I don’t think you know what an evasion is. Your question is impossible for me to answer because I have no framework regarding responsibility to operate under, nor would I be interested in devising one. My ethical system doesn’t need to do so. There is a difference between an opponent’s evasion and their recognition that a question posed to them cannot be answered.
I asked for a definition of “free will” and you used “freely” and “willpower” in your definition. It would be like me defining a “cornstalk” as a “stalk of corn.” If someone doesn’t know what a cornstalk is, they sure as heck won’t know what a stalk of corn is either. You can’t refer to the term being defined in its definition, else it is circular.
The fact that a prescription is prompted by facts doesn’t make it a fact itself. A prescription is a demand; in this case, it would be saying, “Get me X for this person’s medication.” A demand isn’t a fact,even though it can be prompted by facts. For example, a mother can tell her son to take out the trash because of the fact that the garbage is producing a terrible odor, but “Take out that trash!” has no truth value. If you disagree, how could we prove the statement true or false?
What I said above applies here. Morals are demands, and demands have no truth values. If you disagree, prove to me that the demand “Take out that trash!” is true or false. Don’t try to conjure up another example or evade the question, just tell me how we can determine the truth value of the statement.
And how is this an argument against determinism? Or are you just making an irrelevant observation here?
Do you mean you reject the concept of responsibility altogether? It wouldn’t help your case if you finished up in court and based your defence on that argument…
If we ignore ethical prescriptions we become corrupt - like rotten fruit which is unsavoury and poisonous. They certainly have a truth value; otherwise you wouldn’t relate them to happiness. If you become a habitual liar or thief you store up trouble for yourself… as well as for others…
If determinism is true it is impossible to know that it is impossible to know anything! So it is self-refuting…
It is determinism that is self-referential. Have you heard of the paradox of truth? The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth… The difference is that this is a veridical paradox…
Again, I’m not sure which type of “responsibility” you’re referring to. Determining who causes what is useful when we see it necessary to discourage evil actions via punishment. The punishment wouldn’t work if it were directed toward the wrong person. However, I see no reason why responsibility ought to leak into ethical matters. It does its job in the legal realm. The goal is to prevent the evil actions through isolation and rehabilitation in jail, not to give a person what we think they deserve.Do you mean you reject the concept of responsibility altogether? It wouldn’t help your case if you finished up in court and based your defence on that argument…
So “free will” is a redundant phrase? I think your interpretation differs from the common usage. For example, if someone put a gun to my head and gave me the choice of forfeiting my possessions or getting killed, choosing either option would be an act of the will, but most people wouldn’t call it an act of free will. Where is the distinction? The circumstances determined the chosen option, as with every decision we make. And if the options one perceives doesn’t influence one’s choice, then what does?
So if I choose the easiest option, I’m not exercising my free will?
This ability can still exist under a deterministic framework unless you have an obscure conception of what it means to decide. If you prefer peanuts to almonds, you will always decide to eat peanuts instead of almonds, all other things being equal. You evaluated your options, applied your preferences to the options perceived, and made a choice. The choice was still determined by the circumstances; namely, your preference of peanuts to almonds and the availability of both items.
Reification is a fallacy for a reason.
Fixation or obsession can influence your preferences but they don’t make you unable to decide. What is decision-making, if not the reconciliation between one’s preferences and the available options?
No. A prescription consists of your doctor’s name and a list of medications. The medications aren’t described, and patients often have no clue what the listed medications actually are. There is a huge difference between saying, “This medication does such and such,” and, “Get this patient X for medication.” Try tearing out a page in a medical book about antibiotics and showing it to a pharmacist. Don’t expect that description alone to get you the medicine; you need a doctor’s demand for that.
But the assertions that we ought to be honest, in harmony, and happy are prescriptions. Those things aren’t good outside of our perspectives. Similarly, you can describe medications to your pharmacist all day, but you aren’t getting that medication until your doctor issues a prescription saying that you ought to have the medicine. “Is” and “ought” are usually related but ultimately separate.
Yes, and the assertion that we oughtn’t be corrupt is a prescription as well. Turning to prescriptions in an attempt to justify prescribing is circular.
But I assert that we ought to be happy only because I value happiness. The prescription is still disconnected from the real world in that it doesn’t describe anything.
Please justify that claim. They can be determined even while having an excellent foundation.
I’ve often wondered if Judas took that look for Jesus’ affirmation of what Judas was to do.
I agree that if this is story the underlying questions it raises do not go away. The story is there for a reason. It’s what that reason is that puzzles me. Did Jesus have to be betrayed? Did the Temple authorities have to be told where Jesus was? Wasn’t he pretty easy to find that week in Jerusalem? If someone had to betray Jesus did it matter who did so? Why Judas?
Have often wondered if Judas could have interpreted this as doing what Jesus wanted ie he was playing the role that Jesus wanted him to play.
But sometimes not the father most of us would want to have. God Sending his only son into the world to die for us always filled me with horror.
Sounds rather manipulative to me and does that mean if God cannot make some good out of it God stops the person doing it. I do not want to benefit from someone else’s sin.
But Mark, the first Gospel written, merely describes Judas as “one of the twelve”. Are the later additions embellishments? If Jesus and the disciples knew this wouldn’t they have changed treasurer?
Do you believe our life is predestined (or predetermined)? If not there is no reason to suppose Judas was predestined to betray Jesus. Some one else could have chosen to do so…
Since Mark’s Gospel is very concise the omission of a fact (if it is a fact) is not significant either way. Although inspired the evangelists were fallible and it is absurd to think that every single detail of their accounts is accurate. The fact that there are minor discrepancies is a sign that their accounts were not contrived…
Why would Judas want the Chief Priest to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah? This hypothesis seems to raise more problems than it solves. If Judas believed Jesus was the Messiah and wanted everyone to follow Him why would he choose such an underhand way of doing it? He knew the Jewish establishment were bitterly opposed to Jesus, that other “troublemakers” like St John the Baptist had been executed and that his master would probably share the same fate… If Judas didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah what would be the point of making the Chief Priest acknowledge the fact?
If the prophecy was to be fulfilled it was necessary but that was not the only reason. It is inevitable that the denunciation of hypocrisy, injustice and oppression leads to anger, hatred, malice and even murder (whether judicial or not). In history there are many examples of the martyrdom of men and women who have exposed the evils of society.
The fact that the betrayal occurred at night in an isolated place outside the city suggests that it was not so easy. Jesus said that they had ample opportunity to arrest him during the hours of daylight. They obviously feared that there would be a public riot which would incur the wrath of the Romans.
It is possible but what is the evidence? Surely he would have considered the consequences. Would he have gone so far as to hang himself to fulfil that role?
You are implying that the Father and the Son are two distinct individuals… but the nature of God is another topic. Jesus knew what His mission was and He chose to die for us of his own free will because He knew that His love manifested as a person living amongst us is the best way to liberate us from our weakness, blindness and selfishness. He was not forced to come into the world by His Father - even though as a man He regarded Himself as being sent. He was not God on earth! (But that is yet another topic.)
That argument could be applied to His gift of free will to all of us. Evil comes from good and good comes from evil, whether we like it or not.
It is doubtful whether the other disciples knew Jesus was going to betray Jesus. Even if they did they may - which seems unlikely - have asked Jesus to send Judas away. Jesus would have told them He had to accomplish His mission but the probability of a long discussion is not supported by the Gospel accounts of their relationship with their Master. They questioned Him frequently about their own role but not about the details of His fate because He had told them He had to die by being lifted up - which clearly implied the common penalty of crucifixion for sedition. Whether they accepted it is another matter… even though Jesus had remonstrated with Peter with those memorable words “Get behind me, Satan!”
Do you believe our life is predestined (or predetermined)? If not there is no reason to suppose Judas was predestined to betray Jesus. Some one else could have chosen to do so…
Since Mark’s Gospel is very concise the omission of a fact (if it is a fact) is not significant either way. Although inspired the evangelists were fallible and it is absurd to think that every single detail of their accounts is accurate. The fact that there are minor discrepancies is a sign that their accounts were not contrived…
Why would Judas want the Chief Priest to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah? This hypothesis seems to raise more problems than it solves. If Judas believed Jesus was the Messiah and wanted everyone to follow Him why would he choose such an underhand way of doing it? He knew the Jewish establishment were bitterly opposed to Jesus, that other “troublemakers” like St John the Baptist had been executed and that his master would probably share the same fate… If Judas didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah what would be the point of making the Chief Priest acknowledge the fact?
If the prophecy was to be fulfilled it was necessary but that was not the only reason. It is inevitable that the denunciation of hypocrisy, injustice and oppression leads to anger, hatred, malice and even murder (whether judicial or not). In history there are many examples of the martyrdom of men and women who have exposed the evils of society.
The fact that the betrayal occurred at night in an isolated place outside the city suggests that it was not so easy. Jesus said that they had ample opportunity to arrest him during the hours of daylight. They obviously feared that there would be a public riot which would incur the wrath of the Romans.
It is possible but what is the evidence? Surely he would have considered the consequences. Would he have gone so far as to hang himself to fulfil that role?
You are implying that the Father and the Son are two distinct individuals… but the nature of God is another topic. Jesus knew what His mission was and He chose to die for us of his own free will because He knew that His love manifested as a person living amongst us is the best way to liberate us from our weakness, blindness and selfishness. He was not forced to come into the world by His Father - even though as a man He regarded Himself as being sent. He was not God on earth! (But that is yet another topic.)
That argument could be applied to His gift of free will to all of us. Evil comes from good and good comes from evil, whether we like it or not.
It is doubtful whether the other disciples knew Judas was going to betray Jesus. Even if they did they may - which seems unlikely - have asked Jesus to send Judas away. Jesus would have told them He had to accomplish His mission but the probability of a long discussion is not supported by the Gospel accounts of their relationship with their Master. They questioned Him frequently about their own role but not about the details of His fate because He had told them He had to die by being lifted up - which clearly implied the common penalty of crucifixion for sedition. Whether they accepted it is another matter… even though Jesus had remonstrated with Peter with those memorable words “Get behind me, Satan!”
You seem to be equating responsibility with causality - as if the fact that you cause something necessarily makes you responsible… But then you seem to reject the belief that the buck stops with us individually and collectively…
So what is the point of morality? Why tell people what they ought to do, or not do, if they are never responsible for what they do or don’t do?
So the length of prison sentences is based solely on the time required for rehabilitation and the prevention of crime? It has no relation to the gravity of the offence?
“influence” is the key word. Why not determine?
Very often you’re not but not always or necessarily. The easiest option may be the most reasonable or most just…
Your choice of preferences is hedonistic rather than moral. Do you equate them?
It depends on whether the obsession is pathological. There is a difference between wilfulness and impotence…
Decision-making is not reconciliation but the result of a process of elimination.
You are struggling here. You know perfectly well that an efficacious prescription need not be authorised by a doctor. Moreover it is not merely red tape but a valuable set of instructions. Why valuable? Because it is a remedy or prophylactic or both…
They are prescriptions and descriptions! Why do you value happiness? Is it an arbitrary evaluation or is it related to what you are - to your capacity for happiness amongst other things?
Why are they usually related? And if they are related why are they ultimately separate?
Is happiness disconnected from the “real world”? Surely your physical and mental states are not imaginary but in some respects more real than inanimate objects?
Where do you get the idea of “terrible” from? I have explained quite clearly that it is not a question of disliking but of grasping the implications of the hypothesis that all our thoughts are determined. You have not refuted my contention that we are more likely to be mistaken because there are countless ways of being mistaken…
So you believe that God has full knowledge of your actions, prior to your existence? Yet, God makes non-Christians, with full knowledge that, according to scriptures, they will be eternally punished for their “sin?”
You’re making this more complicated than it needs to be. Responsibility is only important insofar as it helps us to maximize happiness by distributing rewards and punishments to the appropriate people. That is my answer.
My ethical system would use responsibility, just not your conception of it. I suppose I should have clarified as I did above.
I’m saying it should be.
If we know that the criminal won’t commit similar crimes again due to rehabilitation, what’s the point in punishing him? Revenge? When the preventative methods are successful, punishment becomes superfluous.
Under determinism, all factors combined determine the next event. Individual factors only influence it.“influence” is the key word. Why not determine?
That’s your opinion. It would be like me saying, “Your preferences are religious rather than moral.” I respect that your beliefs involve ethics even though I don’t agree with them. Please do the same with mine.
That depends on which sort of hedonism you’re talking about. There are probably as many varieties of hedonism as there are hedonists.
I’m just saying that treating “the will” and “the intellect” as though they’re objects is silly. Besides, you’re the one making these assertions, so the burden of proof is on you.
If you want to have a discussion you’ll need to stop using these one-liners. You’ll have to elaborate unless you want an equally vague response.
What other option is there? Getting a forged signature?
I’m not sure what you mean by “red tape.” Anyway, prescriptions aren’t JUST instructions. A prescription is a doctor’s assertion that the medication in question should be given to the patient.
Okay, we’re going to stop beating around the bush here. If someone said, “You should take out the trash,” how would you prove that their statement is true or false? Explain in detail, please.
Most people base their ethics on how they feel about what “is.” How they feel is a subjective matter though.
Ought-statements are motivated by feelings about is-statements while is-statements aren’t dependent on feelings.
Why is that a reason to prescribe? Keep in mind that if you answer with an ought-statement you are justifying the act of prescribing with prescriptions, hence the circularity.
This is the last time I will answer this question: Happiness is real, but the prescription “we ought to be happy” cannot be proven. It doesn’t describe the world. There is no known way to prove or disprove these statements. This is because “ought” or “obligation” is a mental construct; it doesn’t exist outside of your mind any more than the value you place in your favorite color exists outside of your mind. Happiness is valuable because I want happiness, just as the color blue is valuable to me because I like the color blue. Period.
It isn’t that they would be beyond our control, it’s just that we would be controlled ourselves. We would still make choices, but the choices would be determined by what we are, which would also be determined.
You haven’t explained how it is relevant to the matter at hand. Even if you’re right, it doesn’t disprove determinism. The veracity of determinism remains completely unaffected regardless of the veracity of your own argument.
I’m not arguing that determinism is true, merely that you don’t know it isn’t true. I don’t have to prove anything.
How precisely?
To deter others from committing a similar crime by making it clear that integrity and justice are necessary conditions for peace, harmony, fulfilment and happiness.
It is silly to think I am treating them as objects. They are powers, not objects. When you force yourself to do something you don’t like what enables you to do it? When you use your power of reason what precisely are you doing?
I have already pointed out that many effective prescriptions do not need authorisation by a doctor.
The prescription is a set of instructions based on the doctor’s **opinion **that the medication will be effective. We are free to take it or leave it… and very often people leave it. The notion that it is a demand is nonsense.
Most people base their ethics on what they know or believe will make them and others happy. You value happiness because you know certain things will make you happy. You also know it is unreasonable not to try to make yourself and others happy - as far as possible.
People are motivated by reason as well as emotion. The more reasonable they are the more their emotions are subjected to the light of reason.
If you think avoiding trouble and danger entails an ought statement then it becomes a superfluous term. It amounts to saying it is necessary to do everything correctly. In effect you are equating morality with being reasonable. I believe that but you don’t!
Why do you restrict descriptions to that which describes the “world”? Are we not part of the world? Why are feelings, instincts and needs less descriptive and less significant than chemical reactions? Happiness results from the fulfilment of physical and psychological needs. It is a sign of success. To suggest that “we ought not be happy” is unrealistic and defeatist. The only “rational” basis for such a view is nihilism which is self-contradictory because the rejection of all values implies that the rejection itself is valueless! In a valueless world everything without exception is valueless and therefore meaningless. To attempt to establish values in a vacuum is absurd…
So if you don’t want happiness happiness ceases to be valuable? You must be infallible regarding the value of happiness! Suppose others regard happiness as valuable. Are they mistaken? If you don’t want anything does it follow that everything is valueless? If you don’t want to be reasonable does it follow that being reasonable is valueless? This is obviously a self-refuting argument…
Choices would become automatic selections which have no more significance than molecular activity. Persons would become impersonal objects…
Veracity presupposes the ability to distinguish what is true from what it is false and to act upon that knowledge. If all our thoughts are determined we may be able to distinguish what is true from what it is false - although I’m not sure that is possible - but certainly we can only act in one way even if that way is different from what we know to be true. It means we never have any guarantee that we are acting reasonably. We may act reasonably sometimes but most of the time we behave unreasonably because there are countless ways of being mistaken but only one way of being right.