LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

[Kraftster]

So it wouldn't be considered free will if I walked into the kitchen where my mom is currently setting up dinner plates, grabbed one of the plates, and chucked it off the wall (not that I'm going to actually do that)?

No. I don't understand the frequent urge to say "well, what if I do this strange, seemingly purposeless thing?" That act is no different than any other act--set into motion by the big bang.

[Kraftster]

I just turned the TV on. Are you/is that video saying my brain was wired to turn the TV on because of the situation (sitting on my couch, working on my laptop, relatively in silence)? It wasn't actually my choice to turn it on?

Your brain being wired to do that (for whatever reason) is one way to look at it, sure.

Think about it like this: In order to have free will (in the classical sense, i.e., meaning that you could have every actually done otherwise), you need a determinative world. That is, you need your will to cause what you do. The problem is, something has to cause your will? To the extent that your will is reducible to something in the physical world, isn't it likely that it's subject to the same physical laws and causes and effects as everything else?

[count2infinity]

I'm not sure why it bothers people so much to think that our brains are just circuits and wires (not necessarily saying they are, just saying it's a possibility). I tend to think of our actions as an if/then situation. Pretty much that our brains react to external stimuli. I don't think (as shmenguin does) that if you replay it all over again it'll end up exactly the same, and I do believe a little in randomness in the universe, but that's just a personal opinion.

[Kraftster]

I agree with shmenguin 100%, but I am not bothered by our lack of free will, though I used to be. All that it means is that you could never do that which you wouldn't do. Why would you want to do something inconsistent with and against your nature? Just for the sake of being able to do something you wouldn't do? No need for that, and no value in that--from any perspective, so far as I can tell.

I get that we don't want to be automatons and that we want to somehow be "special" in some sort of cosmic order sense. I think we can still derive plenty of existential meaning and value from the fact that we are the types of automatons that we are, as opposed to not existing at all.

[count2infinity]

I agree with shmenguin 100%, but I am not bothered by our lack of free will, though I used to be. All that it means is that you could never do that which you wouldn't do. Why would you want to do something inconsistent with and against your nature? Just for the sake of being able to do something you wouldn't do? No need for that, and no value in that--from any perspective, so far as I can tell.

This seems to be contrary (to me) to a stance you had earlier in the thread...

I personally believe you can train yourself to make rational decisions (I'll just use that phrase as the opposite of emotional decisions, though it may not be so binary) at all times. It's something that I strive to do

[Kraftster]

I don't mean to say that I or anyone else can do that through an act of free will. You either will or you won't but that doesn't change that one can be trained.

[Hockeynut!]

I certainly don't agree with everything written here, but there's still lots of good wisdom and food for thought.

http://nextshark.com/man-reveals-how-ch ... -and-pain/

[shmenguin]

I certainly don't agree with everything written here, but there's still lots of good wisdom and food for thought.

http://nextshark.com/man-reveals-how-ch ... -and-pain/

Decent chance it's made up.

[Hockeynut!]

I certainly don't agree with everything written here, but there's still lots of good wisdom and food for thought.

http://nextshark.com/man-reveals-how-ch ... -and-pain/

Decent chance it's made up.

Yeah, that doesn't change the sentiment though. It's a pretty typical "problem".

[shmenguin]

It is. Though advocating for people to follow their passions is impractical. We can't all be artists like certain photographers here and most people just aren't very talented.

Beyond that, if you want to be a good husband, be a good husband. A good father, be a good father. But this guy didn't want to be either. He's blaming that on something external, which is wrong. It was with him the whole time. There's no chance his wife slipped away because he lost his passion. It's because he was willfully a bad husband and father. He probably would have been the same way if he was a writer. Just with a more interesting job.

[redwill]

A broad ethical question for general discussion, for the fun of it:

Is morality relative to any given situation or is it absolute?

Examples. I think we would all agree that the following are "wrong." But are they justifiable in certain circumstances and therefore not necessarily "wrong"?

- Lying
- Stealing
- Killing

I'm sure we can all come up with situations where we can see each of these being justified (morally "right"). Then again, maybe some will see them as never justified.

[Grunthy]

Lying to protect someone from undue harm. Stealing and killing to me are never morally right but can be justified. Stealing food to feed oneself and killing in self defense.

[shmenguin]

they aren't wrong in certain situations. with lying - plenty of situations.

the well being of myself and my family is more important than any obligations i have to the society i live in.

[redwill]

Lying to protect someone from undue harm. Stealing and killing to me are never morally right but can be justified. Stealing food to feed oneself and killing in self defense.

I guess I see "justifiable" as meaning that things can occasionally be morally right and therefore are not categorically wrong. Is there ANY type of action that is categorically right or wrong? And I mean "type" of action, like lying, stealing, rape, murder, etc., not a specific instance. If so, why?

Beyond this is the further ethical question of whether we are obligated to do what's morally right ... but that's for another day.

[PensFanInDC]

I personally don't think that justification nullifies the morality of an action. There is a good chance that I would go into a blind rage and kill someone if I walked in on them molesting my son (like this guy almost did) but it would not be morally right in my eyes.

[redwill]

I personally don't think that justification nullifies the morality of an action. There is a good chance that I would go into a blind rage and kill someone if I walked in on them molesting my son (like this guy almost did) but it would not be morally right in my eyes.

I understand. But if it is justifiable, how can it not be morally right?

[PensFanInDC]

I personally don't think that justification nullifies the morality of an action. There is a good chance that I would go into a blind rage and kill someone if I walked in on them molesting my son (like this guy almost did) but it would not be morally right in my eyes.

I understand. But if it is justifiable, how can it not be morally right?

Morals are different for everyone, no? In my eyes, murder is not morally right in any circumstance. I can justify why I did something but that doesn't mean I was morally right in doing so.

[PensFanInDC]

This sounds like a semantic debate again.

Let me put it this way. I may do something (whatever it is) that I feel, at that moment, is what I want to or need to do, but that does not mean that it is morally right.

[shmenguin]

There is a good chance that I would go into a blind rage and kill someone if I walked in on them molesting my son (like this guy almost did)

I got him in a bloody puddle for you, officer. Send an ambulance. He is going to need one.

[shmenguin]

based on its many definitions, morality seems to be tightly linked to a binary definition of right and wrong. if we're eliminating all the gray area in between, then yes, lying/stealing/killing can be "moral" acts.

if we're including the gray area, then we're abandoning the concept of morals, imo.

[redwill]

Morals are different for everyone, no?

I guess that's my question. Is morality relative to the individual?

If so, the implications of that are pretty profound.

So you may say, "What redwill did last night was morally wrong." But nothing is really morally wrong if everything is relative to each individual, yeah? So what I did last night may be illegal, it may be repugnant to you, it may be repugnant, disgusting, and unjustifiable to everyone else in the entire world. But it was not "wrong."

[shmenguin]

Morals are different for everyone, no?

I guess that's my question. Is morality relative to the individual?

If so, the implications of that are pretty profound.

So you may say, "What redwill did last night was morally wrong." But nothing is really morally wrong if everything is relative to each individual, yeah? So what I did last night may be illegal, it may be repugnant to you, it may be repugnant, disgusting, and unjustifiable to everyone else in the entire world. But it was not "wrong."

it was not wrong to you. it was wrong to everyone else.

each person has their own morality. it is relative. but the rest of us can judge the hell out of it.

[redwill]

So a specific example of something so simple as lying ...

Nazis are always good material for ethical dilemmas. Let's say you are living in Amsterdam in 1943. Being morally upright, you have taken in a family of Jews and hid them in your attic.

One day, there's a knock at the door. Major Hochstetter of the Gestapo is there and asks, "Are there any Jews in this house?"

Do you lie to him? Why or why not? Do you think about your own skin? Do you think about what you know will happen to the family? Do you simply not wish to lie and so tell him the truth?

[shmenguin]

Is that a trick question?

I mean, you obviously lie, unless you think that they'll find out regardless and will show you leniency for confessing. Then it becomes a bit tougher.

[count2infinity]

In a philosophy thread all questions are trick questions...