while lacking basic human emotions? Could you really appreciate art when you lack the emotions of the artists? These, the pinnacle of human expression, would become mere artifacts of how man once was, unintelligable to the less than human, at least not fully comprehensible.

Liberty to do what? Committing murders? Surely not. I am sure you don’t want to go on a killing rampage. Why let others do it?

Liberty to be heroic, to sacrifice, to be grateful, to be scared, to love, to wonder, to admire, to desire, to make mistakes and learn from them, to fear, to aspire to greater things, etc, etc…, to be me!!

As I alluded to earlier, but only said ‘as a punitive measure’, if only the specific acts are abated, then it could be acceptable. After all, punishment is the removal of at least some liberties to those who infringe the liberty of another. The removal of liberty of the innocents because of the act or would be act of some is unjust punishment.

You really don’t see the irony of making a society less than human because of the inhuman acts of some? :banghead:

 

[MHalsey]

Now tell me, why do you think that prevention is “worse”, or less desirable than retribution?

Of course I could not tell you all about the story, but I hope I emphasised that the world it describes is safe, safe beyond any measure we can imagine. There is no heroism, partly because people are disinclined to risk their life, and because there is no need. All the dangerous professions are being done by robots. Of course there is love not reciprocated, there is sadness, there is disillusionment, but these feelings are “decoupled” from evoking violent behavior. People simple talk about their differences, they respect each other opinion. There is no “drama”. Personally, I like it. I would not miss the wars, would not miss the weekly statistics of murders, the reports tallying the number of fatalities on the highways. Maybe it would be “boring” to those who like bloody movies, and watching car races (and some secretly hoping that there will be some “nice” crashes). But there are so many wonderful things to fill your life with, enjoying a symphony, or creating one. There is the world of art… and zillions of things.

Liberty to do what? Committing murders? Surely not. I am sure you don’t want to go on a killing rampage. Why let others do it?

I bet the suicide rate would skyrocket overnight in a world as boring and pointless as the one described. Naturally, you’d say this couldn’t happen in your perfect world. Yet, since the desire to live, in and of itself, involves some form of aggression, people would lose the will to live, and thus waste away.

And when did robots get introduced?

 

[Spock]

The question you pose is out of context. Prevention of horrible acts is certainly desirable. However this hypothetical prevention is an affront to the freedom of all. If it is wrong for a rapist to infringe upon the will of his victim, then it follows that it is wrong for the prevention of rape to infringe upon the will of the would be victims. In both cases, one because of the act and one to prevent it, the will of the innocent is restricted because of the will of the criminal. You have yet to demonstrate a justification for this.

I think you made a typo. The highlighted sentence should read: “If it is wrong for a rapist to infringe upon the will of his victim, then it follows that it is wrong for the prevention of rape to infringe upon the will of the would perpetrator.”

I see a significant difference to curtail someone’s freedom to do rape, and the rapist’s ability to curtail the freedom of the victim. Don’t you guys believe in some kind of morality?

Exactly my point, there are no more humans, only automatons. Violence is stopped, eliminating heroism, in turn eliminating admiration and with it aspiration and gratitude, etc…

Nonsense. Humans who have no violent streaks in them are hardly “automatons”.

Let’s take the drowning analogy to another level— an airplane has total electrical failure, causing it to crash into the middle of a skyscraper. There would be a populace impotent to act, because it is an act of violence to self to enter a burning building to save another. This citizenry would apathetically watch the building and the people in it burn to death.

You did not pay attention. There are robotsto do these tasks, “who” are expendable, and who can do the job much better. What is the point of putting oneself into useless danger?

You might still be able to enjoy a symphony, but will anyone be able to orchestrate or emote with instruments this music dripping with every emotion of man? Who could compose symphonies while lacking basic human emotions? Could you really appreciate art when you lack the emotions of the artists? These, the pinnacle of human expression, would become mere artifacts of how man once was, unintelligable to the less than human, at least not fully comprehensible.

As I said, not all emotions are eliminated. The emotions are still there, but the desire to act out the violent ones is eliminated.

Liberty to be heroic, to sacrifice, to be grateful, to be scared, to love, to wonder, to admire, to desire, to make mistakes and learn from them, to fear, to aspire to greater things, etc, etc…, to be me!!

Not all of those is eliminated, and no one desires to do the rest. People would look at you as mildly insane.

You really don’t see the irony of making a society less than human because of the inhuman acts of some? :banghead:

Only if you equate “human” with violence, which seems to be the case.

 

[Spock]

I bet the suicide rate would skyrocket overnight in a world as boring and pointless as the one described. Naturally, you’d say this couldn’t happen in your perfect world. Yet, since the desire to live, in and of itself, involves some form of aggression, people would lose the will to live, and thus waste away.

And when did robots get introduced?

I suggest you read the book. I cannot tell about all the details in such a limited space. The author is Stanislaw Lem, the title is “Return from the stars”. It is a good book, enjoyable even if you disregard the philosphical connotations.

 

[crowonsnow]

I bet the suicide rate would skyrocket overnight in a world as boring and pointless as the one described. Naturally, you’d say this couldn’t happen in your perfect world. Yet, since the desire to live, in and of itself, involves some form of aggression, people would lose the will to live, and thus waste away.

And when did robots get introduced?

Suicide is violent and aggressive. So I don’t think suicide would be possible.

Maybe I’m just too old but I remember the original “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” I liked it.

I’m voting yes because all that is restricted is our behavior. We’re still free to pretend and imagine anything we want.

crow

 

[cheeto1]

This sounds like a future that is preferrable to the one we now have.
Why do I want the right to be a victim of violence?
Let them use their energy on saving people in danger.
I don’t see suffering as beautiful either. It is hideous, and if it was so beautiful,
it would be in heaven.
Just look at the tv program “extreme home makeover”.
So many people, working together for good. There is no violence, or even fighting
against violence. The people are not bored, they are invigorated with love for their
fellow man! And making the most of their creative, positive energy. Now let’s
say a violent gang wanted to kill them. Sure, God could bring good out of it, but
I’d rather not have it happen, and just enjoy the good God brings from good people
doing good and loving one another…

 

[Spock]

This sounds like a future that is preferrable to the one we now have.
Why do I want the right to be a victim of violence?
Let them use their energy on saving people in danger.
I don’t see suffering as beautiful either. It is hideous, and if it was so beautiful,
it would be in heaven.
Just look at the tv program “extreme home makeover”.
So many people, working together for good. There is no violence, or even fighting
against violence. The people are not bored, they are invigorated with love for their
fellow man! And making the most of their creative, positive energy. Now let’s
say a violent gang wanted to kill them. Sure, God could bring good out of it, but
I’d rather not have it happen, and just enjoy the good God brings from good people
doing good and loving one another…

Gotta love posts like this. Thank you!!

 

[tonyrey]

I’m voting yes because all that is restricted is our behavior. We’re still free to pretend and imagine anything we want.

In other words you would be miserable because you would feel frustrated when you can’t do what you want. It would be far worse than being a robot because a robot doesn’t want anything!

 

[tonyrey]

So many people, working together for good. There is no violence, or even fighting
against violence. The people are not bored, they are invigorated with love for their
fellow man! And making the most of their creative, positive energy. Now let’s
say a violent gang wanted to kill them. Sure, God could bring good out of it, but
I’d rather not have it happen, and just enjoy the good God brings from good people
doing good and loving one another…

There’s just one problem. Love implies the freedom to love. If everyone is automatically "invigorated with love " their love is not worth having. How would you like to be loved by a robot? Do you really want your love to be robotic?

 

[Spock]

In other words you would be miserable because you would feel frustrated when you can’t do what you want. It would be far worse than being a robot because a robot doesn’t want anything!

Do you feel frustrated because you are unable to fly like a bird? You are unable to swim underwater, like a fish? Or not being able to walk on the Moon without a spacesuit? Or zillions of other things, which you might crave, but unable to do, for various reasons??? Our freedom to carry out our wishes is already seriously limited. What is so special about murders, rapes and tortures that makes you want to keep them as viable options? If I did not know any better, I would think that all of you who voted “no” in the poll are either weird, or bloodthirsty… maybe my good opinion about you is misguided?

 

[Spock]

There’s just one problem. Love implies the freedom to love. If everyone is automatically "invigorated with love " their love is not worth having. How would you like to be loved by a robot? Do you really want your love to be robotic?

Have you ever been loved unconditionally? Like a dog, or a child can love? What is wrong about it?

 

[seductus_sum]

This sounds like a future that is preferrable to the one we now have.
Why do I want the right to be a victim of violence?
Let them use their energy on saving people in danger.
I don’t see suffering as beautiful either. It is hideous, and if it was so beautiful,
it would be in heaven.
Just look at the tv program “extreme home makeover”.
So many people, working together for good. There is no violence, or even fighting
against violence. The people are not bored, they are invigorated with love for their
fellow man! And making the most of their creative, positive energy. Now let’s
say a violent gang wanted to kill them. Sure, God could bring good out of it, but
I’d rather not have it happen, and just enjoy the good God brings from good people
doing good and loving one another…

If you take away someone’s right to choose to do evil, or if you take away every negative consequence of such choices, then you take away free will. Period. Unfortunately that necessarily means that free will is deprived if one is not allowed to suffer any violence because of another person’s choice. I’d rather live in a world of free will than a world of robots, and I’d rather be hurt by my friends than have them be machines.

And nobody says that “suffering is beautiful,” but they do say “there is beauty in suffering.” The two are quite different. There is beauty in suffering because God the Son suffered in order to redeem man and in so doing made holy the act of suffering for God the Father–all human suffering can mimic the suffering of Jesus on the Cross and this is what we mean when we say that there is beauty in suffering.

Furthermore, and this may be surprising to you, but I believe that there is suffering in Heaven. It is all over Christianity that God longs for his people (that’s us) to return to him, and that he loves us so much that he sacrificed his only Son in order to save us. How is this not suffering? How is this love not so strong it hurts? I say that it does hurt, and that the whole community of Saints and angels is heartbroken whenever a soul is lost to Hell. But this is just speculation.

 

[Spock]

If you take away someone’s right to choose to do evil, or if you take away every negative consequence of such choices, then you take away free will. Period.

For the thousandth time… it does** take away** “free will”, it merely **restricts **it. But our freedom to act out our desires is already seriously restricted. A little more restriction decreasing suffering is good. A little more freedom to help others would be good.

Unfortunately that necessarily means that free will is deprived if one is not allowed to suffer any violence because of another person’s choice. I’d rather live in a world of free will than a world of robots, and I’d rather be hurt by my friends than have them be machines.

False dichotomy.

 

[o_mlly]

The technology already exists so let’s go to reality.

In Catholic understanding, free will is already conditioned. All choices to be or do good are contingent upon the initiative of Goodness itself. When faced with a moral choice, a decision which will cause good or bad effects, God suggests to his creature’s intellect to do the good We call God’s interior communication grace.

The creature who rejects God’s grace, does evil. The creature who accepts God’s grace becomes God’s instrument for doing good. All goodness comes from God.

When the creature habitually chooses the good, the creature’s relationship with his Creator has the characteristic of sanctifying grace. This intimate relationship makes the creature more like his Creator. That is, the good act not only has good effects but also increases the holiness of the creature.

In heaven, all creatures will be in union with their Creator possessing the combination of free will and perfect holiness. Such a combination is the reality of your hypothtetical world. A world in which free will always chooses the good.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[cheeto1]

I don’t think I want my “friends” free to make violent choices. The great thing about
your sensor idea is that if we didn’t like living in a world free of brutal violence, we
could just take the sensors off. Just look at all the people who have no desire to
commit these kinds of crimes. They are far from robots. In fact, I might go so far
as to say that the ones who do want to commit this type of violence are more like
robots, since they seem almost to be forced into doing what they would never do
if they really thought about it.