Oh Tiribulus I would never call you the evil one…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Because morality depends largely on context.
[/quote]
Can you give me an example?[/quote]
Killing a human being is wrong.
Killing a human being is wrong, except in self-defense.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when you kill them with a government mandate.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when he’s found guilty for his crimes by his peers.
[/quote]
The only two that are legit are the first two. The reason why the second is, is because it follows the first.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Because morality depends largely on context.
[/quote]
Can you give me an example?[/quote]
Killing a human being is wrong.
Killing a human being is wrong, except in self-defense.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when you kill them with a government mandate.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when he’s found guilty for his crimes by his peers.
[/quote]
The only two that are legit are the first two. The reason why the second is, is because it follows the first.[/quote]
Is war ever acceptable and if so, under what circumstances? I ask because I see Ephrem’s 3 as possibly being war or capital punishment.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Because morality depends largely on context.
[/quote]
Can you give me an example?[/quote]
Killing a human being is wrong.
Killing a human being is wrong, except in self-defense.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when you kill them with a government mandate.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when he’s found guilty for his crimes by his peers.
[/quote]
The only two that are legit are the first two. The reason why the second is, is because it follows the first.[/quote]
Is war ever acceptable and if so, under what circumstances? I ask because I see Ephrem’s 3 as possibly being war or capital punishment.[/quote]
Well if it is then he’ll have to elaborate on that.
Yes, was can be justifiable. Under the Just War doctrine.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And I really don’t know how many ways I can express that emotion can be misplaced and often is, and that the precedent of compassion is irrelevant. It’s a by product. Compassion does mean moral. You can have compassion for evil.
For something to be moral or immoral you need a very important component, Freewill. With out freewill, there is no morality. If you cannot choose to do otherwise, then whatever action you do is morally inert. It has no moral basis what so ever. If you are simply a function of your emotions, there is no morality.
If you were correct, then any thing can be a moral act so long as emotionally it feels moral. There are no rules then, period. Because consensus without absoluteness is just a fad. It’s therefore not wrong to rape somebody if you are ok with it. Since people who rape are usually ok with it, there is no moral issue. That’s what you are asserting. Everything ok, as long as you are ok with it. That’s simply not true, you know it, but you won’t admit it.[/quote]
You still don’t get it: I’m not saying morality is a form of empathy or compassion; morality evolved from empathy and compassion as an ideal in an attempt to surpass the limitations of the former.
[/quote]
But if it were a human construct it would be under our control and we could make it anything. The problem is, still, that with out freewill, there is no morality. And freewill is in no way, shape, or form a human construct. Whether you support freewill or determinism, your still supporting metaphysical entities that we are subject to. If we’re subject to it, we could not have possibly created it. You are you subject to your creation, your creation is subject to you.
Right, altough I do feel that you still not quite get what I mean, let’s just cut this short and say that I don’t think free will exists.
[/quote]
I get what you mean, you just don’t get that it always goes back to the same place.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
When faced with certain choices we make a decision based on certain predispositions, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make better choices.
[/quote]
Apparently you don’t understand the impact of ‘no freewill’ or determinism. If we can make better choices we have freewill, if we are determined, we have no choice.
With in the context of freewill existing, and morality not, sure. If no freewill, choice does not exist. You can’t act as if it does, you can only act as you are determined to do so. Such is the issue with determinism. There’s not a middle ground.
Not with out freewill. We’re just robots doing what we are compelled to do. It does not matter if it’s the previous moment that determines the next, or if we are compelled by a larger force. No freewill, no choice, no options.
[quote]
I think a lot of drama and confusion comes from the fact that we just don’t know ourselves that well, and I’ve found that only with self-knowledge comes the understanding of others.
It’s not a black and white world out there. [/quote]
Not everything is binary, but the most basic and most important stuff is.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Because morality depends largely on context.
[/quote]
Can you give me an example?[/quote]
Killing a human being is wrong.
Killing a human being is wrong, except in self-defense.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when you kill them with a government mandate.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when he’s found guilty for his crimes by his peers.
[/quote]
If there is no freewill, all of the above are actually morally inert.
[quote]groo wrote:
Oh Tiribulus I would never call you the evil one…[/quote]How bout you go ahead and never again propose that I torture myself with having to listen to the Stones. A band I’ve hated my whole life and especially the truly pathetic guitar “leads” attempted by Richards in this “song”. (I’m bein serious BTW, I cannot stand the Rolling Stones. Never could)
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Oh Tiribulus I would never call you the evil one…[/quote]How bout you go ahead and never again propose that I torture myself with having to listen to the Stones. A band I’ve hated my whole life and especially the truly pathetic guitar “leads” attempted by Richards in this “song”. (I’m bein serious BTW, I cannot stand the Rolling Stones. Never could)
[/quote]
Beasts of burden is sorta catchy
[quote]kamui wrote:
If there is no free will, there is actually no choice.
We only think we make some “choice” because of our ignorance of the external and internal factors that determines and explains our actions.
And if there is no choice, there is no “better choices”, only better outcomes.
[quote]
If morality does not exist as a separate, self-evident entity then nothing changes because, as kamui said and as you agreed with him, we act as if it exists anyway.[/quote]
there is still a difference between the two positions : one is inconsistent, and, as such, weaker.
We can still make a choice from different options, and we can decide to make the better choice without free will.
But if you call that free will, then it’s free will with limitations.
Suppose you have three options to choose from: one is a bad choice, one is a better choice and one is the best.
Is it free will if you’re bound by frustration and choose [forced is a better word] to make a bad choice? Is it free will if you’re confused and can’t decide?
Is it free will if you can look at all three options and choose the one that’s best?
If that is free will, inspite of the fact I don’t believe in free agents, I’ve got some thinking to do.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Because morality depends largely on context.
[/quote]
Can you give me an example?[/quote]
Killing a human being is wrong.
Killing a human being is wrong, except in self-defense.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when you kill them with a government mandate.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when he’s found guilty for his crimes by his peers.
[/quote]
The only two that are legit are the first two. The reason why the second is, is because it follows the first.[/quote]
Is war ever acceptable and if so, under what circumstances? I ask because I see Ephrem’s 3 as possibly being war or capital punishment.[/quote]
Well if it is then he’ll have to elaborate on that.
Yes, was can be justifiable. Under the Just War doctrine. [/quote]
Exceptions to the rule makes the rule relative.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Because morality depends largely on context.
[/quote]
Can you give me an example?[/quote]
Killing a human being is wrong.
Killing a human being is wrong, except in self-defense.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when you kill them with a government mandate.
Killing a human being is wrong, except when he’s found guilty for his crimes by his peers.
[/quote]
If there is no freewill, all of the above are actually morally inert. [/quote]
Only if you require an absolute source of morality to validate morality.
It doesn’t help your position that this absolute source is invisible and unknowable.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< It doesn’t help your position that this absolute source is invisible and unknowable.[/quote]It doesn’t help your position that to you, yours is too, being a fantasy n all.
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Tiribulus does not believe in free will, but, consistently, he absolutely doesn’t believe that we can “break character” or overrule anything without God’s predetermined grace.
He believes that spiritually dead autonomous men are powerless and literally bound to sin.
[/quote]Not bad Kamui. As we discussed. Men will freely choose in every instance precisely what God has foreordained that they freely choose.In other words man is totally free to choose exactly what God has chosen for him and he does every time.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Exceptions to the rule makes the rule relative.[/quote]
No. Rules are relative when they are different for different people, individually or collective. Rules are absolute if they are the same for all.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Tiribulus does not believe in free will, but, consistently, he absolutely doesn’t believe that we can “break character” or overrule anything without God’s predetermined grace.
He believes that spiritually dead autonomous men are powerless and literally bound to sin.
[/quote]Not bad Kamui. As we discussed. Men will freely choose in every instance precisely what God has foreordained that they freely choose.In other words man is totally free to choose exactly what God has chosen for him and he does every time.
[/quote]
God is omnipresent, how does he foreordain anything?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Exceptions to the rule makes the rule relative.[/quote]
No. Rules are relative when they are different for different people, individually or collective. Rules are absolute if they are the same for all.[/quote]
Suppose you say, “killing a human being is wrong”.
Suppose I agree but then enlist, go to war and kill an enemy.
I need to make a new, amended, rule to prevent conflict with the previous one, right?
So I make an exception.
I justify my actions based on that exception.
Suppose you say, “killing a human being is wrong” and you see it as absolute. Many people don’t see anything wrong with killing other people. Is the rule still absolute?
Objectively, in a deterministic perspective, you don’t have “three options”.
Your actualchoice is the result of a long chain of material causes and material effects. And since no element of this chain is free in any way, your choice was already “decided” from the beginning of time, so it’s not really a choice.
The two other potential choices" were never an option. They never existed objectively.
you only make a choice subjectively. And this subjective choice may or may not be free, depending on the circumstances.
In the three cases you listed, you are the final cause of your act, so your will is indeed free.
Most problems come from the fact people often confuse free will (which is a self-evident daily experience) and free action (which is an absurdity).
Free will doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want. It only means you can want whatever you want.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Objectively, in a deterministic perspective, you don’t have “three options”.
Your actualchoice is the result of a long chain of material causes and material effects. And since no element of this chain is free in any way, your choice was already “decided” from the beginning of time, so it’s not really a choice.
The two other potential choices" were never an option. They never existed objectively.
you only make a choice subjectively. And this subjective choice may or may not be free, depending on the circumstances.
In the three cases you listed, you are the final cause of your act, so your will is indeed free.
Most problems come from the fact people often confuse free will (which is a self-evident daily experience) and free action (which is an absurdity).
Free will doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want. It only means you can want whatever you want.
[/quote]
“Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.”
I think that, more often than not, we’re talking past eachother due to the nature of anonymous message boards.
We are free to want what we want, but why we want what we want may prove to be not so free.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Exceptions to the rule makes the rule relative.[/quote]
No. Rules are relative when they are different for different people, individually or collective. Rules are absolute if they are the same for all.[/quote]
Suppose you say, “killing a human being is wrong”.
Suppose I agree but then enlist, go to war and kill an enemy.
I need to make a new, amended, rule to prevent conflict with the previous one, right?
So I make an exception.
I justify my actions based on that exception.
Suppose you say, “killing a human being is wrong” and you see it as absolute. Many people don’t see anything wrong with killing other people. Is the rule still absolute?[/quote]
Okay, well it looks like we’re being technical, so are we being technical? Then I wouldn’t say killing a human being is wrong. What you did by going to enlist, go to war and kill an enemy is not wrong even if the war is unjust. Thus, you wouldn’t need a new amended rule to prevent conflict. Because the first rule is not an actual rule. And, not an absolute.
Well, since that’s not a rule and therefore not an absolute we’ll have to use an actual rule. Like…thou shalt not murder.