Determinism and morality: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Determinism and morality » Determinism and morality

Determinism and morality

Page: 1 2

Determinism and morality

oltfl
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/14/09 - 05:29 AM: Subject: Determinism and morality	#1
Can we look at ourselves as moral beings when our actions have been predetermined? What are the arguments a compatibilist would use for this view? Are there any well known philosophers who are compatibilists?

Dawoel
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 25, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 06/03/09 - 12:42 PM:	#2
To answer your first question, yes and as for the second...I'm not sure you actually need to be a compatibilist in order to have morality. Morality in hard determinism: OK, suppose for a moment hard determinism is true, and free will is non-existent (in reality I neither know nor care because I don't think it makes a lot of difference overall). If free will is non-existent, then moral responsibility must also be non-existent. How can you be praise- or blameworthy for an action you could not possibly have avoided? The question however is, does a non-existence of moral "responsibility," i.e., the "worthiness" of praise or blame, remove the fact that an action has a certain amount of virtue (courage, compassion etc.) and can thus be termed "moral" or "immoral"? of course not, we have a set criteria for what constitutes a moral act, so surely the "causes" of the action are a completely different matter. In other words, people are either moral or not, it's not their fault, it is either fortunate or unfortunate. Someone who suffers from a lack of virtue is no less "deserving" of compassion than someone who suffers any psychological disorder. How we deal with immorality in determinism I'll address in a moment. Confusion of free will with "will": a lot of people define free will as the difference between when the brain is controlling the body vs when the body is being controlled without the brain's input. The later is called being force, and the prior is called "will", neither of which is actually "free" in the true sense of the word, because "free" will means "having genuine alternatives to the choices you make". Now, "why" plays the most important part in this I think. If you chose to do X, it is all very well saying, "Oh, but I could have done Y", but seriously, if that was actually true, why didn't you? In order for you to choose X, there must have been some "reason" to balance it that way, otherwise you would have chosen neither because there was no "reason" to choose either. That "reason" being present, "how" could you have chosen Y, given that that reason was always going to be there to sway your decision? And even in psychology, the causes of any behaviour is determined partially by your genetics, and partially due to your experience. You did not choose your genetics, and you did not choose where you where going to be born, so how is your behaviour any fault of yours? Ultimately, something either is, or it is not (logical truth), if it "is" then it certainly "is, doesn't that mean it has a probability of 1, and if it is "not", then surely it has a probability of zero? So if anything has a probability of 1, or 0, how does indeterminism function? It would be impossible, and I think Einstein would agree (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). I mean sure we have trouble making predictions, that goes without saying, but surely that is more epistemological than metaphysical, we have a limited knowledge of a thing and it's causes and thus cannot predict it's outcome, that does not at all mean that that outcome could come about any way than how it did. All in all, all hard determinism says, is "what will happen, 'will' happen" which I would have thought was obvious given that if what will happen didn't happen then it wasn't going to happen, it's kind of a logical truth in itself really. Why I don't "actually" care if the above is true: if the above is true, it literally makes no difference to anybody's life whatsoever, save a little extra enlightenment. We do not need to change our justice system or our ethics just because people's "worthiness" is non-existent. I was not aware that someone needed to be "worthy" of my praise or compassion to receive it, nor was I aware that one needed to be "evil" in order to receive rehabilitation, or to be considered dangerous and thus must be incapacitated, or to be considered a bad example and thus needs making an example of to deter others. Those three reasons for punishing someone are not in any way dependent on free will being true, after all we lock up people with contagious diseases because they are dangerous, but we don't blame them for it. All in all I would think it better to learn "why" the rapist did it and thus solve the problem of his behaviour rather than exact some bad-tempered "revenge" on him which really is not going to solve the issue. And if one is never praised for doing socially altruistic deeds, why on earth should that person repeat them? Part of the reason we are nice to others, is so that society will be nice to us, call it self interest if you will (I call it fair mutual benefit), and, more to the point, how human beings operate whether you like it or not! So in conclusion, yes, you can be, in fact "if" you are a moral being you can't not be! The above arguments. Yes, Daniel Dennet amongst others... Edited by Incision on 06/04/09 - 11:46 AM. Reason: illiteracy

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 06/03/09 - 10:12 PM:	#3
By saying that rape is a 'problem' are you not assuming morals? Hard determinism is simple. What ever happens will happen. End of story. Everything outside of that, benefit, praise, right, wrong, etc has happened, and in another thousand years more things will happen. What determinism shows (and not just some extra enlightenment), is that everything is part of the same system and holds the same weight. A human, and their actions is just as important (or unimportant) as an electron moving through deep space. Morals are the hypocrites replacement for theism.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1903

Posted 06/03/09 - 10:58 PM:	#4
oltfl wrote: Can we look at ourselves as moral beings when our actions have been predetermined? One way of looking at it is like this: X commits a wrong. X should be punished. But, X was predetermined to commit a wrong. So, he doesn't really deserve punishment. Unluckily for him, me locking him up in a cell was predetermined. Too bad. If hard determinism is correct, we should still act as if it's not. We can't be "wrong" in doing so, because it was fate. Another way of looking at it: if I commit a wrong then I am morally responsible. But, I am a causally determined process, and so me committing a wrong is predetermined. But because I, myself, am a causally determined process, anything that this causally determined process causes to occur is still being caused by me. The "problem" people have is they think of one's actions being causally determined but then have this vague idea of a self-contained self.
I am awesome.

Dawoel
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 25, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 06/04/09 - 03:24 AM:	#5
I think a major assumption is that if moral "responsibility" goes out the window, the rest of morality follows, which I don't think is the case; I think the two are separate issues. If you choose to view actions in the context of some moral theory for example such as egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, divine command or virtue ethics (the latter is very useful, by the way), then the "causes" don't even enter into it. What matters is what actually happened and did the action or did it not meet the criteria, and as a result, how we as others react to that action. If a bad action was predetermined and consequences are also. I have a lecturer here at Aberdeen who when talking about the upcoming exam on determinism, said, "Don't come to me in a week saying you where predetermined to miss the exam because it won't help you. Why? Because despite that actually being true, I was still predetermined to fail you!" Edited by Incision on 06/04/09 - 11:48 AM. Reason: illiteracy

Mako
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Location: In transit, somewhere in Nanjing

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 314

Posted 06/04/09 - 06:13 AM:	#6
Firstly, re the op, why assume 'determinism,' considering what we now know regarding fundamental physics? Dawoel wrote: I think a major assumption is that if moral "responsibility" goes out the window, the rest of morality follows, which I don't think is the case, I think the two are separate issues. Secondly, how can responsibility and morality be separate issues? I believe 'responsibility and morality to be inexorably linked. For instance, how does a moral feature such as blame attach to agents unless one first assumes that an agent is responsible for his/her actions? Moral theories make universal claims upon agents which bind them in a such a way that they are responsible for adhering to those requirements (or acting in a manner which is consistent with them), and in turn, having to justify their actions in cases where those actions are called into question. We are responsible for those jugdements which affect others. Re determinism and morality, I believe there can be no satisfactory resolution regarding metaphysical assumptions pertaining to determinism vs. non-determinism. Determinism's physical opposite, indeterminism, doesn't necessarily imply freewill anyway and so I cannot see how either one could inform moral claims. The fact is we 'sense' that we have the capacity for free choice. And our capacities to choose, judge and act are productive (practical) capacities which can amplify agency or at least preserve it. To the extent that our choices intersect with the lives of others, we feel we can freely choose to: 1) act in support of the reasons/goals of others (ampliative of agency), 2) act in opposition to the rightful reasons/goals of others (transgression / displacement of agency) or 3) act in such a manner which is at least 'not inconsistent with' the reasons/goals of others (preserving agency) . I do believe the answer is to simply leave metaphysics out of it. "Freedom' is a 'practical' assumption. The fact that it is also a theoretical one means that any claims which derive from it must therefore be consistent with it. Determinism as a fundamental assumption poses serious problems for morality in that it entails too many inconsistencies vis-a-vis moral claims. The assumption of freedom as a practical assumption, is I believe necessary for theoretical coherency. Metaphysical assumptions such as 'determinism' which conflict with the very notion of morality. , are pointless and pose ultimately intractable problems. The solution is to thus make determinism as well a practical assumption rather than a metaphysical one: i.e. Provisionaly, human agents are assumed to be free to 'determine' ( via judgement & volition) their own actions which are seen as consequences of willed-judgement, and such actions-as-consequences (as with all actions/events) being consistent with laws of nature, are bounded necessarily by physical limits and normatively by moral limits. So in the end, determinism as well as freedom can be understood and posited as practical and thus also moral assumptions. Mako Edited by Mako on 06/04/09 - 09:11 AM
"To alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson

Ich Werde
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 66

Posted 06/04/09 - 08:17 AM:	#7
You could say that there is no morale, and take the simple approach (assume everything is matter, and whatever you do is right based on what you feel).

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1903

Posted 06/04/09 - 09:47 AM:	#8
Ich Werde wrote: You could say that there is no morale I assume you mean "morals" or "morality"? "Morale" is something completely different.
I am awesome.

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 06/04/09 - 03:22 PM:	#9
Why do you all over complicate this? We are matter, a rock is matter, a star is matter. Everything is just patterns of matter and you want to underly it with inventions such as morals? The second we find conclusive evidence that some metaphysical component is part of a 'human' (I really dislike that word), I will retract my statement, but until then, morals stay in the box with god, the spaghetti monster, and squiddog.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Dawoel
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 25, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 06/05/09 - 02:42 AM:	#10
I dunno mway, I think there is a difference between a moral, and god/spaghetti monster (btw it's "flying" spaghetti monster to quote Dawkins). I agree that a lot of people, might, be incorrect in saying x "is" wrong or x "is" right becauce "is" kind of refers to a matter of fact rather than a matter of meaning. Something that means is not the same as something that "is" afterall. I mean 1+2=3 means that when an entity is combined with two other entities like it one has three of those entities, but that it is not what it "is", what it "is" is a concept, a neuron to neuron electrical signal in the brain that constitutes a thought. So our wanting to underly it with inventions such as "morals" I guess goes in the same catagory as our wanting to underly it with "concepts" like mathematics, the only difference beinbg that maths is a tad more objective than morality is most of the time. I would agree though that, given it is our emotional drives the compel us and invariably morality merely outlines those emotions in a horrendously subjective way, reasoning out ethics is often futile.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.