The ethics of morality

[Filthy_Tugboat]

CONTINUED!

It illustrates my point that two people from similar circumstances can choose differently because they have free will (another abstract universal concept).

If they are similar and not the same then your conclusion of free will is not affirmed. My point was that no situations or people are exactly the same and that is why in similar situations the results will be different. In order to make a point of free will opposed to determinism you would need a situation exactly the same with different results. For example, do you think that if we went back through time, without effecting anything in any way, something different would occur? If free will is true, then it is possible as not all outcomes are determined. If determinism is true then everything will go the same no matter haw many times the events are played through.

O.K. But would you agree that it’s a spiritual aspect of a person. Afterall, character is something (a universal) that developed from previous conditions in life and the choices made due to hardship or in spite of it.

What really is a “spiritual aspect”? I have a few ideas but I would rather clarify your position on it before responding as I might be misrepresenting your concept of a “spiritual aspect”.

I didn’t say the “supernatural” had anything to do with anything. My point is her decision is due to free will (not because she was programmed or destined to get an abortion), if it was truly free.

Then you must believe that the past could have been different, your mother could have gotten an abortion because of free will. Determinism is pretty clear in saying that she couldn’t based on her character and thought processes but free will is different, it proposes that events are not determined and that any result is possible or perhaps you think just a range of results, not necessarily any result.

No. Can you describe the various types of abortion and the result to the unborn child (fetus)? IOW, the question you should answer is “What is an abortion?” (Now don’t tell me about “termination of pregnancy” and other euphemisms.

Well an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. You ask me to answer a question and then tell me the answer is not acceptable.

That’s just your opinion. . . and Wikipedia, or where you got this definition. Maybe you’re misinterpreting it. Did it actually say that all conditions must be active all at the same time? Remember, the unborn have the basic necessities in their bodies and organs that will operate completely at birth. They are all there. (Watch the movie, Horton Hears a Who. Better yet, watch The Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason.

No, it didn’t say all of them, it said all or most of them, there are 7 parts of the criteria the fetus is incapable of four of Homeostasis, metabolism, adaption and reproduction. The child is incapable of only reproduction, within the first three months it may not be capable of adaption to any substantial degree.

Free will: newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

Robot: (I’ll let you do the research)

It’s the person who does the thinking for him/herself. Free will is not “something that cannot think for itself.”

I realise free will is not something that cannot think for itself, I was questioning your conclusion that the alternative of your proposition is that without free will everyone would be robots that are incapable of thinking for themselves. What made you reach this conclusion? Could you share it with me because I don’t understand how you got there?

I also need your definition of robot because your response does not portray the common definition of robot and I want to know how you are using the term.

Your link about free will doesn’t really explain that much about your position on free will as what you linked me was a description of the debate about free will and determinism. I would prefer a concise definition if that’s ok.

 

[4Horsemen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

1. Our beliefs are mental constructs based on what we understand to be true.
2. Truth is a universal which implies an objective reality.

Truth is not contingent on physical events although physical events may have something to do with pointing out the truth. We know that the point of nutrition is to enable a plant or animal to carry out its function or ends. When we compare their ends to the ends of a human being we learn what is essential, that the rational soul is superior in that it can grasp essences and reason on the basis of them, which leads to truth

So if our beliefs are universally true, they reflect what is rationally and objectively true. That’s a pretty big if.

I’m trying to express the idea of the absolute truth as opposed to relative truths and objective reality versus subjective reality. The idea of universals or forms comes from Aristotle. They are not reducible to anything material or mental.

So if a human does it, it’s a display of morality but if a dog does it it’s instinctive, what about one of the dogs in the link I provided you, he could smell carbon monoxide getting stronger and stronger within a household of a sleeping family, instead of running he stayed, barking and pawing at the family trying to wake them up and get them outside, he succeeded and without him the family could have died. Was this instinctive? How?

I’m not saying a dog can’t think and make choices, but a dog can’t decide if its choice is moral or not. The dog who could smell the carbon monoxide reacted to the smell and alerted his family because he sensed something was wrong. He didn’t think to himself: “If I run away I can save myself but let my family die. Would that be a right or a wrong? If I alert my family, I’ll be a hero. Besides it’s the right thing to do.” Don’t get me wrong. Dogs have some degree of reasoning. In fact, my Golden puppy surprised me today. I showed her two of her rag toys and counted them laying them in a row. My dog took off and returned with her third rag toy and layed it on top of the others. She’s the canine Einstein.

All I’m trying to say is that brain size is generally similar within species.

You did mention in one post that the bigger the brain the smarter the animal.

I have doubts that the “spiritual aspect” actually exists.

So, in your opinion, we are merely animals. What about our understanding of moral issues that are true for all people in all times? The intellect’s capacity to know the truth is more fully realized the deeper our understanding of the nature of the world, that it is caused and sustained in being by God. The highest goal or fulfillment of the intellect is to know God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Horsemen
Because there are some abstract ideas that are true whether we exist or not. Like numbers, geometrical forms, scientific truths, standards of logic, to name a few.

Indeed but they are only given relevance and meaning by us.

We name them, like triangles, gravity, five, energy, justice, love, etc . . . , but they are not conceptualized only in the mind. We perceive the abstractions as universal. Every culture knows what triangularity is.

As with all deductive arguments, can you show that the premise isn’t true?

TO BE CONTINUED!

Can you?

 

[John21652]

I’d be happy to show you how it works. Meet me at the top of the Willis Tower, and you will be a believer.

No thanks. I’ll watch from below while you show me!

I, and a few others, have already tried out the theory from the top of a couple of haystacks. It also works from the back of a horse. The concept does indeed seem to be an objective one!!

 

[John21652]

That all depends on if our senses are relaying information correctly, if they are then yes, it is an objective fact.

Gravity seems to operate independently of our senses. After all, even people who are paralysed and have little or no sensory feedback don’t float! Even dead people seem to be ensnared by the objectivity of that which we call ‘gravity’. Agreed?

Obviously, there exists a category of objective facts, or truths. Agreed?

So, the question then is, are there other objective facts in and of the world?

 

[4Horsemen]

CONTINUED!

If they are similar and not the same then your conclusion of free will is not affirmed. My point was that no situations or people are exactly the same and that is why in similar situations the results will be different. In order to make a point of free will opposed to determinism you would need a situation exactly the same with different results. For example, do you think that if we went back through time, without effecting anything in any way, something different would occur? If free will is true, then it is possible as not all outcomes are determined. If determinism is true then everything will go the same no matter haw many times the events are played through.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Gravity seems to operate independently of our senses. After all, even people who are paralysed and have little or no sensory feedback don’t float! Even dead people seem to be ensnared by the objectivity of that which we call ‘gravity’. Agreed?

Obviously, there exists a category of objective facts, or truths. Agreed?

So, the question then is, are there other objective facts in and of the world?

I am confident that there are, determine what is objectively true or not is valuable to me, is there something you would like to propose and perhaps analyze?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Truth is not contingent on physical events although physical events may have something to do with pointing out the truth. We know that the point of nutrition is to enable a plant or animal to carry out its function or ends. When we compare their ends to the ends of a human being we learn what is essential, that the rational soul is superior in that it can grasp essences and reason on the basis of them, which leads to truth.

What is a “rational soul”? IF truth is not contingent upon physical events or existence what is it contingent on? I hope you realize I am asking if there is anything that is not contingent on physical existence because if you suggests maths or logic as a contingency for truth I will propose to you that they too are contingent on physical existence. Gravity is contingent upon physical existence.

I’m trying to express the idea of the absolute truth as opposed to relative truths and objective reality versus subjective reality. The idea of universals or forms comes from Aristotle. They are not reducible to anything material or mental.

What are some of these “absolute truths” that you are trying to express?

I’m not saying a dog can’t think and make choices, but a dog can’t decide if its choice is moral or not. The dog who could smell the carbon monoxide reacted to the smell and alerted his family because he sensed something was wrong. He didn’t think to himself: “If I run away I can save myself but let my family die. Would that be a right or a wrong? If I alert my family, I’ll be a hero. Besides it’s the right thing to do.” Don’t get me wrong. Dogs have some degree of reasoning. In fact, my Golden puppy surprised me today. I showed her two of her rag toys and counted them laying them in a row. My dog took off and returned with her third rag toy and layed it on top of the others. She’s the canine Einstein.

No but that doesn’t make it’s decisions amoral. Even if one is not aware that what they’re doing is heroic or good, if the intention of the dog is to save a man or save a family of people from what it sees as a threat than I find that is a moral action, even more so if it puts itself at risk. In the case of the monoxide poisoning, the dog knew that it was bad, it reacted to it by barking, by waking up the family, it remained exposed to the toxic chemicals in order to save the family. It is irrelevant whether the dog has an understanding of morality or not, it’s intentions were selfless and heroic.

You did mention in one post that the bigger the brain the smarter the animal.

Where? I only mentioned brain size when comparing different species, I don’t recall bringing it up elsewhere.

So, in your opinion, we are merely animals. What about our understanding of moral issues that are true for all people in all times?

What morals are true of all people in all times?

The intellect’s capacity to know the truth is more fully realized the deeper our understanding of the nature of the world, that it is caused and sustained in being by God. The highest goal or fulfillment of the intellect is to know God.

How did you reach this conclusion? Could you provide reasoning and evidence?

We name them, like triangles, gravity, five, energy, justice, love, etc . . . , but they are not conceptualized only in the mind. We perceive the abstractions as universal. Every culture knows what triangularity is.

The act of being a triangle? I honestly don’t know what triangularity is and neither does my spell check.

There are certain things that are universal but several of the things you’ve mentioned are not. Logic for one.

Can you?

What? You originally asserted that the laws of logic are universal, I asked you for evidence or reasoning to support that claim, could you provide it?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

You might think of free will, or the ability to choose, make decisions, like a game of Mario Kart. You are presented with X number of possibilites to accomplish a goal, like a race. You choose Mario. All along the race, you make the choices which will get you to the end of the race faster than the other players. Now the other players also have X number of choices playing the same game, but make some different choices to get to the destination as well as choosing different characters. Yet, all players were presented with the same potential opportunities along the way. In real life, we don’t have the same potential opportunities, yet our decisions reveal who we are and also help to form us.

Decisions do help form our character and play a role in it’s formation but this does not seek to answer the question as to whether our decisions are predetermined. Regarding your Mario Kart analogy, the different decisions made are more-so a reflection of the different people playing than the the relation to the game itself.

We are embodied souls, you might say. The spiritual part of ourselves is our intellect and will. The material part is, obviously our bodies with nutritive and sensory aspects.

So the term spiritual is more of a description than an actual spirit or soul?

Of course I believe that the past could have been different just looking at my own life. In some cases I could have made better choices. Don’t you ever feel that way?

Sort of, I am aware that there were many options that I didn’t take in my youth but then I consider who I was then and why I did what I did. If everything was exactly the same and the events played out over and over again would anything change? You have no knew knowledge, you are exactly who you were then with all the same motives, feelings and goals, would anything change if the events played over again? Why do you think that they would? What would make that result change if nothing was different in the process.

Any result is possible, but not necessarily probable. Being brought up as a princess who gets everything she wants could make a spoiled child become a selfish adult. However, she has the option to change at any time and become a social worker or even a nun if she chooses and God allows.

Those options are never taken without some sort of meaning or relevance within that persons life though. People don’t up and decide on something without motive or a relation to their character. This is back to the spontaneous suicide, that too would be an option to this spoiled brat, why choose one over the other?

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush again. Question: What is abortion? Ans.: The termination of pregnancy. Question: What is the termination of pregnancy? Ans.: Abortion. Sounds circular to me! Now describe what happens during an abortion, or termination of pregnancy, if you prefer.

Well the medical procedure for an elective abortion is pretty straight forward but there are several techniques. Here gives you a decent overlay of the procedures, concerns, results and the methods.

So what’s in a number? IOW, what difference does it make. A “fetus” (little one) belongs to the genus homo sapiens just like any other human being.

I am well aware of that, but they are not alive according to the biological definition of life.

What’s so mysterious about what I said? If we don’t have freedom to choose our destiny (free will) then we are pre-determined, which means that every thought, every word, every action is not made freely by choice but due to social constructs or biological forces or a combination of things over which we have no control. It’s true that there are many events in our lives over which we have no or almost no control – like getting sick for one. But I’m talking about moral decisions which we make daily.

Ok, now I’m getting a better feel for your position. What do you think that we are free to choose? Our character? Or is that a result of forces beyond our control? Our thought processes? Our moral guidelines? Our beliefs? At what point is there something that we have control over?

Definition of robot: a person who acts and responds in a mechanical, routine manner, usually subject to another’s will; automaton.

Mechanical and routine are a bit off the mark. If determinism is true then people wouldn’t act mechanically or per a routine necessarily. Decisions are still made, lives are still changed and things still don’t necessarily follow a routine.

Well . . . I guess my position wouldn’t be explained in the article, but isn’t the article on target about the discussion?

It is but I was after your position on the matter.

A definition of free will: Free will is freedom.
According to the Catechism: “Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life.”

This all depends on how we use the term responsibility, I personally find people responsible for their actions regardless of if they are determined or not, that is how the legal system works and good still can be achieved through good behavior. Predetermined actions however make the concept of responsibility a bit difficult for some to swallow.

 

[4Horsemen]

What is a “rational soul”? IF truth is not contingent upon physical events or existence what is it contingent on? I hope you realize I am asking if there is anything that is not contingent on physical existence because if you suggests maths or logic as a contingency for truth I will propose to you that they too are contingent on physical existence. Gravity is contingent upon physical existence.

WE are rational souls because of our intellect and free will (ability to make choices—both moral and mundane). I’m only saying objective moral truth is not contingent upon physical events but is that truth given by God. Some truths depend on material creation (physical existence) such as gravity and the laws of motion and scientific laws in general. Numbers can be understood by learning to count objects, yet the concept of a number is an objective (universal) truth not contingent upon physical existence. Also, geometric figures are part of objective reality. We just discover numbers and geometric figures.

What are some of these “absolute truths” that you are trying to express?

The Ten Commandments are absolute truths. The attributes of God as well.

No but that doesn’t make it’s decisions amoral. Even if one is not aware that what they’re doing is heroic or good, if the intention of the dog is to save a man or save a family of people from what it sees as a threat than I find that is a moral action, even more so if it puts itself at risk. In the case of the monoxide poisoning, the dog knew that it was bad, it reacted to it by barking, by waking up the family, it remained exposed to the toxic chemicals in order to save the family. It is irrelevant whether the dog has an understanding of morality or not, it’s intentions were selfless and heroic.

Loyalty is a trait inbred in most dogs. It is not a decision to be loyal, whereas in a human, loyalty is a choice. One can decide to be loyal to their spouse or country or friend, or disloyal by betrayal of some kind or other. However, dogs dffer from one another just as humans differ from one another. Some dogs are more social, others shy. All I’m saying (not being an expert) is a dog does not have an understanding of right and wrong even though its actions may be heroic.

What morals are true of all people in all times?

The Natural Law. Even before God revealed His Divine Law (the Ten Commandments), Natural Law was in place (in “the minds and hearts” of all human being), but it was hard to discern right and wrong. The Ten Commandments made it clear that murder, human sacrifice, thievery, deceit, etc . . . are against Natural Law and Divine Law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Horsemen
The intellect’s capacity to know the truth is more fully realized the deeper our understanding of the nature of the world, that it is caused and sustained in being by God. The highest goal or fulfillment of the intellect is to know God.

How did you reach this conclusion? Could you provide reasoning and evidence?

Isn’t it self-evident that the more we know and understand of our surroundings, our world, our universe, the more we are able to attribute these wonders to the souce of all things wonderful, beautiful, good, just, holy, pure, incomprehensible . . .

The act of being a triangle? I honestly don’t know what triangularity is and neither does my spell check.

Triangularity is the universal concept of what makes a triangle that which it is. It points to the nature of a triangle–a three-sided, three-angled figure.

There are certain things that are universal but several of the things you’ve mentioned are not. Logic for one.

(Checking a philosophy book . . .) In the various arguments for realism, the author presents “The argument from the nature of propositions.” He gives a few examples of propositions. One is from mathematics like 2+2=4, which is necessarily true which would remain true whether or not the human mind or material world existed. A contingently true proposition would also remain true in such a circumstance: “Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March” would remain true for all time. Even if neither the material world nor any human mind had ever existed in the first place, the proposition “There is neither a material world nor any human mind” would be true. It couldn’t be something material or mental.

 

[4Horsemen]

Decisions do help form our character and play a role in it’s formation but this does not seek to answer the question as to whether our decisions are predetermined. Regarding your Mario Kart analogy, the different decisions made are more-so a reflection of the different people playing than the the relation to the game itself.

Your last sentence explained the concept of free will, or call it making decisions. You agree, then, that decisions relate to “the different people playing . . .” So it’s the people who are making the decisions regarding the game. The game is not determining their decisions but presents choices.

So the term spiritual is more of a description than an actual spirit or soul?

The intellect and will are a part of the human being not separate entities residing inside of us somewhere. Aristotle and Aquinas relate intellect and will to the spiritual part of our being.

Sort of, I am aware that there were many options that I didn’t take in my youth but then I consider who I was then and why I did what I did. If everything was exactly the same and the events played out over and over again would anything change? You have no knew knowledge, you are exactly who you were then with all the same motives, feelings and goals, would anything change if the events played over again? Why do you think that they would? What would make that result change if nothing was different in the process.

Of course with the knowledge we have now, we’d probably make some different choices. But when I think about my past life, I recall that I was at a “crossroads” on the moral path and knew that some choices were not for the best, but made these choices deliberately. I COULD have chosen the other path. Nothing determined my choice except my thought process.

Those options are never taken without some sort of meaning or relevance within that persons life though. People don’t up and decide on something without motive or a relation to their character. This is back to the spontaneous suicide, that too would be an option to this spoiled brat, why choose one over the other?

We usually choose what we think is good for us in one way or another, probably mostly a material good. But so many make monumental mistakes. Like suicide and murder. A young mother was upset that her husband was messing around, so she put the 3 kids in the car and drove into a deep pond. Two children were almost babies. The oldest was a 12-year-old boy. He was able to push the button to make the window go down enough so he could struggle his way out. He managed to swim to the edge and someone found him later. He related that his mother had changed her mind when the water started rising, but all he could do was save himself.

Well the medical procedure for an elective abortion is pretty straight forward but there are several techniques. Here gives you a decent overlay of the procedures, concerns, results and the methods.

Knowing the methods of killing little babies developing in the womb . . . doesn’t this sound like killing? Murder? Evil?

I am well aware of that, but they are not alive according to the biological definition of life.

Self-propelled motion demonstrates some kind of sensory life. The unborn child moves in his/her mom’s womb. Isn’t that evidence enough that the child is alive?

Ok, now I’m getting a better feel for your position. What do you think that we are free to choose? Our character? Or is that a result of forces beyond our control? Our thought processes? Our moral guidelines? Our beliefs? At what point is there something that we have control over?

Our choices help to form our character. We may make some choices dependent upon environmental and social/psychological constructs, but, nonetheless, we choose right or wrong regarding moral issues as well as others. We can improve our personalities with good choices too.

Mechanical and routine are a bit off the mark. If determinism is true then people wouldn’t act mechanically or per a routine necessarily.** Decisions are still made, lives are still changed and things still don’t necessarily follow a routine.**

That definition of “robot” came from dictionary.com. Since you agree that decisions are made . . . , you seem to agree that we are free to make choices according to what we desire, or believe, or think is right or wrong either for ourselves or objectively, which is a good in itself.

This all depends on how we use the term responsibility, I personally find people responsible for their actions regardless of if they are determined or not, that is how the legal system works and good still can be achieved through good behavior. Predetermined actions however make the concept of responsibility a bit difficult for some to swallow.

Looking at the bolded part, you are saying that we are responsible for our decisions and actions. So they can’t be determined. You can’t have it both ways. Like I said before, environment and heredity play a role in our thinking, but when we make our pre-thoughtout decisions, we are doing it willingly, that is, with our own free will.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

WE are rational souls because of our intellect and free will (ability to make choices—both moral and mundane). I’m only saying objective moral truth is not contingent upon physical events but is that truth given by God. Some truths depend on material creation (physical existence) such as gravity and the laws of motion and scientific laws in general. Numbers can be understood by learning to count objects, yet the concept of a number is an objective (universal) truth not contingent upon physical existence. Also, geometric figures are part of objective reality. We just discover numbers and geometric figures.

Numbers and geometric figures are contingent upon physical existence they are abstract concepts we make up for the purpose of understanding physical existence. Other than these two was the only other option the supernatural? Sorry but in reality the supernatural is not considered true, scientifically, philosophically or anywhere, it has never been demonstrated with all of the motive that so many people have so I can’t consider your opinion here to be anything more than that, an opinion.

The Ten Commandments are absolute truths. The attributes of God as well.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

Loyalty is a trait inbred in most dogs. It is not a decision to be loyal, whereas in a human, loyalty is a choice.

I don’t think loyalty is a choice, some people are by nature not loyal, even to their friends and family, some people are more loyal than most with people they barely know and certainly with family and friends. Overall, loyalty is a result of your relationships and your character. The actions that concern those you are or are not loyal to are more of a choice.

One can decide to be loyal to their spouse or country or friend, or disloyal by betrayal of some kind or other. However, dogs dffer from one another just as humans differ from one another. Some dogs are more social, others shy. All I’m saying (not being an expert) is a dog does not have an understanding of right and wrong even though its actions may be heroic.

Why do they require an understanding of right or wrong in order to do something moral or have a moral capacity?

The Natural Law. Even before God revealed His Divine Law (the Ten Commandments), Natural Law was in place (in “the minds and hearts” of all human being), but it was hard to discern right and wrong. The Ten Commandments made it clear that murder, human sacrifice, thievery, deceit, etc . . . are against Natural Law and Divine Law.

Evidence, etc…

Isn’t it self-evident that the more we know and understand of our surroundings, our world, our universe, the more we are able to attribute these wonders to the souce of all things wonderful, beautiful, good, just, holy, pure, incomprehensible . . .

No, historically speaking, the more we know and learn the less useful and meaningful a God concept is.
4Horsemen;7910098:

Triangularity is the universal concept of what makes a triangle that which it is. It points to the nature of a triangle–a three-sided, three-angled figure.

Got ya, so it is essentially a description of the objective existence of triangular shapes.

(Checking a philosophy book . . .) In the various arguments for realism

, the author presents “The argument from the nature of propositions.” He gives a few examples of propositions. One is from mathematics like 2+2=4, which is necessarily true which would remain true whether or not the human mind or material world existed.

Depends on the mathematical construct used but I get what you’re saying.

A contingently

true proposition would also remain true in such a circumstance: “Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March” would remain true for all time. Even if neither the material world nor any human mind had ever existed in the first place, the proposition “There is neither a material world nor any human mind” would be true. It couldn’t be something material or mental.

It all depends on your concept of “exist”. Do things that are imagined “exist”? Does the possibility of other universes with other results effect the concept you use for the term “exist”?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Your last sentence explained the concept of free will, or call it making decisions. You agree, then, that decisions relate to “the different people playing . . .” So it’s the people who are making the decisions regarding the game. The game is not determining their decisions but presents choices.

Most certainly. The game gives limited options and the players are left to decide which option to take. How they make that decision is where the free will vs determinism debate comes in.

The intellect and will are a part of the human being not separate entities residing inside of us somewhere. Aristotle and Aquinas relate intellect and will to the spiritual part of our being.

Do you agree that it is probable that intellect and well are apart of the brain? If not, why not?

Of course with the knowledge we have now, we’d probably make some different choices. But when I think about my past life, I recall that I was at a “crossroads” on the moral path and knew that some choices were not for the best, but made these choices deliberately. I COULD have chosen the other path. Nothing determined my choice except my thought process.

Indeed and if your thought process didn’t change(why would it?) then would the result have changed? That’s what I’m asking because if the result wasn’t determined then another factor that can change and is not determined must exist. All of our previous choices could have happened differently and this factor can change them if we played the past over again. How does it work? Does it disregard our desires and the reasons we originally made the first choice? Is spontaneous and depression free suicide possible?

We usually choose what we think is good for us in one way or another, probably mostly a material good. But so many make monumental mistakes. Like suicide and murder. A young mother was upset that her husband was messing around, so she put the 3 kids in the car and drove into a deep pond. Two children were almost babies. The oldest was a 12-year-old boy. He was able to push the button to make the window go down enough so he could struggle his way out. He managed to swim to the edge and someone found him later. He related that his mother had changed her mind when the water started rising, but all he could do was save himself.

Do you think this result was not determined? What could have made it go differently, even if nothing changed? The situation was exactly the same and the mother was waiting outside the pond, here is where one decision could save her children’s and her own life. What do you think could change that decision? Would it perhaps require a better understanding of her mindset at the time? She clearly had problems and her thoughts were irrational, I don’t think we can understand or explain an irrational mind because it doesn’t make sense.

Knowing the methods of killing little babies developing in the womb . . . doesn’t this sound like killing? Murder? Evil?

Biological definition of life… Etc… Not killing… Blah blah blah.

I’ve said this plenty of times, do I have to keep repeating myself?

Self-propelled motion demonstrates some kind of sensory life. The unborn child moves in his/her mom’s womb. Isn’t that evidence enough that the child is alive?

No, that also depends on how far along in the pregnancy it is. I personally would fight against abortions occurring past the first trimester. After then the fetus grows to be capable of several of the functions that would permit the fetus to be considered biologically alive, even if it doesn’t use them.

Our choices help to form our character. We may make some choices dependent upon environmental and social/psychological constructs, but, nonetheless, we choose right or wrong regarding moral issues as well as others. We can improve our personalities with good choices too.

But were those choices determined or not? Those choices lend to our life experience as a whole, I agree but whether they were determined or not is hat the question is.

That definition of “robot” came from dictionary.com. Since you agree that decisions are made . . . , you seem to agree that we are free to make choices according to what we desire, or believe, or think is right or wrong either for ourselves or objectively, which is a good in itself.

Of course we are, just because the results are determined doesn’t mean choices and decisions are not made.

Looking at the bolded part, you are saying that we are responsible for our decisions and actions. So they can’t be determined. You can’t have it both ways. Like I said before, environment and heredity play a role in our thinking, but when we make our pre-thoughtout decisions, we are doing it willingly, that is, with our own free will.

I don’t plan to have it both ways, the results are determined, the consequences for actions are determined, without laws and punishment and safety the determined results would be chaos and suffering. That’s why the laws are in place. You keep telling me that we do things with our own free will but are yet to explain how they are not determined, what part of a decision is not determined? It might be best to answer this in response to my question of past events as that is the big point in this debate, can a historical event happen differently if we played it out again and didn’t change anything? What would cause the different outcome and how does it work?

 

[4Horsemen]

Is gravity an objective fact, or is it just an opinion?

Looks like Mr. Tugboat, or Ms. Tugboat, as the case may be, just can’t concede defeat.

 

[4Horsemen]

Numbers and geometric figures are contingent upon physical existence they are abstract concepts we make up for the purpose of understanding physical existence. Other than these two was the only other option the supernatural? Sorry but in reality the supernatural is not considered true, scientifically, philosophically or anywhere, it has never been demonstrated with all of the motive that so many people have so I can’t consider your opinion here to be anything more than that, an opinion.

Although God is involved in His Creation, we’ll put the concept of God aside and just look at objective order. When you and I think about any concept – like a dog, a triangle, redness, or of concceptualism itself – we are thinking of one and the same concept. It’s not like you are thinking about your idea of red or triangle, and I’m thinking of my own idea of these concepts with nothing in common between them. So we are entertaining in our minds the same propositions and truths. IOW, we are thinking of one and the same
truth. Thus, concepts (universals) and propositions do not exist only in the mind, subjectively, but independently of the mind, objectively.

If universals were not objective, but existed only in our minds, it would be impossible to communicate because your concepts would exist in your mind only, and my concepts would exist in my mind only.

I don’t think loyalty is a choice, some people are by nature not loyal, even to their friends and family, some people are more loyal than most with people they barely know and certainly with family and friends. Overall, loyalty is a result of your relationships and your character. The actions that concern those you are or are not loyal to are more of a choice.

You may not always choose to be loyal but are anyway because it’s part of your character, which has been formed from many, many previous choices.

Why do they require an understanding of right or wrong in order to do something moral or have a moral capacity?

Because that’s what a sense of morality implies – an understanding of a good choice or bad, right or wrong (full knowledge).

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Horsemen
The Natural Law. Even before God revealed His Divine Law (the Ten Commandments), Natural Law was in place (in “the minds and hearts” of all human being), but it was hard to discern right and wrong. The Ten Commandments made it clear that murder, human sacrifice, thievery, deceit, etc . . . are against Natural Law and Divine Law.

Evidence, etc…

Well, what evidence or argument do you have against the existence of the Natural Law? I already discussed the issue of right vs. wrong/good vs. evil. Add hate vs. love, etc . . .

Isn’t it self-evident that the more we know and understand of our surroundings, our world, our universe, the more we are able to attribute these wonders to the souce of all things wonderful, beautiful, good, just, holy, pure, incomprehensible . . .

No, historically speaking, the more we know and learn the less useful and meaningful a God concept is.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Looks like Mr. Tugboat, or Ms. Tugboat, as the case may be, just can’t concede defeat.

What exactly do you think I should concede?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Although God is involved in His Creation, we’ll put the concept of God aside and just look at objective order. When you and I think about any concept – like a dog, a triangle, redness, or of concceptualism itself – we are thinking of one and the same concept. It’s not like you are thinking about your idea of red or triangle, and I’m thinking of my own idea of these concepts with nothing in common between them. So we are entertaining in our minds the same propositions and truths. IOW, we are thinking of one and the same truth.

I wouldn’t say that, what we perceive may be similar but by no means should we consider them the same. Our perception is based on two things. One; the thing that is being perceived and Two; our perspective.

As you may have already noticed, our perspectives are extremely different and the same is true of many others.

Thus, concepts (universals) and propositions do not exist only in the mind, subjectively, but independently of the mind, objectively.

Do you think all concepts are ‘universals’? What do you mean when you say this?

If universals were not objective, but existed only in our minds, it would be impossible to communicate because your concepts would exist in your mind only, and my concepts would exist in my mind only.

Our perspective plays a large part in our conclusions, our own bias and axioms effect what we think is reality. So even when viewing or hearing or touching the same thing, we can conclude on violently different results.

You may not always choose to be loyal but are anyway because it’s part of your character, which has been formed from many, many previous choices.

I’m glad to hear we agree.

Because that’s what a sense of morality implies – an understanding of a good choice or bad, right or wrong (full knowledge).

I disagree, someone who acts out of fear rather than heroism and saves lives should be considered no less valiant. Our reasons and our understanding should not affect what happens and an event where a being knowingly puts themselves in danger to help others is moral.

Well, what evidence or argument do you have against the existence of the Natural Law? I already discussed the issue of right vs. wrong/good vs. evil. Add hate vs. love, etc . . .

My evidence and argument are based on the fact that views of good, bad and what makes something moral are completely different for many different people, the closest thing to morals that everybody agrees on are those that encourage survival and even then some people disagree that others should be awarded those same rights.

Really? Who designed the universe?

That looks like a loaded and false question.

Do you know that many scientists believe in God? Darwin did. Einstein believed in God (although not a personal God perhaps).

Darwin: "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist."

Einstein: “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.” (Order presumes intelligence, One who orders).

I’ll add one from Plato: Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of understanding."

I am well aware of these things and I never suggested that scientific progression opposes religion. What I stated was that the more we know and learn the less useful and meaningful the God concept was. God’s used to be required to explain natural phenomena or to entertain the question of how the universe came to be? Now we don’t need the God concept, it has become less useful. and subsequently less meaningful.

It’s partly a matter of semantics in trying to explain one’s position. It appears that you accept the idea of an objective reality, if I’m understanding you correctly.

I accept the concept of objective reality under the assumption that my senses relay information correctly.

If you are using your imagination, the object or concept exists in your mind, the imagination. You may imagine something outside of reality. It may also exist in reality.

But whether the thing you picture in your mind or you think you see really is what you see or what you imagine or what you conclude is another matter all together.

The idea of other universes with different concepts of reality or physical laws does not seem possible, because the Laws of Nature would necessarily be true in any physical environment in any multiverse system. To “exist” means “to be.”

As far as I’m aware, nothing contradicts the possibility of the multiverse theory, however that doesn’t make it true, I merely presented it here philosophically.

 

[4Horsemen]

What exactly do you think I should concede?

That the philosophy of determinism doesn’t explain human nature and that the philosophy of realism explains our rationality and free will. No matter how much our lives are determined, in one sense, by forces outside ourselves, like early childhood, choices made in adolescence and young adulthood, our heredity and various environmental factors, we are the ones who can choose to overcome obstacles or succumb, to be heroes or failures, to speak out or to be silent, to love or to despise, to be greedy or generous, etc . . .

That’s what the argument boils down to. I think you mentioned in a post that people are responsible for their decision and behavior. Am I right about that?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

That the philosophy of determinism doesn’t explain human nature and that the philosophy of realism explains our rationality and free will. No matter how much our lives are determined, in one sense, by forces outside ourselves, like early childhood, choices made in adolescence and young adulthood, our heredity and various environmental factors, we are the ones who can choose to overcome obstacles or succumb, to be heroes or failures, to speak out or to be silent, to love or to despise, to be greedy or generous, etc . . .

What drives that choice?

That’s what the argument boils down to. I think you mentioned in a post that people are responsible for their decision and behavior. Am I right about that?

Indeed you are.

 

[4Horsemen]

Most certainly. The game gives limited options and the players are left to decide which option to take. How they make that decision is where the free will vs determinism debate comes in.

The players make choices based on what is happening in the game, but they could have made other choices in the same game faced with the same situation.

Do you agree that it is probable that intellect and well are apart of the brain? If not, why not?

Intellect and will are the part of the person that is immaterial because when a person dies, so does the brain. However, the spiritual part of the soul, which includes intellect and will lives on. Maybe, as a materialist, you don’t believe in life after death.

Indeed and if your thought process didn’t change(why would it?) then would the result have changed? That’s what I’m asking because if the result wasn’t determined then another factor that can change and is not determined must exist. All of our previous choices could have happened differently and this factor can change them if we played the past over again. How does it work? Does it disregard our desires and the reasons we originally made the first choice? Is spontaneous and depression free suicide possible?

I’m suggesting that our thought process could change, and we’d form a different idea. You might have heard of Richard M. Weaver’s book Ideas Have Consequences. The idea must be proposed first in the intellect before it can have consequences, which I agree, can determine other ideas. But still, we can change our minds.

Do you think this result was not determined? What could have made it go differently, even if nothing changed? The situation was exactly the same and the mother was waiting outside the pond, here is where one decision could save her children’s and her own life. What do you think could change that decision? Would it perhaps require a better understanding of her mindset at the time? She clearly had problems and her thoughts were irrational, I don’t think we can understand or explain an irrational mind because it doesn’t make sense.

The result of her children drowning was determined by her choice to run the car into the pond. She didn’t have to make that choice. She could have thought about the consequences and made a moral choice for good. Her mindset was irrational, as you say, but she still made an horrendous decision that she must live with the rest of her life. That decision will certainly affect many other decisions she will have to make both moral and otherwise.

No, that also depends on how far along in the pregnancy it is. I personally would fight against abortions occurring past the first trimester. After then the fetus grows to be capable of several of the functions that would permit the fetus to be considered biologically alive, even if it doesn’t use them.

Remember: your heart was beating at 18 days. Brain waves could be picked up at around 40 days, and you were fully formed at 8 weeks. Most women don’t even realize they’re pregnant yet.

Psalm 139:13-16. “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my other’s womb”

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”

**

Of course we are, just because the results are determined doesn’t mean choices and decisions are not made.

**

You said it! I agree. We make decisions which determine results. I’ll just add that then we have to make further decisions that, hopefully, advance to better reults if our original decision was faulty.

**

I don’t plan to have it both ways, the results are determined, the consequences for actions are determined, without laws and punishment and safety the determined results would be chaos and suffering. That’s why the laws are in place

. You keep telling me that we do things with our own free will but are yet to explain how they are not determined, what part of a decision is not determined? It might be best to answer this in response to my question of past events as that is the big point in this debate, can a historical event happen differently if we played it out again and didn’t change anything? What would cause the different outcome and how does it work?**

Good question. Jumping from individual choices to a “historical event” or decision of govenments. Just to mention without derailing the thread: What led to the decision of the U.S. to enter Iraq, or Viet Nam, for that matter, or Korea, and would the results have been different had we not got involved? Yes, of course. But deciding whether they would have been better or worse is a question many still argue. So as mentioned above, our choices have consequences.

I agree with all you said above in bold. We have laws in place to keep individuals from harming others so society will flourish. As for an explanation about free will vs. determinism, I tried to explain above how our decisions affect (or determine) events in our lives, which, in turn, affect other decisions and events. So, I think we have similar thinking on this matter except that you believe every decision we make is not freely made. That’s like saying that fate is our destiny, in other words, you’d have to believe in fatalism and pre-destination. Would you agree with that?

 

[4Horsemen]

What drives that choice?

Our will power.

Indeed you are.

So we can agree on something.