De gustibus non est disputandum
I’m not a philosopher but a couple of issues that have occupied philosophers over perhaps millenia remain unresolved. Let’s call the concepts free will and determinism. Of course a problem that arises immediately as there seem not to be consensus definitions of either concept. They also seem to be linked (in the opinion of many) in that agreeing or disagreeing with one of these concepts entails acceptance or rejection of the other. A frequently encountered strategy is to add an adjective. So we have libertarian free will, strict determinism and so on. Below is a diagram that attempts to summarize the various proposals.
Ancient Greek atomists: Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus proposed a reality of atoms and empty space and Epicurus added the idea of bias (παρέγκλισις) to introduce indeterminism into reality. Over two millenia later and with the world’s finest minds applied to free will and whether determinism rules this universe, no consensus (or means of testing hypotheses) has emerged so far.
So, are all of us free to choose what we believe and form our own opinions? I think Epicurus was right that the universe we occupy is fundamentally indeterminate and I also think humans who are conscious are able to make rational choices between available options. I’m also persuaded by Daniel Dennett that if this universe can be shown to be strictly determined (I’ll take an affordable bet this will not happen during my lifetime) this does not impinge significantly on the concept of free will. I don’t see how any of these issues can be resolved, hence de gustibus non est disputandum (you pays your money and you takes your choice) I look forward to hearing the views of fellow TSZ readers and contributors.
That’s the whole point, is it a choice model or simply the appearance of choice. Alan is claiming that his choice to walk is different than his fingernails growing. But if you don’t actually have a choice, then they are the same thing.
And Rumraket is claiming choice is impossible ( but don’t be a nihilist he urges).
Because you guys are nuts, frankly. But so is Sapolsky, Krauss, Dawkins, Harris, Coyne….
Still convinced I cannot control how fast my fingernails grow. Still convinced I can decide (within limits) whether, where and when I walk.
If it’s a delusion, it’s one I’m unable to shed.
Let’s not forget that you have cowardly run away from all attempts to logically connect nihilism to materialism because you know you couldn’t do so even though you want to.
This is hilarious coming from a spoon-bender.
How many books have you sold?
How many people will literally pay money to read or hear your ‘ideas’?
A grand total of a big fat zero.
So, call them nuts if you like, but their nuts is interesting and new whereas your ‘ideas’, well, we don’t even know what your ‘ideas’ even are as all you can do is hate on other peoples instead of try to persuade them of the truth of your argument.
And look at where that’s got you! Justifying the existence of literal concentration camps.
There are lots of different ways in which one can sharpen or focus the question of “free will vs determinism”, and there’s no one obviously correct way of doing so. Every formulation of the underlying question will be biased, and those biases will push and pull on the whole fabric of beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes.
So with that standard caveat, here’s one way of sharpening the question:
This is a formulation that would have appealed to Rene Descartes, who would have unequivocally said “Yes!” in response. Yet Benedict Spinoza, who accepted much of Descartes’s system, who have replied with a resounding “no!” So when Descartes accepts libertarian freedom within a deterministic physics, that is what he’s saying. And when Spinoza famously denies free will, that is part of what he is saying.
Kantian Naturalist,
So what’s Spinoza’s rationale for claiming that it doesn’t defy the laws of physics and yet he still doesn’t accept free will?
This seems backwards. Descartes is saying our ability to make choices violates the laws of physics, and he accepts free will, and Spinoza doesn’t feel it would violate any laws of physics and he doesn’t accept free will?
That’s exactly right. For Descartes (and Spinoza to some extent), free means unconstrained.
Descartes does believe in free will precisely because he thinks that our capacity to choose is not constrained by the laws of physics — and Spinoza does not believe in free will precisely because he thinks that our capacity to choose is constrained by the laws of physics.
I should emphasize that I am not taking Descartes or Spinoza to be completely authoritative here. Instead, I am presenting them as examples of how to make our thinking about these issues more focused.
Contemporary work on free will — both for and against — doesn’t seem to rely on those 17th century assumptions about what’s at stake. In the history of philosophy, many different armies march under the same banners!
Kantian Naturalist,
The voice of reason. Corneel will be pleased to see you. And I am too.
Thank you, KN.
Kantian Naturalist,
Well, regardless of this rather confusing historical perspective on the subject, I would say that its pretty well accepted now that the vast majority of modern atheists subscribe to the idea that free will can not truly exist, but also fall back on the convenient and I guess to them pragmatic add on of- even if it doesn’t its best to live as if it does exist, because well, it sure does seem like it exists, and if we really acted like it didn’t, society would be fucked.
How so?
What I find interesting in such discussions is the implied idea that without some external arbiter of behavior you’d be raping and murdering at will.
It’s called projection. You project onto others your actions, what you would do in that situation.
It’s clear that the only thing stopping your behavior from descending to such depths is your fear of godly punishment. And so you project onto others that behavior.
Yep. Thanks KN.
You would, would you?
Do you have any actual evidence for this or is it just something “you’ve said”?
Accepted by who? How do you know?
Has Uri Geller taught you to read minds?
How come we never hear about atheists doing the sorts of things you are saying they should be doing because of their knowledge of their lack of free will?
In short: You think that because people are not doing the things you think they would do that’s evidence that they want to do those things but are not because they want to avoid society being ‘fucked’?
What would they care about society being fucked, if they know that they are on rails and that society being fucked or not was decided at or before the big bang?
It seems to me that in your imaginary scenario, people find out they have no free will then make a choice not to fuck society.
Which makes about as much sense as anything you’ve ever said…..
What I find interesting is that you pretend that you do not see the problem. The fact is that there are a bunch of people who rape and murder at will. Then there are some who don’t. Then there are some others who call the rapists and murderers out and judge them.
So, is any of these behaviours any better than any other? Why, according to you? Does it make any difference who gets the upper hand?
Erik,
Yea, suppose you actually believed there was no God, and you actually believed you are just your physical body so its impossible to make a choice about what your body does (of course no one believes either of these things even though many claim they do) , how could you possibly come to the conclusion that some things are good and some things are bad, and some people are bad.
Its the most ridiculous hypocritical logic one can ever imagine.
Yes, the non-raping and non-murdering is better. It is better because non-murdering and non-raping entails less suffering in the lives of sentient beings.
Yes it definitely makes a difference to the life-quality of the victims and loved-ones of the raped and murdered.
Your turn to answer the questions. How does God existing make these behaviors any better than any other? Why, according to you?
It seems to me that ultimately the theistic rationale for morality is equivalent to the atheistic, because it ultimately reduces to an appeal to the consequences of choice on the life-quality of sentient beings. If you do what God says, you don’t get tortured but rewarded instead, thus it is right to do what God says because of how it is supposed to positively affect the quality of your life. And conversely, if you don’t do what God says, you are tortured, and that would be wrong because it reduces the quality of your life.
So on both systems, it comes down to the pain/suffering vs pleasure/happiness of sentient beings.
Murderers and rapists don’t suffer when they murder and rape. In fact they occasionally enjoy it very much, so doesn’t it kind of balance out? Why should you care about the suffering of others?
Because if God exists, then justice and morality are more like matters of fact, not of opinion. When murderers and rapists get judged and sentenced, it is because it is the right thing to do, even when they suffer as a consequence. If God does not exist, then humans are no better than animals simply fighting it out on their own. If God exists, then being right or being truthful is close to a real state of being, instead of a “useful fiction” as it is at best on physicalism, nominalism, and atheism.
No, I’m fully aware of the problem.
Are they atheists who are doing it because they don’t have free will? No? Then it’s of no relevance at this point.
It depends on how you define “better”.
From my perspective, not-rape is ‘better’ then rape. It’s because of the golden rule. Treat others how you want to be treated.
Why? Well, that’s also quite simple. As a creation cast in the crucible of evolution I inherit behaviors that make me want to avoid pain. I am trapped inside my physical body without recourse, so my goals are to avoid pain and maximize my reproductive ability (i.e. comb my hair etc).
It’s what I’ve been “designed” to do. That’s “why”. But even that “why” is ephemeral, it has no objective reality outside humanity. When we go, that goes like it never existed.
No. Ultimately all is lost, like tears in rain. Our suffering, our happiness, all but dust to the future. No scorecard, no arbiter. Just the void.
But in the short term, as I noted, we are cast in the mounds we find ourselves in and have to behave as we have been molded to behave.
We live in a society. What happens to other people will eventually happen to us. It’s self interest.
Mother Teresa believed that suffering brought people closer to god. So theists like suffering, they desire it! She denied pain relief to people yet took it herself when she needed it.
Is slavery immoral?
Is polygamy immoral?
Is treating women different then men moral?
Is eating fish on a Friday moral?
What are the “facts” on morality? Oh, you can’t say because you don’t know you just “know” it exists? Laughable.
Humans _are_ animals. What, you think there is some grand plan do you?
If? Don’t you know?
Why would it?
I don’t think “should”(ought) can be derived from any matter of fact(imaginary or not). You either care or you don’t, no argument in any system of morality can bootstrap oughts out of anything. That includes your theism. God existing, having opinions, or beliefs, or attributes, do not entail that anyone should do anything in particular. If you disagree, try to construct an argument from an attribute of God from which it follows that you should/ought to behave in a certain way.
I don’t think either of us have any choice here but to make some sort of appeal to consequences for the wellbeing and suffering of ourselves and others. The kind of world it would lead to with no rules on behavior seems to be a terrible one. I do not claim to be able to persuade the sociopath out of their sociopathy, so all I can do is try to find people of a similar mindset as myself with whom to construct a society, and then try to uphold and enforce the rules we think are best.
How is that not just another statement of opinion? If you can just declare something to be a fact in this way, then so can I.
Your moral system here appears to reduce to you asserting an opinion. It is your opinion that God is the arbiter of what is right and wrong.
Still just opinion. And if that is all that takes to have an objective system of morality, the mere declaration, then mine is equally well justified.
Of course, even if we presume to agree that God gets to set the rules, why should anyone follow them?
Why is it the right thing to do, to judge and sentence murderers and rapists? What is it that makes that right and why should anyone care about doing what is right?
What is a “real state of being” and why is that right?
And yet, I’ve come to the conclusion that concentration camp guards and their supporters are bad things. I fail to see how a theist could come to a different conclusion.
What say you Erik? Do you support concentration camps as phoodoo does, as long as the “right” people are in them for the “right” reasons?
You are both, presumably, theists. Can you agree what is right and wrong with the Uighurs repression in China?
If you two cannot come to an agreement regarding if those camps are “good” or “bad” then I suggest that people in glass houses should stop throwing stones and get your house in order first.
If you are unaware of phoodoo’s justifications for the enslavement of an entire ethnic group I’ll be happy to provide quotations.
And how can we detect if we’re are right? Is there feedback? In what form is it provided? How do you know when you have achieved it?
If any answer is given I expect it’ll be along the lines of “god will reveal himself to true believers at the right time” blah. Catch 22.
Erik,
Agree or disagree?
Just as an aside, there’s no reason to believe that naturalism is incompatible with the existence of ethical facts; see Natural Ethical Facts for an account which demonstrates how to naturalize ethical facts.
This is more or less what I was attempting to say in a previous comment:
We are what we have evolved to be. If the Praying Mantis had “won” the race instead of us it’d be perfectly moral to consume your partner after mating. It’s just how it is.
The god of the OT did a lot of terrible things and caused others to do terrible things. And yet now somehow those same people are attempting to argue that punishing murderers is the right thing to do !
The thing Erik and phoodoo are eliding over is that murderers don’t always get punished, not if they kill the right people! God does not punish those who murder in it’s name.
And this attitude is clear as day with phoodoo, he’s happy to have the “right” people in camps. Prison in the USA is bad, but not in China because the “right” people are in them.
Agreed. This then comes down to what is understood by a “fact” in the context of ethics.
Well, on Casebeer’s account, claims like “murder is wrong” are true — factually true.
For the theist, claims like “murder is wrong” are made true by virtue of facts about God’s essence and nature.
But a naturalist cannot make use of that answer.
The question is, what can the naturalist say about the state of affairs that make those claims true?
Getting any deeper into these weeds would involve some academic philosophy, so I’ll leave it there.
Whether there are natural ethical facts or whether naturalism is compatible with moral cognitivism is a nice set of issues. That’s quite distinct from whether naturalism is compatible with free will — whatever that means.
I was asking what it means to say something is a fact, not asking for examples of things considered facts. Regardless of which of the positions you take above, I would like to know what the “fact-making property” is, of a statement like “God has nature X” or “murder is wrong”.
In all cases I know of, such statements amount to appeals to definition. God by definition has such and such properties. Murder is wrong because it causes harm, and harm is by definition wrong.
Theists like to pretend their system has some sort of metaphysically more robust basis for the “factness” or “objectivity” of their claims. Yet in 13 years of arguing with them, I have never ever seen it reduce to anything more than this. Leaving them with the exact same philosophical basis as any naturalistic system of ethics. Something is just fundamentally assumed to be factually true by fiat. “I hereby define that X”.
We can stop the debate here. The fact that you deny oughts any place proves my point lucidly. Under your system, if it is even a system, there is no ethics whatsoever.
Actually, the book was written because it is self-evident that ethics and physicalism are hard to reconcile. The physicalists here don’t even try and they have no idea how Casebeer does it. Moreover, Casebeer’s case is easy to shoot down every step of the way.
Erik,
Exactly. Why should there be any need to try to explain it. The reason is because it makes no sense on its face.
And does Casebeer try to explain why it’s a fact that murder is wrong for humans but it’s not wrong for every other animal? Is it because other animals enjoy being murdered?
Is it because we don’t tell other animals what to do, except in every case where we do?
That’s nonsense. An ethical framework must exist in any group of humans, it just doesn’t need to be universal and God-given. Consensus works.
Erik,
You are pulling a Nonlin here. Only assertions, no arguments. Could you please try to argue your case here for us poor onlookers?
Why is it wrong for Jews to be put in a concentration camp but not Uighurs?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/16/international-effort-china-crimes-xinjiang-uyghur-
The camps are getting bigger year on year.
If animals ‘murdering’ each other is a problem for you, that nature is red in tooth and claw, perhaps take it up with your old man in the sky? It’s his setup.
Hmmm, right or wrong? Good or bad? So difficult to decide….
The world looks on in horror. No big deal says phoodoo. They deserve to be there.
Nazi’s deserve to be punched.
Still true today.
I can’t help but notice your implicit concession that you can’t derive oughts from anything in your system, and that you completely ignored the rest of my post where I point out how your system reduces to the same fundamental appeal to well-being as mine.
That’s it, game over. You guys have nothing. The theistic pretension to have a superior system of morality is a giant hoax.
No, he can’t. Neither can phoodoo. I try to engage them by giving arguments and asking questions designed to get at the core principles and justifications for their beliefs, and they avoid it all, every time.
Because they KNOW they can’t defend their beliefs.
They are just dumb cowards.
It’s why they are always on the offensive. They got nuttin.
I’m not 100% sure what you mean by “what it means to say something is a fact”. Are you asking me to provide a theory of truth and justification?
What is or isn’t “self-evident” depends on one’s background assumptions and commitments.
By all means, be my guest. My copy of his book is in my home library and I’ve already read it. I assume you have also read it, since you said that it’s easy to shoot down every step of the way — and how could you know that unless you’d already read it yourself?
That can’t be entirely right, as stated.
For one thing, ethics is as much about how we should interact when we disagree as it is about how we arrive at agreements.
I accept that norms — both norms of conduct and norms of thought — are not “God-given”, but that doesn’t mean that they are based on social convention.
If anything, it must be the opposite: we could not have social conventions without shared norms to guide the formation of those conventions. (This is the Achilles heel of social contract theory, btw.)
That’s when it’s most necessary. I’m sure the basic rules of living together co-evolved as humans adapted to living in larger social groups.
Are you talking about inherent norms? A biologically baked-in morality of sorts?
If that is what it takes to explain what it means to say something is a fact, yes. Particularly with respect to those statements, like the essence and nature of God.
What “theory of truth and justification” makes it a fact that God has a certain essence and nature? I don’t think there IS such a theory of truth and justification. At least, calling it that is a colossal equivocation of the term. God’s essence and nature is DEFINED. Full stop. Nothing entails/implies the factuality of that. If something can be just defined to be a fact, as it appears theists do about the nature of God, then the word fact has lost it’s meaning.
And in any case then theism offers nothing in the way of superior “factual” justification for their views on ethics and morality. The entire subject begins with an assertion.
My only real complaint with this however is that our resident theists are leaving you as the ostensible defender of a position they can’t defend themselves.
Of course I can and that’s what I started with, but you quickly forgot it because any time anyone says ‘God’ you simply ignore it because you have no idea what God entails metaphysically. You declared it an opinion, which is plain ludicrous. If you just made the intellectual effort – as in *supposing that God exists…* – then maybe you would become worth responding to. Until then…
Naturally.
I won’t go Torley on someone who is not here. By the way, you are doing a fair job of it (repudiating the crude naturalists here) anyway.
Kantian Naturalist,
I was hoping you were going to inform, if Casebeers believes his natural morality only applies to humans?
No you didn’t.
All you have is hot air.
Hot air.
More hot air.
These are all just vacuous assertions by you, and that’s all you and phoodoo ever do.
You’ve already skipped a crucial step.
I can suppose God exists, but you first need to tell me how attributes of God are established as facts, so that we can move on to the putative entailments of God’s existence.
So, in effect, you are unable to suppose that God exists. Understood!
I have that problem too. I get around it by finding it is not a problem.