Artificial Intelligence

Arcane or Irrelevant Topic? On Free Will, Determinism, and Quantum Physics

This topic contains 62 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  _Robert_ 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 63 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #55698

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    The Categorical Imperative could be considered a foundational principle of morality. It is grounded in the belief that moral actions must be guided by rationality and universalizable principles, rather than emotions or consequences. I don’t really see what it wrong with that.

    That sounds good, but there’s a lot wrong with it.  We need emotions and consequences to govern us morally.  Rationality can guide us up some weird paths.  I think that with his Universal Categorical Imperative, Kant was tackling the “bindingness” problem: i.e., what makes a moral principle binding, why should I follow a moral principle.  Kant said, because if everyone did what you are proposing to do (e.g., lying), the world wouldn’t work.  However, this falls apart immediately because there are always valid exceptions.

    This nuanced understanding of morality respects both individual dignity and the collective welfare of the group. I don’t see this as difficult to understand or why it should be elevated to some form of special knowledge.

    You’re already a moral person, so you don’t need anything else than a reminder to behave well.  Other people are seriously screwed up when it comes to morality, and require some basic education.  It doesn’t have to be rocket science.

    As for the questions, why bother, and what’s it all for?  We bother for a number of reasons, partly because it’s a fiendishly difficult puzzle to understand, and also, knowledge of any kind is assumed to have a potential use at some time or other.

    I think the task is to come up with alternatives to utilitarianism, consequentialism etc., which are an intuitive way in but don’t actually really go anywhere in the real world.  A good alternative is morality as collaboration – both what happens within the collaboration, and its goal, are subjects for morality.

    #55701

    ...We need emotions and consequences to govern us morally. Rationality can guide us up some weird paths……

    I would suggest the converse of that is true.

     

    #55702

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    …We need emotions and consequences to govern us morally. Rationality can guide us up some weird paths……

    I would suggest the converse of that is true.

    All three together is ideal.

    #55703

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think the task is to come up with alternatives to utilitarianism, consequentialism etc., which are an intuitive way in but don’t actually really go anywhere in the real world. A good alternative is morality as collaboration – both what happens within the collaboration, and its goal, are subjects for morality.

    What is needed is an ecologically valid model.  Things like the Categorical Imperative, utilitarianism, etc., are just artificial, so they don’t have much in the way of legs.  Virtue ethics on the other hand is true in nature, it describes how we really do things and it works as a theory.  These ecologically valid models can be simplified or expanded as necessary, just like reality.

    #55706

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I agree emotions do play a role in morality because we are not Vulcans. Much of the time suppression of emotions leads to the best moral decisions, however for those who only make good choices for recognition or some other form of payback you might say the ends justify the means. It is still weak morality, IMHO.

    #55708

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    however for those who only make good choices for recognition or some other form of payback you might say the ends justify the means. It is still weak morality, IMHO.

    Some people say that something good done for its own sake is the only kind of real virtue.

    #55709

    Unseen
    Participant

    I agree emotions do play a role in morality because we are not Vulcans.

    A belief in determinism helps one to leave emotion out of decisions because a determinist isn’t thinking in terms of praise and blame. His behavior will be more in terms of fixing things.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Unseen.
    #55718

    _Robert_
    Participant

    however for those who only make good choices for recognition or some other form of payback you might say the ends justify the means. It is still weak morality, IMHO.

    Some people say that something good done for its own sake is the only kind of real virtue.

    Yeah, and this is also why some say we need a god…watching, looking, keeping score.

    #55719

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I agree emotions do play a role in morality because we are not Vulcans.

    A belief in determinism helps one to leave emotion out of decisions because a determinist isn’t thinking in terms of praise and blame. His behavior will be more in terms of fixing things.

    Not sure even the hardest determinist can manage to be emotionless, but sure, it may be easier for them. Happiness is an emotion, after all.

    #55722

    Unseen
    Participant

    Happiness is an emotion, after all.

    Happiness is not an emotion. Properly categorized, it’s a state of being.

    #55728

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Yeah, and this is also why some say we need a god…watching, looking, keeping score.

    We’re all monitored and evaluated the entire time, by ourselves and everybody who knows us.  There’s a big eye watching us all the time, and it’s called the human race.

    #55729

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Happiness is an emotion, after all.

    Happiness is not an emotion. Properly categorized, it’s a state of being.

    I disagree. One can go from happiness to being distraught in a millisecond, without the state of things changing at all.

    #55730

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Yeah, and this is also why some say we need a god…watching, looking, keeping score.

    We’re all monitored and evaluated the entire time, by ourselves and everybody who knows us. There’s a big eye watching us all the time, and it’s called the human race.

    Yes, but the level of detail varies widely, and the watching is through some filter lens.

    #55731

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I disagree. One can go from happiness to being distraught in a millisecond, without the state of things changing at all.

    Maybe you can call it a mood.

    #55732

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I disagree. One can go from happiness to being distraught in a millisecond, without the state of things changing at all.

    Maybe you can call it a mood.

    Sure, the main point being that a deterministic, rational, but emotionless human existence is probably subpar.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 63 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.