Are our attitudes toward pedos actually endangering our children?

Homepage Forums Science Are our attitudes toward pedos actually endangering our children?

This topic contains 85 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 2 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 86 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45828

    Unseen
    Participant

    A wise observation. As I had pointed out to Unseen earlier, to deny Volition and yet to speak of moral responsibility is contradictory. “One these things is not like the other…”

    We can hold people responsible without introducing morality. All morality does is allow people who feel they are morally superior to run rampant over those they dislike and feel good about it. If someone is going to make another person kneel and then shoot them in the back of the head, there’s probably some belief in morality involved that justifies them in doing so.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.
    #45830

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I agree with you at least as to those who are convinced of strict determinism. I’ve indicated already that position is incompatible with moral responsibility.

    Your argument seems to be that determinism can’t be true because were it so, there would be no moral responsibility. It just now occurred to me that that’s a variation on a commonly-offered argument for God. “God must exist because if He didn’t, then people would have no reason to be moral.” So, not only do you think that a deterministic world is a world without a moral dimension, but you must also believe in God by the same logic.”

    I am just gonna concede I don’t know the answers to this problem. If I shine a bright light in your eyes 100 times without warning, each time your reaction will be slightly different. Besides closing your eyes, you may dodge to the left, the right, raise your hands, etc. There will be a 1 to 1 cause/effect, sure, but there is a probability function that appears to be “choices”(unlike with inanimate material). That does point to some sort of duality. And well, let’s agree “thoughts” are unique to sentient beings and even though their origin, transmission, and reception requires matter, thoughts themselves seem unique in the universe.

    #45831

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen: Your argument seems to be that determinism can’t be true because were it so, there would be no moral responsibility.

    Not a clue where you got that notion.

    There are many ways to deny free will. I can’t see how any person in their right mind and with a modicum of intelligence could believe in absolute unfettered free will. I have indicated that if one takes the position that the universe has unfolded in a determined and unerring path (10 billion light years ago sufficient knowledge of physics would show that Enco would be in a store interrogating liberals on a pale blue dot while a black widow is soon to cause him excruciating pain and is now hidden in a drawer behind the counter) then moral responsibility is impossible. It is utterly meaningless. Whether the universe is like that i have no idea. But for those who deny free will on that basis the conclusion as to moral responsibility is undeniable. Although i was thinking today that maybe you could weasel a way out of that by positing the block universe.

    I’ve also made that observation that whatever our position as to free will we all tend to behave as though we all possess it. We have no choice in the matter.

    #45832

    Unseen
    Participant

    @jake

    Unseen: Your argument seems to be that determinism can’t be true because were it so, there would be no moral responsibility.

    Not a clue where you got that notion.

    Fine, I misunderstood. Put it in a correct or more correct one-sentence formulation for us.

    Then…

    Clarify. What is the difference between someone being responsible and being morally responsible for an act? I think the word “moral” and all of the related words built off it add no more meaning than saying someone did something with their free will.

    Example #1: It’s discovered that John is responsible for having sex with his fourteen year old daughter.

    Example #2: It’s discovered that John is morally responsible for having sex with his fourteen year old daughter.

    Since you think morality is so important, what did that one word add to the second example?

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.
    #45835

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, i have had a problem with that word for a long time. It is not as slippery as spiritual, nor is it as worthless as frankly. I take the word in its generally accepted definition in treating of right and wrong. I object to its association with religion. The idea that we are born tainted or we have fucked up (sinned) and it is so reprehensible we aint going to the good place unless we say 40 hail marys and look the other way as the priest is boning kids.

    In those two examples adding morally to responsible is to judge the act vile. It is a form of condemnation or blame for an act. It is so bad that significant punishment is warranted. But in that primitive culture that introduce kids to sex with adults that word would be inapposite.

    #45838

    Davis
    Moderator

    Unseen, it is an illusion that we make decisions if we cannot but do what we have done. Adding “another level” or talking about “the every day” as though it is somehow divorced from determinism is just a gross copout. I don’t understand how situating it in the “every day” avoids the consequences of your certainty that there is no free will.  No introducing of “levels” make moral responsibility meaningful if one cannot have done but what they did. If you are without free will, you cannot make decisions, you cannot do otherwise, you cannot be responsible for anything.

    You simply seem incapable of admitting the repercussions of a world without free will. If throwing in “levels” or “the every day” makes it easier for you to talk about things like moral responsibility, so be it. Just throw out your intellectual integrity while you do that.

    #45839

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, i have had a problem with that word for a long time. It is not as slippery as spiritual, nor is it as worthless as frankly. I take the word in its generally accepted definition in treating of right and wrong. I object to its association with religion. The idea that we are born tainted or we have fucked up (sinned) and it is so reprehensible we aint going to the good place unless we say 40 hail marys and look the other way as the priest is boning kids.

    In those two examples adding morally to responsible is to judge the act vile. It is a form of condemnation or blame for an act. It is so bad that significant punishment is warranted. But in that primitive culture that introduce kids to sex with adults that word would be inapposite.

    The problem with adding “moral” to the equation is that it refers to morals and morality which vary from place to place and most often are held forth by religions. That’s the difference between something being immoral and something being unethical.

    You seem to be saying that we can’t condemn an action without calling it “immoral” or that we can’t hold people to account without it. In fact, we do it all the time, even through the judicial system. The judicial system has no business being a moral arbiter.

    #45840

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, it is an illusion that we make decisions if we cannot but do what we have done. Adding “another level” or talking about “the every day” as though it is somehow divorced from determinism is just a gross copout. I don’t understand how situating it in the “every day” avoids the consequences of your certainty that there is no free will. No introducing of “levels” make moral responsibility meaningful if one cannot have done but what they did. If you are without free will, you cannot make decisions, you cannot do otherwise, you cannot be responsible for anything.

    You simply seem incapable of admitting the repercussions of a world without free will. If throwing in “levels” or “the every day” makes it easier for you to talk about things like moral responsibility, so be it. Just throw out your intellectual integrity while you do that.

    There are no consequences to asserting there is no free will, though, are there? We go on as always, don’t we? We simply, in doing so, ignore what must be going on behind the scenes where there is no miraculous way to exempt ourselves from our neurological goings on and whatever our nature has us doing.

    Anyway, I suggest that if you want to continue our “proofs by repetition,” that we do so in yet another free will thread, where I will join you.

    Let’s get back to the OP, if you don’t mind.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.
    #45843

    Unseen
    Participant

    I know I said “Let’s get back to the OP,” but I ran into this vid by Sabine Hossenfelder, respected physicist and science explainer, and discovered that she explains my position better than I can:

    #45844

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I know I said “Let’s get back to the OP,” but I ran into this vid by Sabine Hossenfelder, respected physicist and science explainer, and discovered that she explains my position better than I can:

    I have seen this before and what I find interesting is that chaotic and random systems are still deterministic. Initial conditions are unknowable to us, but the universe doesn’t care about our knowledge. Things are never really deterministic for us. But that doesn’t mean they are not deterministic.

     

     

     

     

    #45847

    Davis
    Moderator

    This person loses me at 8:33. She is conflating something akin to a “reaction” to someone’s behaviour with “responsibility”. Yes, it doesn’t sound controversial that if x does this, that y will retaliate. However, that is not the same as saying that x is “responsible” for what they did. Unseen, the person could NOT have done other than they had done. Their future is determined. In any other scenario I can imagine, if one cannot have done otherwise, they simply aren’t responsible for it. It is one thing to talk about “defensive human behaviour” or “established norms”, it is another to talk about responsibility. NO ONE is responsible for doing anything if they could not have chosen otherwise. You cannot argue yourself out of this. I respect most of her videos, but she is making BAD arguments here. And it shows the limits of her understanding of philosophy.

    Where she gets EVEN WORSE than this, outside of her terrible awful arguments about “responsibility”, is her tips on “how to live in a world without free will”. Why are you suggesting how people deal with it, when in reality, the future is already determined. I cannot help but do what I do in the future. It is determined. I don’t have a choice in what happens. I cannot do other than what I will do. The cognitive dissonance is astounding for someone who talks so utterly confidently about their conclusions.

    By all means, take a position on free will, but stop blabbing about moral responsibility and why it’s okay that we don’t have free will. We have no choice about any of this, if that’s the case.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
    #45850

    Unseen
    Participant

    I have seen this before and what I find interesting is that chaotic and random systems are still deterministic. Initial conditions are unknowable to us, but the universe doesn’t care about our knowledge. Things are never really deterministic for us. But that doesn’t mean they are not deterministic.

    It’s not that chaotic and random systems are deterministic (who knows?), but once some chaotic or random event occurs, what happens from there is deterministic. This is why determinism does not mean predeterminism. What chaotic or random events do is set up a new deterministic chain.

    #45851

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Davis, nice critique.

    I also think she speaks too authoritatively about the physics of the universe.

    #45852

    Unseen
    Participant

    @davis

    Some observations about your objections to Dr. Hossenfelder on free will.

    One is responsible for what one does intentionally, no matter how those intentions are generated. This isn’t some sort of fantasy. This is how we treat responsibility every day. Unless someone acted at gunpoint or their act was pure accident, they are responsible for their actions and please note that we don’t get into discussions of free will.

    Also, you seem to conflate something yourself. I can’t find a distinction between determinism and predeterminism in your analysis. As long as chaos and randomness have a role, there is no predeterminism. They can take a deterministic chain that was going in one direction into a totally different direction. Something as random as a gamma ray causing a viable mutation.

    Look, I neither celebrate nor don’t the notion that we don’t have free will. I only don’t see how we can when you drill down to the level where behavior is generated.

    The only way out I see is a dualism wherein mind/spirit somehow operates in ultimate control over behavior, able somehow to ignore or override the physiology of behavior. Explain your alternative theory if you have one, otherwise you’re just grumbling and griping.

    #45853

    _Robert_
    Participant

    What chaotic or random events do is set up a new deterministic chain.

    That can be upset by a new random event? That makes no sense at all.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 86 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.