Moral Freedom: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Moral Freedom » Moral Freedom

Moral Freedom
Choosing your own sense of justice and fariness

Page: 1 2 3 4

Moral Freedom

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/23/08 - 06:39 PM: Subject: Oh that Clever Willful Cortes!	#51
“The fact is that there is nothing that you could possibly have done prior to your existence that would merit your coming into being….Moral freedom is the proposition that our free will endows us with the ability (not the right, mind you) to choose our morals.” – Cortes Cortes is quick to point that our lives were undeserved, but unable to point to the ability to even choose our own existence: Cortes would have us believe that we do not deserve from the beginning because we did not choose, BUT we must champion the ability to freely choose our own goods! But quickly a miserable man responds, “Who said I ever wanted to be! Oh, where was that ability to choose in the beginning!?” Either we chose to be miserable or we did not will our miserable state. If we did the question “where did that ability to choose come from?” requires us to look above ourselves—past our own individual drives. However, even believing that the browbeaten man is merely a bundle of reactions to “forces outside of our control” also requires us to understand these “forces outside of our control.” In either case, we are not free to assume our will the ability of “good-creation.” How can we will “the good” when we cannot even will ourselves? But the Clever Cortes is willful! Cortes was also ready to say that all choices center on the ability to choose! Rather than the ability to choose is centered on our available choices! Like our cities, our states, even our wife, Cortes says are our choice, we will it so! But quickly the downtrodden and old respond so unusually vital and ambitious: “But I cannot move! Even though I would choose somewhere else, I cannot move! I will the money to leave, yet I still am stuck, I will my bones to move, my illness gone, but still it stays and aches and wrecks my soul!” The old man goes even further: “Oh what I would give to live back in the day! The city was beautiful back then,” he cries, “take me back there! I WILL IT!!” Obviously, if we have the ability to choose, send them back there—THEY WILL IT SO! Stating that “because one wills it makes it so,” must also make it possible—WHERE THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY! Right, Cortes? Apparently,Cortes has never known nostalgia or wretchedness. But even further, Cortes says that we can choose our wives and to have kids: but even under his breath you could hear his defeat. “You can choose to have kids, but not that you WILL have kids. Or, even further, you cannot WILL to have the perfect kid you WILL in your mind.” If this were true, every parent with diseased children should be jailed for willing such horror on another human being! For this child did not choose to be born, nor would he have chosen such a pitiful existence!

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/23/08 - 07:00 PM:	#52
Archibald Hobbes wrote: Cortes is quick to point that our lives were undeserved, but unable to point to the ability to even choose our own existence: Cortes would have us believe that we do not deserve from the beginning because we did not choose, BUT we must champion the ability to freely choose our own goods! But quickly a miserable man responds, “Who said I ever wanted to be! Oh, where was that ability to choose in the beginning!?” I pointed out in another thread that existence is a gift, one that can easily be returned. If you are unsatisfied with your existence, just commit suicide. I doubt that we will miss you. However, I am not saying that we do not deserve from the beginning becase we did not choose but because it is impossible to have done anything before we existed to deserve our coming into existence. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Either we chose to be miserable or we did not will our miserable state. If we did the question “where did that ability to choose come from?” requires us to look above ourselves��"past our own individual drives. However, even believing that the browbeaten man is merely a bundle of reactions to “forces outside of our control” also requires us to understand these “forces outside of our control.” In either case, we are not free to assume our will the ability of “good-creation.” How can we will “the good” when we cannot even will ourselves? Why would anyone equate willing from existence to willing into existence? We are here, but not of our own doing. But once here we can do. That seems simply evident. Archibald Hobbes wrote: But the Clever Cortes is willful! Yes, indeed! Archibald Hobbes wrote: Cortes was also ready to say that all choices center on the ability to choose! Rather than the ability to choose is centered on our available choices! Nope, I have merely argued against determinism and fate. I am well aware that choices are constrained by present circumstances. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Like our cities, our states, even our wife, Cortes says are our choice, we will it so! What I said here is that we can choose what cities and states to live in and whether and who to take as a wife. Archibald Hobbes wrote: But quickly the downtrodden and old respond so unusually vital and ambitious: “But I cannot move! Even though I would choose somewhere else, I cannot move! I will the money to leave, yet I still am stuck, I will my bones to move, my illness gone, but still it stays and aches and wrecks my soul!” The old man goes even further: “Oh what I would give to live back in the day! The city was beautiful back then,” he cries, “take me back there! I WILL IT!!” In fact, it is the poor who are among the most mobile. The rich are more accustomed to shaping their environment where they live. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Stating that “because one wills it makes it so,” must also make it possible��"WHERE THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY! Right, Cortes? Apparently,Cortes has never known nostalgia or wretchedness. I pass them on the streets every day. Archibald Hobbes wrote: But even further, Cortes says that we can choose our wives and to have kids: but even under his breath you could hear his defeat. “You can choose to have kids, but not that you WILL have kids. Or, even further, you cannot WILL to have the perfect kid you WILL in your mind.” If this were true, every parent with diseased children should be jailed for willing such horror on another human being! For this child did not choose to be born, nor would he have chosen such a pitiful existence! Choose vs. will? You do play on words. But, no, perfection is not for this world.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/24/08 - 12:59 AM:	#53
cortes wrote: I pointed out in another thread that existence is a gift, one that can easily be returned. If you are unsatisfied with your existence, just commit suicide. I doubt that we will miss you. A gift, you say? From where? Should we not then show gratitude for being GIVEN the opportunity to will? A sense of justice may come from repaying, or even respecting, our gift-giver. cortes wrote: However, I am not saying that we do not deserve from the beginning becase we did not choose but because it is impossible to have done anything before we existed to deserve our coming into existence. Ans what I am saying is that if you start with the definition of man as unjust, then it is no wonder you throw away all just actions aside from the will. This simply isn't philosophy. It's, at best, ideology. And a bad one at that. cortes wrote: Why would anyone equate willing from existence to willing into existence? We are here, but not of our own doing. But once here we can do. That seems simply evident. Well a number of idealist philosophers equate being and will. However, your formulation of some question is either poor, or purposefully obscure. Rephrase. cortes wrote: Nope, I have merely argued against determinism and fate. I am well aware that choices are constrained by present circumstances. I know, but my entire point was that you cannot have it both ways! Either: 1. We are able to will our entire existence as we see fit, and therefore we can control everything and all action can be seen as moral action because we willed it so. or 2. There are actions that we take that are not an expression of our free will because our choices are constrained from external, non-controllable forces. Therefore there is no absolute free will and therefore we ourselves are not able to will our own good as we see fit. cortes wrote: What I said here is that we can choose what cities and states to live in and whether and who to take as a wife. I know, and what I was saying is that you are wrong and horribly superficial--thinking that anecdotes and random statistical, empirical data proves the nature of the world. cortes wrote: In fact, it is the poor who are among the most mobile. The rich are more accustomed to shaping their environment where they live. I pass them on the streets every day. See above. cortes wrote: Choose vs. will? You do play on words. But, no, perfection is not for this world. I play on words to make everyone else who reads these posts laugh on the outside, when they are really crying on the inside. You did nothing to further your points nor did you even begin to refute my points. You ignored my deeper criticisms, focusing instead on what an actual poor person might have said. (The point on you not knowing nostalgia or wretchedness, was about you personally, not about seeing it in other people.) Therefore, I ask you to reevaluate your response and reread my post. For example, look again at how I started with being born and ended with a discussion of a child's birth. If we were a "gift," and have no will of our own, are we void of will? Surely we are a will of our parents. Do we owe our parents? If this thread is about "moral freedom" which lampooned justice, and since you think you have thrown away natural, universal, etc. law, I fear you are tragically mistaken.

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/24/08 - 01:46 AM:	#54
cortes wrote: I notice that you snuck in the word "complete" there. I can't let that go without notice because it is all the difference in the world. Obviously, at any instant, we are dealing with hard, unalterable facts that define our options. This post is much better (almost Grand), you must have had the operation- well done. I really like your last sentence, and "completely" agree.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 159

Posted 04/24/08 - 08:33 AM:	#55
cortes wrote: Suffice it to say that chaning someone else is an altogether different topic, and a far more difficult one. That is one reason why selfishness is a virtue. Sometimes you just have to write other people off. The question at hand is whether you ought to write yourself off. It's not about blame. It's about seeking opportunity. If you don't seek you won't find. Well the point I was making with the father and son scenario was that our fates or destinies are often intertwined. For the father, to get his son to love him is not always a simple task, it may come at a cost. You seemed to imply it was only laziness that would prevent it, that somehow the cost was effort. Our fates are broad things it could be one man's fate to die alone, another to be a loved and admired by his peers. I gave an example of my cousin, in the past with other people I have chosen to make that sacrifice because I felt it was my destiny to do so. I knew I had other options but I decided that that course of action was the right one. I made those decision because I knew opportunity was not a lottery ticket, I only appeared to sacrifice my opportunity the reality was that I didn't. I don't think anyone should write themselves off, and there are several people who are very humbled that I didn't write them off, but I chose to succumb to my fate because I felt the price of changing it was a price I would pay with my character, the contentment of my soul. I still paid a price but it was a price I consciously chose. I'm just saying I think we all choose our fate however aware of it we are and must take responsibility for it, but I make no suggestion as to what that choice should be, I don't think it’s always an easy choice. I think selfishness is only a virtue of personal success.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/24/08 - 08:57 AM:	#56
Archibald Hobbes wrote: A gift, you say? From where? Should we not then show gratitude for being GIVEN the opportunity to will? Well, now, that is an interesting question. I notice that there is a "Philosophy of Religion" forum where you can take that question. For our purposes here it is sufficient to note that you did not earn your existence and that you do, indeed, have the opportunity to will. (That is unless you are like the others here wanting to credit "society" for your existence.) Archibald Hobbes wrote: A sense of justice may come from repaying, or even respecting, our gift-giver. That would not be a gift, then, and not even a debt since there was no agreement to terms. Did you sign a promisary note when you were born? I don't recall any such. When I give someone a gift I do not expect repayment. If I expect repayment I don't hand over anything until the terms are sufficiently agreed. So let's be clear on our metaphors here. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Ans what I am saying is that if you start with the definition of man as unjust, then it is no wonder you throw away all just actions aside from the will. This simply isn't philosophy. It's, at best, ideology. And a bad one at that. No, I said life was fundamentally unjust, that our very existence was unair and that making the world just would entail removing ourselves from it insfar as "fair" and "just" means getting exactly what you deserve. Is that not obvious? I also said that people have varying concepts of justice and fairness, beliefs about how the "proper order of the world". This too is easy enough to demonstrate by a simply survey of opinion. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Well a number of idealist philosophers equate being and will. However, your formulation of some question is either poor, or purposefully obscure. Rephrase. That is more than peculiar. Are you claiming that you willed yourself into being? Are you denying that you have the power of will now that you exist? What is complicated about that difference? Archibald Hobbes wrote: I know, but my entire point was that you cannot have it both ways! Either: 1. We are able to will our entire existence as we see fit, and therefore we can control everything and all action can be seen as moral action because we willed it so. or 2. There are actions that we take that are not an expression of our free will because our choices are constrained from external, non-controllable forces. Therefore there is no absolute free will and therefore we ourselves are not able to will our own good as we see fit. To say that we "cannot have it both ways" is to presume a contradicton somewhere. There is no contradiction in my above distinction between willing into being and willing while being. Your (1) is obviously false. Who exactly advocates that? Even Buddhists who claim that all is illusion are escaping reality, not shaping it. Your (2) is very problematic. You proceed from some to all with nary a batted eyelash. Here is another possibility: 3) At any given instant we are presented with choices determined by our circumstances. The future depends, in part, on our choice at that moment, not on fate and not on luck. And in reasoning about our choices we can attach preferences to our expectated consequence from each alternative choice and then to make a choice based on that reasoning. This is what serious people mean by the term "free will". If you want to argue against a straw man, be my guest. (As to "willing our own good", which is the focus of this thread, that is but another choice shaped in part by circumstances.) Archibald Hobbes wrote: I know, and what I was saying is that you are wrong and horribly superficial--thinking that anecdotes and random statistical, empirical data proves the nature of the world. See above (3). Among the choices that one has is whether and when to move from one city to another. Is this controversial, in need of proof? Archibald Hobbes wrote: I play on words to make everyone else who reads these posts laugh on the outside, when they are really crying on the inside. Yeah, my kids are always crying, "its not fairrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!" By which they usually mean "I'm not getting my wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy." Archibald Hobbes wrote: You did nothing to further your points nor did you even begin to refute my points. You ignored my deeper criticisms, focusing instead on what an actual poor person might have said. (The point on you not knowing nostalgia or wretchedness, was about you personally, not about seeing it in other people.) I corrected your misconceptions. What is the point of arguing your "deeper criticisms" if your surface arguments are misdirected? Archibald Hobbes wrote: Therefore, I ask you to reevaluate your response and reread my post. For example, look again at how I started with being born and ended with a discussion of a child's birth. If we were a "gift," and have no will of our own, are we void of will? Surely we are a will of our parents. Do we owe our parents? If this thread is about "moral freedom" which lampooned justice, and since you think you have thrown away natural, universal, etc. law, I fear you are tragically mistaken. See above. Let's get the surface issues right first. You misrepresented my argument, I corrected you. I do think we could have an interesting discussion here. You are a serious person with serious ideas. But you too qiuickly assumed you understood what I was arguing and made several mistakes in presenting a counter-argument that rested on that mistaken understanding. Your original post borders on arguing with a strawman.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/24/08 - 09:49 AM:	#57
Okay, let us start again then. Where did our ability to will and reason come from? Obviously we didn't will it so, therefore it must have come from somewhere. Willing into being, and willing while being. Willing into being: obviously you willed your children into existence--right? They didn't just happen, did they? How could they? They might not have needed to will themselves into existence, but surely you did that for them, right? And this comes from your ability to will while being. Therefore, if the just relies on will, like you claim, then, really existence is just. Life then is not an unjust opportunism, it could be just a just opportunism, but now we have to even push opportunism towards clarification.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/24/08 - 10:46 AM:	#58
Archibald Hobbes wrote: Where did our ability to will and reason come from? Obviously we didn't will it so, therefore it must have come from somewhere. Yes, you are correct, we did not will our will and reason into being any more than we willed ourselves into being. It is sufficient for this discussion to recognize that they came from without, not from within. As to where they came from, everyone has their own opinion (nature, God, "society"), I have mine, but we don't have to decide that here to recognize the simple fact that our existence, our will, and our reason are undeserved gifts and all that implies about the injustice of the world. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Willing into being, and willing while being. Willing into being: obviously you willed your children into existence--right? They didn't just happen, did they? How could they? They might not have needed to will themselves into existence, but surely you did that for them, right? And this comes from your ability to will while being. Well, I certainly made willful choices that had the consequence of their coming into being. So, yes, their existence was a consequence (in part) of my willing while being. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Therefore, if the just relies on will, like you claim, then, really existence is just. Life then is not an unjust opportunism, it could be just a just opportunism, but now we have to even push opportunism towards clarification. It is rather bad taste to cram an argument into a sentence that begns with "therefore". And you need to be a little more cautious about premature generalization. I am quite pleased with the existence of my children and my willful part in that process. Insofar as justice is me getting my way, their existence is therefore justified. However, none of them did anything to deserve being born. Insofar as justice is people getting what they deserve, their existence is unjust. Nor do they owe me anything for their existence. I did not condition their birth on any such debt. I have to earn their affections every day. Rather, what I have given them is the opportunity to live their own lives. That was my gift to them. And I teach them to take the best advantage of that opportunity.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/24/08 - 07:03 PM:	#59
cortes wrote: It is sufficient for this discussion to recognize that they came from without, not from within. As to where they came from, everyone has their own opinion (nature, God, "society"), I have mine, but we don't have to decide that here to recognize the simple fact that our existence, our will, and our reason are undeserved gifts and all that implies about the injustice of the world. But yet, we come into being because of a parental will, cortes wrote: Well, I certainly made willful choices that had the consequence of their coming into being. So, yes, their existence was a consequence (in part) of my willing while being. You qualify it, sensing the danger. In part? In part of what? was not the ability to reproduce a willful decision that was followed by willful actions? Certainly there were circumstances involved, but you would will through all obstacles until there was a pregnancy. Surely you are not going to say it was a divine birth! But you continue. Willfully: cortes wrote: Insofar as justice is me getting my way, their existence is therefore justified. However, none of them did anything to deserve being born. Insofar as justice is people getting what they deserve, their existence is unjust. Please clarify: Is justice getting what you want, or is it getting what you deserve. That is the largest problem that I have been having with your posts. Either justice is willing, or it is deserving it cannot be both. I'll explain. Justice as Deserving: I did something, the consequences of which are either deserved or undeserved. Justice as Will: I did something, because I did something it must be just. Therefore if your children were willed, the outcome is just according to this definition. However, if your children's lives themselves are undeserved, then the will, any will, is certainly not enough to justify their existence. Which brings us to our second point: Willing into being, willing while being. You did will them into being, which means that they are a product of your will. And seeing as you were the gift-giver, you are responsible for their being. Willing while being has directly led to willing into being: the distinction becomes confounded. The external factor conditioning our existence is in fact the will of another, which willed us into being from their ability to will while being. The importance is twofold: One, if justice is determined by the will, then starting from your point that our existence is unjust because we weren't willed, and therefore we can disregard all others (society) in the formulation and expression of our will ONLY if we assume that we cannot will into being other individuals. However, if we can will into being, then our existence is not unjust, it does not lack will, and we must therefore regulate the "unjust" and belligerent actions we take in formulating and expressing our will. Two, if justice is not determined by the will, but by what one deserves, (the second part of your argument), then the will to exist and to come into being has no bearing on our ability to deserve. Moreover, if there is will, then all wills must be regulated to what one deserves, it cannot be a free-for-all of the will of all against all. Deserving requires an objective moral standard that is not predicated on the subjective will, for we all assume (wrongly at times) that what we do in a given situation is right. Therefore all outcomes are fair game because we willed it. This does not, however, make all outcomes fair/just, because it doesn't take into account what one deserves. Deserving and willing are opposed to each other as the definition for justice.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/24/08 - 07:51 PM:	#60
Archibald Hobbes wrote: You qualify it, sensing the danger. In part? In part of what? was not the ability to reproduce a willful decision that was followed by willful actions? Certainly there were circumstances involved, but you would will through all obstacles until there was a pregnancy. Surely you are not going to say it was a divine birth! I think Mrs. Cortes would be offended if I took all the credit. (And the doctors did their part, etc...) I'm so big-hearted that I'm willing to share the credit. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Please clarify: Is justice getting what you want, or is it getting what you deserve. That is the largest problem that I have been having with your posts. Either justice is willing, or it is deserving it cannot be both. Well, now, that is the question. The socialists in these threads have argued that justice is getting what you deserve (or even getting the same as everyone else). Now I have at times used my own definition of justice: the world is properly ordered when everyone recognizes that I, Hernan Cortes, am a living god. It certainly beats Rawls original position and it is a universal ethic so Kant would be happy. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Justice as Deserving: I did something, the consequences of which are either deserved or undeserved. Justice as Will: I did something, because I did something it must be just. Therefore if your children were willed, the outcome is just according to this definition. However, if your children's lives themselves are undeserved, then the will, any will, is certainly not enough to justify their existence. You are simply restating my original agument: that what you call Justice as Deserving entails removing ourselves from existence. What is there to recommend that concept of justice that we would use it? Archibald Hobbes wrote: Which brings us to our second point: Willing into being, willing while being. You did will them into being, which means that they are a product of your will. And seeing as you were the gift-giver, you are responsible for their being. Willing while being has directly led to willing into being: the distinction becomes confounded. The external factor conditioning our existence is in fact the will of another, which willed us into being from their ability to will while being. Sorry, it is only confounded if you confuse me with my children. I warned you about premature generalization. Your following points build on this error. I will try to untangle them as best I can. Archibald Hobbes wrote: One, if justice is determined by the will, then starting from your point that our existence is unjust because we weren't willed,... Correction: I said that our existence is undeserved, unjust by Justice as Deserving. Archibald Hobbes wrote: ...and therefore we can disregard all others (society) in the formulation and expression of our will ONLY if we assume that we cannot will into being other individuals. However, if we can will into being, then our existence is not unjust, it does not lack will, and we must therefore regulate the "unjust" and belligerent actions we take in formulating and expressing our will. Even you must have suspected that there was something wrong here. What you are arguing, in essence, is that because I can beget children I owe something to "society". That is certainly a good demonstration of why the above confounding is probelmatic. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Two, if justice is not determined by the will, but by what one deserves, (the second part of your argument), then the will to exist and to come into being has no bearing on our ability to deserve. Moreover, if there is will, then all wills must be regulated to what one deserves, it cannot be a free-for-all of the will of all against all. Deserving requires an objective moral standard that is not predicated on the subjective will, for we all assume (wrongly at times) that what we do in a given situation is right. Therefore all outcomes are fair game because we willed it. This does not, however, make all outcomes fair/just, because it doesn't take into account what one deserves. But I am not the one claiming that people deserve anything. Quite the contrary, I have shown that people deserve nothing and that Justice as Deserving is nihilistic. If your intent is to rescue Justice as Deserving, you'll need to address that problem. All you have done is to elaborate on the problems it causes. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Deserving and willing are opposed to each other as the definition for justice. Perhaps this might be worth returning to after you have corrected for the above confounding.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/24/08 - 09:51 PM:	#61
You incorrectly assume that I am saying that you owe something to "society," yet tragically you prove simply that in your following lines: "I think Mrs. Cortes would be offended if I took all the credit. (And the doctors did their part, etc...) I'm so big-hearted that I'm willing to share the credit." Yet then you say that you owe nothing to anyone: "What you are arguing, in essence, is that because I can beget children I owe something to "society". Of course, as a God you could have merely willed your children into being. However, because you decided to be a living God, you confine your powers of will to the mere mortal, the human. What you essentially prove is that the ability to will requires the cooperation of other wills to achieve your intended willed outcome. What this means is that you do, in fact, owe something to society: if your wife wills children she obviously needs you to will them with her, and supposedly it is a good thing you and Mrs. Cortes decided to procreate. Even hinting at the social cooperation of wills means that merely willing is not equivalent to justice. Therefore the proposition that will=justice is wrong, and therefore our existence is not predicated on injustice, and that means that we cannot just will as we will and call it justice. Also, because a discourse requires more points than merely stating that someone has confounded something, I would hope that you would explain what is being so "horribly" misrepresented.

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/25/08 - 01:51 AM:	#62
When speaking or thinking about "willing" it needs to be remembered the different distinctions of the term that people bring to it, or the different ways that the will (or "will) is used. Saying that "I willed my children into existence." sounds ridiculous. We are purely determined to have children, it is our biological make-up, it is primeval urge clearly outside whatever you may reason. In many instances, after men have had children they have less sex, less resources, less sleep, less fun, and less attention - it would be "reasonable" for a man to shoot himself in the head rather than have kids, that is, if he were thinking rationally. I don't have kids, and the above could be argued over-simplistic and rather subjective - but the truth remains - we are designed to have children; to say "I will to have children" reads tautologous: you will sure, but there is no "I" or you can have it the converse- there is the "I" but so what - it is doing the willing in any case. Think in terms of the Cartesian "I think therefore I am." I think it was Kant that successfully first shot this down.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/25/08 - 02:09 AM: Subject: The Will to Power? or The Power to Will?	#63
litkey wrote: We are purely determined to have children, it is our biological make-up, it is primeval urge clearly outside whatever you may reason. Well of course there are certain mechanics involved in child-making, but none of that matters. Instead, rather than willing to have children (and go through those mechanics) you have now placed a instinctual determinism on our shoulders. *How far does instinct reason?* For surely, the race would be dead if every male reasoned instead of following his instincts! Hooray for instincts! Returning to the willing into existence, if it sounds god-awful, it is not my fault! This is just the position I am trying to expand and logically follow and understand in relation with justice. But we can agree that we will to have children, and by will I mean exert our energies as such--no reasoning necessary. The mechanics may be naturally designed, but the will isn't. Can we will not to will to have kids? Of course! We may have an urge, and we can indulge that urge--or not. It is a matter of *willpower*.

jnuzzo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 24, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/25/08 - 02:48 AM:	#64
morality moves and changes. as if you were swimming and consistently needed to alter the way you swam in order to coincide with the changing motion of the water. if you were swimming beside millions of others, you would also have an affect and be effected by each other by the way you dispersed the water around you. so i think, that morality is an ever changing environment that is swam in and not simply a swimming action that is made, all subsequently effected in a social environment by the motions of all those in your societal proximity. when in rome, do as the romans do was the way it always seemed to go in some way or another ... still does if you consider things on multiple levels ...

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/25/08 - 08:22 AM:	#65
Archibald Hobbes wrote: You incorrectly assume that I am saying that you owe something to "society,"... I'll let you explain yourself what you meant by: Archibald Hobbes wrote: ...we must therefore regulate the "unjust" and belligerent actions we take in formulating and expressing our will... But as we see below, that was obviously what you meant. Archibald Hobbes wrote: ...yet tragically you prove simply that in your following lines: "I think Mrs. Cortes would be offended if I took all the credit. (And the doctors did their part, etc...) I'm so big-hearted that I'm willing to share the credit." I am simply acknowledging facts here, not claiming a debt to anyone for those facts. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Yet then you say that you owe nothing to anyone: "What you are arguing, in essence, is that because I can beget children I owe something to "society". Of course, as a God you could have merely willed your children into being. However, because you decided to be a living God, you confine your powers of will to the mere mortal, the human. What you essentially prove is that the ability to will requires the cooperation of other wills to achieve your intended willed outcome. This is entirely unremarkable. This line of thought leads to willful cooperation, not debt or repayment of debt. Archibald Hobbes wrote: What this means is that you do, in fact, owe something to society: if your wife wills children she obviously needs you to will them with her, and supposedly it is a good thing you and Mrs. Cortes decided to procreate. Even hinting at the social cooperation of wills means that merely willing is not equivalent to justice. Therefore the proposition that will=justice is wrong, and therefore our existence is not predicated on injustice, and that means that we cannot just will as we will and call it justice. This does not follow at all. You have taken a wrong turn here. It is a complete non-sequitor. Social cooperation does not require debt. It only requires a meeting of minds. Mrs. Cortes and I decided, together, to have children. At various points we decided to engage the cooperation of others (e.g. the doctors). At no point in this process does "debt" or "owe" occur. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Also, because a discourse requires more points than merely stating that someone has confounded something, I would hope that you would explain what is being so "horribly" misrepresented. I thought it was obvious from the context, but let me elaborate: cortes wrote: Archibald Hobbes wrote: Which brings us to our second point: Willing into being, willing while being. You did will them into being, which means that they are a product of your will. And seeing as you were the gift-giver, you are responsible for their being. Willing while being has directly led to willing into being: the distinction becomes confounded. The external factor conditioning our existence is in fact the will of another, which willed us into being from their ability to will while being. Sorry, it is only confounded if you confuse me with my children. I warned you about premature generalization. The distinction between willing into being and willing while being remains clear in spite of your attempt to confound them. The confusion only arises when you abstract away the distinction between myself and my children and attempt to generalize about people interchangably. But in the process of that abstraction you are discarding the key distinction. The confounding is a result of that discarding of fact, not of the human condition.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/25/08 - 08:26 AM:	#66
litkey wrote: Saying that "I willed my children into existence." sounds ridiculous. We are purely determined to have children, it is our biological make-up, it is primeval urge clearly outside whatever you may reason. Why does it seem like everytime I turn my back you are peddling determinism again? Certainly you can at least acknowledge that people have a choice between using a condom and not. litkey wrote: In many instances, after men have had children they have less sex, less resources, less sleep, less fun, and less attention - it would be "reasonable" for a man to shoot himself in the head rather than have kids, that is, if he were thinking rationally. That rather presupposes certain priorities, doesn't it? Suffice it to say that I do not regrest my choice to have children.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/25/08 - 08:29 AM:	#67
Archibald Hobbes wrote: *How far does instinct reason?* For surely, the race would be dead if every male reasoned instead of following his instincts! Hooray for instincts! Most males from the age of 12 (roughly) to 18 work almost from the limbic system - feeding, fucking, and fighting - - and also sleeping: the male does not think about this, you can call this the will of instinct if you prefer, and I actually like the phrasing, but you need to be aware that there is the driver of Mr Determinism at the wheel of the bus. But we can agree that we will to have children, and by will I mean exert our energies as such--no reasoning necessary. The mechanics may be naturally designed, but the will isn't. Can we will not to will to have kids? Of course! We may have an urge, and we can indulge that urge--or not. It is a matter of *willpower*. I'm 30, and the thought is going through my head, but because I am a party animal, a selfish person, and wants to hump girls all the time - I will be working purely against myself. I will probably be dead before i'm 50, and what for? I am being rhetorical ofcourse, and exaggerating (slightly) - but you can see the problem here - If there was a will, wouldn't it will something positive, healthy, intelligent - and do so for the host carrier of the "will."
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/25/08 - 08:29 AM:	#68
Archibald Hobbes wrote: But we can agree that we will to have children, and by will I mean exert our energies as such--no reasoning necessary. The mechanics may be naturally designed, but the will isn't. Can we will not to will to have kids? Of course! We may have an urge, and we can indulge that urge--or not. It is a matter of *willpower*. The later is more accurate than the former. Will is not merely the expenditure of effort but the implementation of choice. We may take advantage of our opportunities but we can reason that there are multiple opportunities among which we may choose. Litkey has chosen to not have kids. One way or another he is implementing his will in this regard if only to prevent what would otherwise occur naturally.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/25/08 - 08:33 AM:	#69
cortes wrote: I notice that you snuck in the word "complete" there. I can't let that go without notice because it is all the difference in the world. Obviously, at any instant, we are dealing with hard, unalterable facts that define our options. I agreed with this point.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/25/08 - 09:04 AM:	#70
cortes wrote: The later is more accurate than the former. Will is not merely the expenditure of effort but the implementation of choice. We may take advantage of our opportunities but we can reason that there are multiple opportunities among which we may choose. Litkey has chosen to not have kids. One way or another he is implementing his will in this regard if only to prevent what would otherwise occur naturally. Look, Cortes, the confounding of Willing into being and Willing while being is quite blatant. With having children, you willed them (with the help of others, as you quickly pointed out), into being. Willing while being, willed into being. Really, it is quite simple. The extraction is merely to show you that you, a human being, beget another human being. The abstraction is in fact. How else can you point to litkey and say, "Well we can use a condom or not" and not believe this confounding as true?--to say we can will and not will into being. This is a decision of the willing while being. Moreover, the point of fact, that you needed cooperation to complete what you will is simply that: a fact. But, this is a tricky fact for the formulation of Will=Justice, which is what you are trying to put forth in opposition to determinism. (Your contentions with determinism are another creature altogether, and maybe even justly founded.) The point here is that if you need other wills to successfully will what you will, then there is a movement away from the individual will, towards a cooperation of individual wills . This cooperation of wills, in fact, is the basis for justice---which is, if I am not mistaken, was the original topic of the board.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/25/08 - 09:59 AM:	#71
litkey wrote: cortes wrote: I notice that you snuck in the word "complete" there. I can't let that go without notice because it is all the difference in the world. Obviously, at any instant, we are dealing with hard, unalterable facts that define our options. I agreed with this point. Ok, so in this context the unalterable facts would be our reproductive equipment and the options are, minimally, whether or not to use a condom. I could suggest other options but that alone is sufficient to make procreation an act of will.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/25/08 - 10:08 AM:	#72
Archibald Hobbes wrote: Look, Cortes, the confounding of Willing into being and Willing while being is quite blatant. Sorry, they are most easily distinguished so long as you don't drop the identity/roles of the parties involved. Archibald Hobbes wrote: With having children, you willed them (with the help of others, as you quickly pointed out), into being. Willing while being, willed into being. I did not will myself into being while willing my children into being. Again, you are confouned because you are dropping details that are, in fact, important. Archibald Hobbes wrote: The extraction is merely to show you that you, a human being, beget another human being. Agreed. Archibald Hobbes wrote: How else can you point to litkey and say, "Well we can use a condom or not" and not believe this confounding as true?--to say we can will and not will into being. This is a decision of the willing while being. I can will my children into being while I am being. Keep the details in there. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Moreover, the point of fact, that you needed cooperation to complete what you will is simply that: a fact. In one way or another everything we do takes advantage of our environment. In some cases that means obtaining the cooperation of other willing beings. (Perhaps through persuasion or even cooercion, e.g. by rape.) Archibald Hobbes wrote: The point here is that if you need other wills to successfully will what you will, then there is a movement away from the individual will, towards a cooperation of individual wills . This cooperation of wills, in fact, is the basis for justice---which is, if I am not mistaken, was the original topic of the board. As I pointed out prevoiusly, cooperation of wills is not a debt or repayment of debt to society. So can we agree that: a) We do not deserve our existence and Justice by Deserving is nihilistic? b) That we do not owe anyone for our existence having not agreed to any debt as a condition to existence? Once those points of fact are accepted then we can begin to explore the very obvious advantages of cooperation which, in fact, is just another form of opportunity within constraints of fact. We can build a concept of justice on this but it will be one founded on agreement, not on a debt to society. Edited by cortes on 04/25/08 - 10:16 AM
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/25/08 - 10:10 AM:	#73
jnuzzo wrote: when in rome, do as the romans do was the way it always seemed to go in some way or another ... still does if you consider things on multiple levels ... The key question that "moral freedom" poses is whether morality is a choice or a circumstance. Are you proposing to adapt a morality in response to the environment or to adopt the morality of the environment?
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Archibald Hobbes
Endowed Chair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/25/08 - 02:54 PM:	#74
cortes wrote: I did not will myself into being while willing my children into being. Again, you are confouned because you are dropping details that are, in fact, important. I can will my children into being while I am being. Keep the details in there. I have never maintained that your existence is by your will! You are giving me a position that I have never even alluded to. What I have been saying all along, is in fact your latter statement, with which you agree with me. Obviously a willed being can will other beings into existence, that is agreeable and most reasonable. HOWEVER, You are not willing to go as far as this pushes us to go. You say that our lives are undeserved because we did not will prior to existence, and therefore our existence is unjust. Undeserved is unjust. We did not deserve existence, because we did not will it. But, Cortes, do we still will ourselves to maintain our undeserved existence? Of course not! Sure I can kill myself, but even if I don't are we not mortal and going to die? Of course we are. Therefore, it becomes clear that the equation of willing and deserving is itself undeserving. If we cannot will ourselves into being at conception, can we will ourselves after our ability to will? Can we will our existence. If not, then everything is undeserved and there is no morality! Deserving as willing as justice is what is nihilistic, not deserving as justice. You have two propositions, Cortes: Willing while being, and Willing into being. We know this and have been here time and time again. You cannot will yourself into being. Therefore we are undeserving of existence because our lives were without a will. However when you are willing while being you are able to will into being. Which means that you can, in fact, will another life into being with your will. If a will is what determines what is just, then the creation of the life by you is just. It is not the will of the baby to exist, but the criteria is not your will=just, but will equals just. And what is just is deserving. The equation is then will=just=deserving. You deserve what you will, that is justice. THEREFORE *You cannot will yourself into being, but your existence is just and deserved because there was a will into being by those that will while being.* cortes wrote: b) That we do not owe anyone for our existence having not agreed to any debt as a condition to existence? We do not "owe" as in the requirement to repay, but most certainly anyone would say you "owe" your existence to a number of factors, mainly the wills of your parents to beget you. You may not have willed it yourself, but it most certainly is just because the identity of the original willer is still being maintained: you parent's will is just because they willed it and therefore the outcome is deserved--the outcome being you, willful Cortes.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 04/25/08 - 04:08 PM:	#75
Archibald Hobbes wrote: I have never maintained that your existence is by your will! You are giving me a position that I have never even alluded to. What I have been saying all along, is in fact your latter statement, with which you agree with me. Obviously a willed being can will other beings into existence, that is agreeable and most reasonable. My complaint is that you are confounding willing into being with willing while being because you are abstracting identity and roles in the process of begetting. I am pointing out that if the roles are kept in mind, there is cno onfounding the two. Archibald Hobbes wrote: You are not willing to go as far as this pushes us to go. You say that our lives are undeserved because we did not will prior to existence, and therefore our existence is unjust. Undeserved is unjust. We did not deserve existence, because we did not will it. I was making a broader claim than that: insofar as justice is getting what we deserve then our existence is unjust. That we did not will prior to our existence is certainly part of that. Websters defines "deserve" as "to be worthy of". As people generally use the term, one deserves as a result of one's actions and choices. (E.g. "what did he do to deserve that?") Archibald Hobbes wrote: But, Cortes, do we still will ourselves to maintain our undeserved existence? Of course not! Sure I can kill myself, but even if I don't are we not mortal and going to die? Of course we are. Interestingly, I look at your examples and conclude the opposite. Insofar as we will to live we make choices conducive to that. Someone who wills not to live will jump off a bridge. The fact that we are mortal does not change this, it only illuminates the lmits of our will. For the most part, people struggle for life to the very end. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Therefore, it becomes clear that the equation of willing and deserving is itself undeserving. If we cannot will ourselves into being at conception, can we will ourselves after our ability to will? Can we will our existence. If not, then everything is undeserved and there is no morality! Deserving as willing as justice is what is nihilistic, not deserving as justice. But I am not claiming that we will ourselves to deserving. I am not arguing for that path to justice. (In fact, I generally prefer the concept of morality to justice.) Archibald Hobbes wrote: You cannot will yourself into being. Therefore we are undeserving of existence because our lives were without a will. However when you are willing while being you are able to will into being. Which means that you can, in fact, will another life into being with your will. Correct to here. Archibald Hobbes wrote: If a will is what determines what is just, then the creation of the life by you is just. Here you are being overly general. If a will determinse what is just then the creation of that will is justified to that will. (Which is why parents tend to have a protective attitude to their children.) Archibald Hobbes wrote: And what is just is deserving. Now why would you claim that? That is a non-sequitor. Archibald Hobbes wrote: We do not "owe" as in the requirement to repay, but most certainly anyone would say you "owe" your existence to a number of factors, mainly the wills of your parents to beget you. I understand what you are saying here, it is a different meaning of "owe" and given the ambiguity of the word I would urge you not to use it that way as it will almost certainly lead to confusion. You can make that statment in better ways. Archibald Hobbes wrote: You may not have willed it yourself, but it most certainly is just because the identity of the original willer is still being maintained: you parent's will is just because they willed it and therefore the outcome is deserved--the outcome being you, willful Cortes. Again, you are introducing "deserved" which has no utility here. At best, my parents deserved my existence and I deserve my continuance of existence in that these are the results of willful choices but as with "owe", "deserve" is an invitation to confusion. In particular, this "justice" and "deserving" is between the begetter and the begotton. We might say that my parents have no cause to complain about my existence but certainly a stranger may well do so. Edited by cortes on 04/25/08 - 04:13 PM
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.