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 04/26/08 - 10:11 AM:	#76
Well, I don't have time now, but your last lines are simply aggravating! You are imposing the identity of the "begetter and the begotton." But that isn't what matters. What matters is the Will which implies deserving. Which is the entire point. "We might say that my parents have no cause to complain about my existence but certainly a stranger may well do so." And what you would reply to the stranger is "Who are you to complain about my existence, you did not will me here!" But, like you say, you cannot say this to your parents, who have a protective attitude towards you as their child. Cortes, you are the one who continually equates "deserving" with "will" and that with "just." What you disagree with is simply deserving=just, but not with will=just=deserving. For example: "I am not claiming that we will ourselves to deserving. I am not arguing for that path to justice." So therefore will=/= deserving, but morality=justice. But, from your numerous other posts, will=morality. Therefore, will=morality=justice. And here is the kicker: cortes wrote: "insofar as justice is getting what we deserve...(1) That we did not will prior to our existence is certainly part of that....defines "deserve" as "to be worthy of". (2) As people generally use the term, one deserves as a result of one's actions and choices." (3) So now we see justice=deserving (1) not willing=unjust=undeserving/unworthy (2) Deserving=Willing (3) So, tying it all together, Will=morality=justice=deserving

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/26/08 - 10:53 AM:	#77
Archibald Hobbes wrote: Well, I don't have time now, but your last lines are simply aggravating! You are imposing the identity of the "begetter and the begotton." But that isn't what matters. What matters is the Will which implies deserving. Which is the entire point. I realize that not everything I have said on these subjects has been in this thread and certainly I often fail to communicate properly. Even so, I am a little surprised by this. I have pretty consistently opposed the use of "deserves". Where I have used it it has been for the purpose of showing that it leads to nihilism. (And elsewhere I argued against concern with fairness, justice, even rights.) So, for example, cortes wrote: "insofar as justice is getting what we deserve...(1) That we did not will prior to our existence is certainly part of that....defines "deserve" as "to be worthy of". (2) As people generally use the term, one deserves as a result of one's actions and choices." (3) Note the use of "insofar as" which is a fancy way of saying "if". I"ve been trying to steer the discusson away from "deserves" by showing that it is nihilistic. You are the one dragging us back to it. But let me be absolutely clear: If we got what we deserved we would not exist. The fact that our parents willed us into being does not change that. Even if (if!) our parents deserved our existence for their willful part in bringing it about, that would not imply that we deserved our existence. (Perhaps you imagine that the parent can transfer deserving, like a deed to property, to the child but the child does not deserve to receive that deed. No matter how you cut it, our existence is an undeserved gift.) Thank God life is so unfair and to hell with those who advocate giving people what they deserve. Now I did suggest briefly that I was willing to consider "fairness" and "justice" within the scope of an agreement. But we are not there yet. So let me take the opportunity to get the discussion back on track with a simpler restatement of my position: 1) We do not deserve to exist. Period. 2) We are not indebted for our existence. Period. What this implies is that we ought to live in a perpetual state of gratitude for the opportunity that life presents to us. Litkey told the story of a guy who got cancer through no fault of his own but was unable to afford health care. In his mind, that man was somehow cheated out of something he deserved. But, no, he already got more than he deserved. Indeed, a child who dies at birth already has lived longer than he deserved. Remember when you were a boy on the first morning of summer when school was out and you oppened the door and beheld the world. What ought you do? Go out and play! Here are a couple snips from Manera de el Conquistador: [A Conquistador] appreciates his unique place in the universe and the glorious opportunity that life presents to him....A Conquistador is never wanting for a purpose in life and marvels at the lack of ambition in those around him. He regards a passive life to be a wasted life. Neither an optimist nor a pessimist, he is ever hopeful, a man of faith. At this point in the discussion there is no notion of justice or fairness or and we have rejected seeking what we deserve. There is simply our undeserved existence and the wourld around us. So quit with the "will=morality=justice" business. Now the question becomes what ought we do? And deciding what we ought to do entails appraising the world around us, our environment, and in particular the existence of others each with their own will and the opportunities that cooperation (or conflict) bring. But before we go down that path, I want to be sure that we are clear on the above. Because it seems that we are still not.
_____________________ 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 04/26/08 - 07:46 PM:	#78
No, Cortes, you cannot continue as you want to. I am sorry, but you are going to have to prove that our life is undeserving. The way you have dismissed any notion of "deserve" as nihilistic is utterly mind blowing. The alternative position, your position is fantastically nihilistic. For example: cortes wrote: ) We do not deserve to exist. Period. 2) We are not indebted for our existence. Period. So therefore, any notion of deserving coming from appealing to a higher power or a higher justice is ridiculous: cortes wrote: In his mind, that man was somehow cheated out of something he deserved. But, no, he already got more than he deserved. Indeed, a child who dies at birth already has lived longer than he deserved. *FANTASTIC!* So, what is keeping me from killing everyone? I mean, hell, that bullet ended his undeserving life! How can he possibly complain? *If nihilism is the denouncement of higher meaning, or even meaning at all, then you my faithful* Cortes, are a champion of meaninglessness!** So, let us posit for a second that, to avoid your nihilistic vacuum, your two propositions that led us here are indeed not "periods" but "question marks." I know what "in so far" is really saying, and that "if" is where I want you to show me that this is really how it is. That it isn't an "if" but an "in fact." cortes wrote: But let me be absolutely clear: If we got what we deserved we would not exist. The fact that our parents willed us into being does not change that. Even if (if!) our parents deserved our existence for their willful part in bringing it about, that would not imply that we deserved our existence. (Perhaps you imagine that the parent can transfer deserving, like a deed to property, to the child but the child does not deserve to receive that deed. No matter how you cut it, our existence is an undeserved gift.) Oh, Cortes, let me be absolutely clear: Assuming that we have nothing higher than our wills, and, still standing by my previous post (which I hope you will reread) our will is what you claim to be the determinant for deserving. Surely, someone who decides to do something is deserving of that outcome! How could anyone argue that!? And, if we go back even further, one of those decisions could be willing into existence. So, if that outcome was, say, a child, for that parent that child was deserving of its life. For someone who wants the identities to be taken into account, surely you can see that in terms of the parent that child deserves life. Now, quickly, you would point out but that child doesn't deserve its life! I agree. However, let us stay focused on the reason for this "undeserving:" The child could not will before hand, nor his own existence, which means his life is undeserving, unjust. In other words, he did not choose to be born, the choice is what matters. But that choice was made for him, there was still a will. And that is why his life is deserving.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/26/08 - 08:26 PM:	#79
Archibald Hobbes wrote: No, Cortes, you cannot continue as you want to. I am sorry, but you are going to have to prove that our life is undeserving. That's fine, let's stay on the basics a bit longer then. However, I will push off some matters to be resolved later. In particular, those matters that involve the interaction of wills, i.e. "society". Archibald Hobbes wrote: The way you have dismissed any notion of "deserve" as nihilistic is utterly mind blowing. The alternative position, your position is fantastically nihilistic. So therefore, any notion of deserving coming from appealing to a higher power or a higher justice is ridiculous: That is correct. The Supreme Court of the United Nations may claim that you deserve to exist. But you did nothing to earn that. That judgement would be an undeserved gift even assuming I had any reason to respect that judgement. You might as well get a judgement from the SCUN that 1+1=3. (In case you are wondering I am purposely avoiding the topic of religion here for the benefit of our atheist friends. I hope that you will accept substitue "higher authorities" for their benefit. <))))>< ) Archibald Hobbes wrote: So, what is keeping me from killing everyone? I mean, hell, that bullet ended his undeserving* life! How can he possibly complain? *If nihilism is the denouncement of higher meaning, or even meaning at all, then you my faithful* Cortes, are a champion of meaninglessness!** As noted above, we have not yet crossed over to considering the interaction of wills. But I described earlier in this thread, or perhaps elsewhere, a simple scenario: if you and I were trapped together on an island it would obviosly be to our mutual benefit to agree not to kill one another. But that will have to wait. In the mean time, keep in mind that there is in fact nothing keeping you from killing others (though you would probably have a hard time killing everyone). That is certainly an option and one that people have taken at various times in history. You can kill others. That is a fact. Archibald Hobbes wrote: So, let us posit for a second that, to avoid your nihilistic vacuum, your two propositions that led us here are indeed not "periods" but "question marks." I know what "in so far" is really saying, and that "if" is where I want you to show me that this is really how it is. That it isn't an "if" but an "in fact." You have yet to explain how you deserve the gift of existence. I posed the points in the clearest terms to avoid any misunderstanding of what I was claiming. Now that we seem clear on it perhaps you might state your contrary position and argue for it. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Oh, Cortes, let me be absolutely clear: Assuming that we have nothing higher than our wills, and, still standing by my previous post (which I hope you will reread) our will is what you claim to be the determinant for deserving. Surely, someone who decides to do something is deserving of that outcome! How could anyone argue that!? And, if we go back even further, one of those decisions could be willing into existence. So, if that outcome was, say, a child, for that parent that child was deserving of its life. For someone who wants the identities to be taken into account, surely you can see that in terms of the parent that child deserves life. Now, quickly, you would point out but that child doesn't deserve its life! I agree. It is good that we can agree on this much. Archibald Hobbes wrote: However, let us stay focused on the reason for this "undeserving:" The child could not will before hand, nor his own existence, which means his life is undeserving, unjust. In other words, he did not choose to be born, the choice is what matters. But that choice was made for him, there was still a will. And that is why his life is deserving. That is a non-sequitor buit on a generalization that ignores the identities and roles. Per above, it was not his will. He did nothing to deserve his life. It was a gift to him. There is no getting around the giftness of existence. What you are now attempting, in effect, is to have the begetter give the begetee the deserve of the choice that was made for him. But even were that somehow possible, that would be a gift. He did nothing to deserve that choice being made for him. So his life is still not deserved.
_____________________ 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 04/26/08 - 10:04 PM: Subject: Cortes is a Bad Santa Claus	#80
Cortes, Does anyone deserve a gift? If you have children, you know exactly what I mean: Christmas morning comes filled with gifts, even though you know this year they were no where near as good as last year. A gift doesn't need to be deserved to be received. Therefore, your parents do the willing for you. Regardless if you deserve it or not. Deserve for the child in receiving is irrelevant.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/27/08 - 06:42 AM:	#81
Archibald Hobbes wrote: Does anyone deserve a gift? If you have children, you know exactly what I mean: Christmas morning comes filled with gifts, even though you know this year they were no where near as good as last year. A gift doesn't need to be deserved to be received. That is my point!!! Archibald Hobbes wrote: Therefore, your parents do the willing for you. Regardless if you deserve it or not. Deserve for the child in receiving is irrelevant. The moral of the story is that only a fool prays that he gets what he deserves. We do not want the good to be determined by people getting what they deserve. We do not want cosmic justice. We should suspect anyone who promises that they will make the world "right" by insuring that everyone gets only what they deserve. That person might as well be the Angel of Death. We want gifts. And we got gifts. And we can give gifts. Lucky us! That's not nihilism. That's life. So can we now agree that: 1) We do not deserve to exist. 2) We are not indebted for our existence. If so, then we can move forward into the consideration of interacting wills.
_____________________ 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 04/27/08 - 09:59 AM:	#82
We might not deserve out lives, but I parents did. We do not deserve to exist: but our parents deserved our existence.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/27/08 - 11:17 AM:	#83
Archibald Hobbes wrote: We might not deserve out lives, but I parents did. We do not deserve to exist: but our parents deserved our existence. Yes, but...We need to qualify this a bit. (I assume you are not a parent since you used your own parents as an example.) On the one hand, parents are in large part taking advantage of their own opportunity, their own gifts. First their existence, and second, their reproductive equipment. Parents do not deserve children in the sense that they are cheated if they can't have them. Nevertheless, their existence and reproductive equipment were gifts of which they took advantage in creating the children they did have. On the other hand, creating a child is a gift to the child; it is the creation of a willing being who receives the gift of his existence. As soon as that child starts to cry for what it wants, this reality dawns on the parents. If that child commits suicide, for example, the parents have not been cheated. So what we can say, what I said earlier, is that parents have no cause to complain at the existence of their own children. Finally, a stranger does not deserve the children's existence. (If you've ever been on a long flight with crying children you know what I mean by that.) In short, parents still should be grateful for having healthy children even if they had a willful part in their creation.
_____________________ 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 04/27/08 - 12:42 PM:	#84
Right, but the point is, that our existence is deserved: not by us, but by our parents willing us into being. Which means that our lives are deserved and therefore just, according to our parents. Our existence is not unjust, our lives are not mere unjust opportunism! The Conquistador "philosophy" would like you to believe that our life is undeserving so the exploiting of life's opportunities can be done with a reckless valor that is predicated on a fundamental misconception of both the world and the human being. More importantly, there is a foundational problem in that they push for the expression of the self in creating and accumulation of wealth and knowledge, but never answer the question "why?" The only response is a because we can, and there is nothing above us saying we should not. This claim can only be made as soon as you have generated the isolated self from all others, which you cannot possibly do, even on the terms of the "will" as "creator"-- because then we "owe" or rather, are deserving of, or even "worthy of" our existence because because of someone else's will. We are then, not isolated undeserving creatures with the ability to will, but deserving creatures with the ability to will which comes from our social, as in not isolated, nature: we all have had parents that willed us to be.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/27/08 - 01:28 PM:	#85
Archibald Hobbes wrote: Right, but the point is, that our existence is deserved: not by us, but by our parents willing us into being. Which means that our lives are deserved and therefore just, according to our parents. Our existence is not unjust, our lives are not mere unjust opportunism! Again, you are making leaps of logic discarding identities and roles. Archibald Hobbes wrote: The Conquistador "philosophy" would like you to believe that our life is undeserving so the exploiting of life's opportunities can be done with a reckless valor that is predicated on a fundamental misconception of both the world and the human being. More importantly, there is a foundational problem in that they push for the expression of the self in creating and accumulation of wealth and knowledge, but never answer the question "why?" The only response is a because we can, and there is nothing above us saying we should not. Are you so tired of this discussion that you are going to just make things up now?
_____________________ 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 04/27/08 - 03:49 PM:	#86
cortes wrote: Again, you are making leaps of logic discarding identities and roles. Are you so tired of this discussion that you are going to just make things up now? I have tried to tell you over and over, that the identities that you are imposing on the child and the parent, "the begetter and the begotten," are only useful for establishing whether the will into being is in the parent of the child. According to the child's ability to will into being, his life is undeserved, and unjust. However, because the parent's ability to will into being includes his child's life, it is both deserved and just. While WE may not have deserved life, our parents deserved our lives! I have respected your wishes of respecting identities, and have only clarified them to show you that what you are trying to argue "that our lives are unjust" is only true in terms of the immediate "us." It is not true with regard to the identity or role of our parents. I included the Conquistador comments because it was highly revealing that you depend on there not being anything to life but exploitation. You have bought an "ideology" and are trying fruitlessly to defend it.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/27/08 - 04:37 PM:	#87
Archibald Hobbes wrote: I have tried to tell you over and over, that the identities that you are imposing on the child and the parent, "the begetter and the begotten," are only useful for establishing whether the will into being is in the parent of the child. According to the child's ability to will into being, his life is undeserved, and unjust. However, because the parent's ability to will into being includes his child's life, it is both deserved and just. While WE may not have deserved life, our parents deserved our lives! I have respected your wishes of respecting identities, and have only clarified them to show you that what you are trying to argue "that our lives are unjust" is only true in terms of the immediate "us." It is not true with regard to the identity or role of our parents. Here is the specific step where you are making the leap of logic: Archibald Hobbes wrote: However, because the parent's ability to will into being includes his child's life, it is both deserved and just. In order to illustrate why this a mistake, let me put forward a related example: Let us suppose that someone has taken a dislike to you. They decide to murder you. They plot your murder and then they implement the plot. The result is that you are now dead. The murderer willed your death and therefore your death is deserved and just. Right? Same leap of logic. Archibald Hobbes wrote: I included the Conquistador comments because it was highly revealing that you depend on there not being anything to life but exploitation. You have bought an "ideology" and are trying fruitlessly to defend it. Again, this is false. Let me illustrate why this is false. It is my impression is driving your reluctance to admit that I am right, correct me if I am wrong. But within the space of opportunities that I have described is the opportunity to be Christian. There is nothing in the two points that I have been arguing for that precludes Christian morality. Now I grant you that the space of opportunities is clearly much wider than what you desire. But as I said many times, these points are just the start of the discussion and I repeatedly pointed out that we had not yet considered the interaction of wills (e.g. the conflict of your parents wills and your hypothetical murderer above). The solution you seek does not like in properties of existence and begetting. You are trying to wring water from a stone. Justification by Deserving is a nihilsitic dead end.
_____________________ 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 04/27/08 - 07:01 PM:	#88
cortes wrote: It is my impression is driving your reluctance to admit that I am right, correct me if I am wrong. But within the space of opportunities that I have described is the opportunity to be Christian. There is nothing in the two points that I have been arguing for that precludes Christian morality. Cortes: First, I can only assume that you meant that Christianity is driving my reluctance to bow to you will. I am no Christian: I am a proud and devout Atheist. There are no allusions to Christianity in particular in my posts. Second: cortes wrote: In order to illustrate why this a mistake, let me put forward a related example: Let us suppose that someone has taken a dislike to you. They decide to murder you. They plot your murder and then they implement the plot. The result is that you are now dead. The murderer willed your death and therefore your death is deserved and just. Right? Same leap of logic. Yes, this is the same "leap" of logic: it is your logic. You deserve because it was willed such, and what is deserving is just. What you will is just--deserving can even be removed. You said in an earlier post that we can kill one another. This means that it is as "just" as having children, the connection is that both outcomes were willed.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 04/27/08 - 07:32 PM:	#89
Archibald Hobbes wrote: First, I can only assume that you meant that Christianity is driving my reluctance to bow to you will. I am no Christian: I am a proud and devout Atheist. There are no allusions to Christianity in particular in my posts. Well, then, you are in a tough position. You have to be the first atheist I have known who had a penchant for "higher authority" or "something above us" regulating our behavior but so be it. Archibald Hobbes wrote: Yes, this is the same "leap" of logic: it is your logic. You deserve because it was willed such, and what is deserving is just. What you will is just--deserving can even be removed. You said in an earlier post that we can kill one another. This means that it is as "just" as having children, the connection is that both outcomes were willed. Nope, not mine. I'm not the one advocating for Justice as Deserves or for justice at all for that matter. This is your knot to untie. I'm quite content to work with opportunism.
_____________________ 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 05/08/08 - 08:03 AM:	#90
Cortes, this is a nonsense, how can you work with "opportunism" when you distinctly do not live according to "opportunism"? Sure, you will take opportunities, but i'm sure too that you are generous, friendly, and sometimes cruel - all these things perhaps? You seem to ignore the painting, the frame on which it stands, and think in terms of just the colours.
_____________________ 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: 972

Posted 05/08/08 - 09:01 AM:	#91
litkey wrote: Cortes, this is a nonsense, how can you work with "opportunism" when you distinctly do not live according to "opportunism"? Sure, you will take opportunities, but i'm sure too that you are generous, friendly, and sometimes cruel - all these things perhaps? You seem to ignore the painting, the frame on which it stands, and think in terms of just the colours. This is a good question because it exposes a mistaken assumption, your assumption that opportunity is incompatible with generosity. But the opposite is the case. Among the opportunities that I have is the opportunity to be generous. Having received gifts I have the opportunity to give them. Now, if you were to claim that I believed that I was obligated to give or that I had nothing to give then you would have a case against opportunism. But you would also have a case against generosity. Am I being generous when I pay my taxes or if I give you the Broklyn Bridge? Or when I give from my assets to charity? Generosity presuposes opportunity. I've dived into much greater detail here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/philos... and here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/covena... and here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/altrui...
_____________________ 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.