well, they exist in that causality exists (i.e. an event - a cause - leads to a result - an effect), but in my opinion we only have the illusion of a freedom of choice between two (or more) possible outcomes. that is, it feels like we have free will for two reasons: 1) we are unable to fathom all of the previous causes (and their effects) that have all led up to this exact moment of this decision, and 2) it really does 'feel' like we could choose the other option in the present moment (which is just how our brains work in their limited capacity).
i'd argue though that if you could know every single cause (and their effects) throughout your entire life you'd see that you'd always make the same decision at that exact time and place no matter what since everything has up until now has been leading to this very moment. the funny thing is, this works for every single moment in your life.
the only exception to this would be random chance, and that is not free will either.
So then the example you gave are questions of morality but they are paradox's that can never face except for talking about the future. Because in the actually moment we would not have the capacity to 'choose', it would do it.
here's one example that i can remember. there are two situations:
situation one: there is a train speeding out of control down the tracks. if it continues along it's path it will kill three people who are tied to the tracks up ahead. you are standing by a switch that can turn the train down a second track. however, there is one person tied to the second track. should you hit the switch to save three people but kill the one or just let the train keep going?
second situation: you are a doctor/surgeon on a plane and suddenly three people on the plane get terribly sick and need three different organ transplants. it just so happens that there is one unconscious person also on the plane. should you harvest organs from this one people (killing him) to save the three sick ones from dying?
obviously, these are mind experiments (and i may not be explaining them very well - it's been a while since i've heard these but i think i got the gist across).
the fact is that most people would say yes to the first one and no to the second one. however, considering the overall consequences (say, as a utilitarian would) the situations are one and the same.
the point is, even when following one standard set of morals, there are still situations where inconsistencies occur.
The point of those questions, and others like them, is not to determine which act is the higher morality, but rather to determine the thought process of the respondent.
So then the example you gave are questions of morality but they are paradox's that can never face except for talking about the future. Because in the actually moment we would not have the capacity to 'choose', it would do it.
not quite understanding what you are saying here. sorry.
We have come to a conclusion earlier in this thread that we are not able to make choices based on free will.
in my opinion, we don't have free will. there are still choices being made all the time that are based in causality, but one just can't see that they weren't free to choose the alternative.
We look at a question of moral decision but given the conclusion we can't make choice, our choices are already decide and not of our own free will.
So we can postulate about what we would do, but in the actual situation, there is no 'choosing' and thus no moral dilemma.
if i understand you correctly, yes. morality is for the most part arbitrary at best in my opinion. however, i'd say the dilemma may still exist even though we're not capable of making a free choice on the matter.
idk. let's say that in a specific decision i have the choices of A or B, and all my history and past experiences and everything has determined for me that i will choose A over B (and i have no control in the matter). i find it difficult to say that the alternate choice B is non-existent as a result simply because i could never have chosen it.
i might just be rambling today (i had a late night last night and i'm not feeling the greatest today). this idea makes me think schrodinger's cat.
you're not bothering me yet if that's what you're suggesting.
in my opinion, we don't have free will. there are still choices being made all the time that are based in causality, but one just can't see that they weren't free to choose the alternative.
Cool I don't wish to bother you.
Yes its your thread so you get to set the premises, we don't have freedom of choice we accept that in this thread.
idk. let's say that in a specific decision i have the choices of A or B,
and all my history and past experiences and everything has determined for me that i will choose A over B (and i have no control in the matter).
i find it difficult to say that the alternate choice B is non-existent as a result simply because i could never have chosen it.
yes the choice exists but if there is no free will the rhetorical question on morality has no value, because no one can act on the information.
That is if we use the question to inquire into morality, we still won't be able to use blame others for being immoral. Its never their fault.
We can't blame anyone for anything I guess I'm suggesting.
"...even if the wrongdoer’s future actions are completely determined by the current state of the world it is still reasonable to assume that their future actions would be different in a world that includes them being punished versus a world that did not include their punishment.... The key idea here is that determinism doesn’t imply that a person’s actions are fixed by themselves but are fixed with respect to the state of the entire universe; there is still cause and effect in a deterministic universe."
like in the quotation above, it's still a good thing in general to continue blaming and praising people's actions.
like in the quotation above, it's still a good thing in general to continue blaming and praising people's actions.
Yes I understand we can 'effect' someone else's free will etc.
But we can't hate anyone and feel that they are ultimately immoral...we can't suggest they deserve religious punishment, or that any ultimate judge can look down on them.
We might have to jail someone to change them but we know its not there fault.
Comments
The point of those questions, and others like them, is not to determine which act is the higher morality, but rather to determine the thought process of the respondent.
not quite understanding what you are saying here. sorry.
We have come to a conclusion earlier in this thread that we are not able to make choices based on free will.
Given that conclusion
We look at a question of moral decision but given the conclusion we can't make choice, our choices are already decide and not of our own free will.
So we can postulate about what we would do, but in the actual situation, there is no 'choosing' and thus no moral dilemma.
you're not bothering me yet if that's what you're suggesting.
in my opinion, we don't have free will. there are still choices being made all the time that are based in causality, but one just can't see that they weren't free to choose the alternative.
if i understand you correctly, yes. morality is for the most part arbitrary at best in my opinion. however, i'd say the dilemma may still exist even though we're not capable of making a free choice on the matter.
idk. let's say that in a specific decision i have the choices of A or B, and all my history and past experiences and everything has determined for me that i will choose A over B (and i have no control in the matter). i find it difficult to say that the alternate choice B is non-existent as a result simply because i could never have chosen it.
i might just be rambling today (i had a late night last night and i'm not feeling the greatest today). this idea makes me think schrodinger's cat.
Yes its your thread so you get to set the premises, we don't have freedom of choice we accept that in this thread.
yes the choice exists but if there is no free will the rhetorical question on morality has no value, because no one can act on the information.
That is if we use the question to inquire into morality, we still won't be able to use blame others for being immoral. Its never their fault.
We can't blame anyone for anything I guess I'm suggesting.
like in the quotation above, it's still a good thing in general to continue blaming and praising people's actions.
But we can't hate anyone and feel that they are ultimately immoral...we can't suggest they deserve religious punishment, or that any ultimate judge can look down on them.
We might have to jail someone to change them but we know its not there fault.