A previous post has the title 'Moral Relativism?' and the subsequent discussion had very little to do with moral relativism. It had everything to do with the philosophical quandary surrounding the concepts of determinism and free will.
This post will also have nothing to do with moral relativism.
I have been working on the problem lately and I think I might see the outline of a kind of solution.
here are some notes on the fly ...
(A) Suppose that determinism is true, and that our actions are governed by factors that are, in principle, completely predictable. Free will is an illusion brought about by the fact that it is beyond our abilities to account for all the factors at once.
(B) Suppose that it is also true that we make choices and that we can be rightly held morally responsible for our actions.
How is (A) reconcilable with (B)?
evolution
survival
predicting the future/induction increases survival chances
imagination increases survival chances
faculties of imagination and prediction applied to human behavior causes the illusion that we could have chosen otherwise than we did
moral responsibility comes from the notion we could have done otherwise
the knowledge that there is a chance we can be held morally responsible affects our actions and increases our survival rate, as a species
evolution, survival, faculty of imagination & prediction, all are caused by deterministic(? - for lack of a better term at the moment) processes
the feeling of freedom is reducible to the ability to imagine and predict - we imagine that we could have done otherwise, and we predict what would happen in a similar situation if we behave differently. Predictions become causes of future behavior. Our ability to imagine many different outcomes is one reason our behavior is so difficult to predict - each imagined course of action and its probable outcome are weighed
Conclusion: the ability to make choices is the result of deterministic processes
Imagination and prediction, presumably the output of deterministic processes --> this output in turn is a causal factor in future behavior. This leads to the FAULTY impression that we could have chosen to do other than we did. Nevertheless it is important not to lose the motivational impetus that holding each other morally responsible provides ... because we would be removing one of the causes of future good actions ... we can imagine and predict that evil would result.
PROBLEM: Assumes that all the processes involved are deterministic ones.
PROBLEM 2: Just because the processes leading to the ability to make choices are all deterministic, doesn't necessarily mean that choice-making itself is deterministic
This is so sloppy I know. I have never been so careless before. But I have one more final paper to write and then finals to study for and I decided just to get this out there to see what you think.
I'll most likely delete this in the morning.
Ha ha. Ever seen the Princess Bride? "All right Westley, good job, good night, I'll most likely kill you in the morning ..."
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Moral relativism?
So yesterday afternoon I found myself very nearly defending a form of moral relativism, which discomfited me, since I do not believe in moral relativism. This bothered me so much that I checked out The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on moral relativism*, just to brush up on it. Let me explain how I ended up in this predicament, at least as far as I can recall while still keeping this entry brief.
It began as a discussion of free will. The problem of free will is that it seems that we make choices, and that it is possible that we could have chosen to do other than what we did (this last is debatable) - but it also seems that minds are physical, and that physical things obey uniform natural laws which are determined and predictable. So, do our minds obey predictable laws or not?
Morality comes in because it seems that if we do not have free will, then we are not free to choose to do otherwise than we did. But our conception of moral responsibility hinges on the fact that we could have chosen to do other than we did.
Most philosophers want to preserve our concept of moral responsibility, because there doesn't seem to be any way to build up a workable ethics without it.
I have a problem in that the determinist position makes the most sense to me, but I believe in moral responsibility. So, I was trying to figure out a way of understanding the two concepts such that they are compatible.
What I came up with - and this is only the barest sketch of a theory - is that the utility of moral responsibility arises out of the fact that even though our behavior is determined in principle, we do not have an understanding of everything that determines our behavior. In order to develop this thought properly, I would have to write a lot more than I want to do here.
There is a whole can of worms here, so many that now that I have got to this point I don't know where to go. How did I get to the point of defending moral relativism? I forget. The conversation went in many directions and my thoughts right now are going in many directions.
Here's the thing: there is abundant evidence that our actions are determined. When we make choices, we usually have reasons. When we humans communicate with each other, we often try to convince each other to choose something or another, by offering reasons. Aren't our choices determined by reasons? If reasons do not determine our choices, then why would we try to convince each other of things?
Some choices may not be governed by reasons (at least conscious ones). Suppose I sometimes prefer cereal for breakfast, sometimes fruit. I may not have any good (rational) reason for choosing one over the other; the choice is purely based on my preference at the time. In this case, isn't the choice a result of my state of mind - which is a brain state - which is just chemistry and electricity and other physically determined events going on?
Wilbur pointed out that when we speak, each word we utter narrows the possiblities for what the next word will be. (Even gibberish follows a pattern.) When we listen to someone else speak, we often mentally fill in the ends of sentences before we hear them. If we can predict what someone is about to say with good accuracy, and we can sometimes know how others will react in a situation, then why would we think that this could not be refined and better understood to the point that we could completely predict what someone will do under any circumstances at all?
If we could do that, then we could say that the person's actions are determined. But the person would still make choices - it's just that we would know what the person would choose, before the person chose. Even though the choices were determined, it seems like the person is still morally reponsible for the actions he or she performs.
I have played fast and loose here and I don't know if I have expressed the issues very clearly, but I think free will and determinism are actually compatible, and that ethics need not be sacrificed.
Maybe Arglor will remind me how it came about that I said, "There's nothing self-contradictory about the term 'moral relativism'."
* For those of you who actually attempt a full read of the article, my hat's off to you. I think DMR is plausible for ordinary conversation but I don't really believe it. MMR is right out as far as I am concerned.
It began as a discussion of free will. The problem of free will is that it seems that we make choices, and that it is possible that we could have chosen to do other than what we did (this last is debatable) - but it also seems that minds are physical, and that physical things obey uniform natural laws which are determined and predictable. So, do our minds obey predictable laws or not?
Morality comes in because it seems that if we do not have free will, then we are not free to choose to do otherwise than we did. But our conception of moral responsibility hinges on the fact that we could have chosen to do other than we did.
Most philosophers want to preserve our concept of moral responsibility, because there doesn't seem to be any way to build up a workable ethics without it.
I have a problem in that the determinist position makes the most sense to me, but I believe in moral responsibility. So, I was trying to figure out a way of understanding the two concepts such that they are compatible.
What I came up with - and this is only the barest sketch of a theory - is that the utility of moral responsibility arises out of the fact that even though our behavior is determined in principle, we do not have an understanding of everything that determines our behavior. In order to develop this thought properly, I would have to write a lot more than I want to do here.
There is a whole can of worms here, so many that now that I have got to this point I don't know where to go. How did I get to the point of defending moral relativism? I forget. The conversation went in many directions and my thoughts right now are going in many directions.
Here's the thing: there is abundant evidence that our actions are determined. When we make choices, we usually have reasons. When we humans communicate with each other, we often try to convince each other to choose something or another, by offering reasons. Aren't our choices determined by reasons? If reasons do not determine our choices, then why would we try to convince each other of things?
Some choices may not be governed by reasons (at least conscious ones). Suppose I sometimes prefer cereal for breakfast, sometimes fruit. I may not have any good (rational) reason for choosing one over the other; the choice is purely based on my preference at the time. In this case, isn't the choice a result of my state of mind - which is a brain state - which is just chemistry and electricity and other physically determined events going on?
Wilbur pointed out that when we speak, each word we utter narrows the possiblities for what the next word will be. (Even gibberish follows a pattern.) When we listen to someone else speak, we often mentally fill in the ends of sentences before we hear them. If we can predict what someone is about to say with good accuracy, and we can sometimes know how others will react in a situation, then why would we think that this could not be refined and better understood to the point that we could completely predict what someone will do under any circumstances at all?
If we could do that, then we could say that the person's actions are determined. But the person would still make choices - it's just that we would know what the person would choose, before the person chose. Even though the choices were determined, it seems like the person is still morally reponsible for the actions he or she performs.
I have played fast and loose here and I don't know if I have expressed the issues very clearly, but I think free will and determinism are actually compatible, and that ethics need not be sacrificed.
Maybe Arglor will remind me how it came about that I said, "There's nothing self-contradictory about the term 'moral relativism'."
* For those of you who actually attempt a full read of the article, my hat's off to you. I think DMR is plausible for ordinary conversation but I don't really believe it. MMR is right out as far as I am concerned.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Democracy in Iraq ... as if you hadn't heard enough about it
Well, well, well ... bet you were never expecting to hear from me again! Yes, it's been over a week since I've posted. Sorry, snaars fans ... but you all wouldn't adore me half so much if I didn't live up to my obligations such as family, work, and school, now would you?
Yesterday I completed the report for my communication class. This is the one in which I was expected to answer the question, "Is democracy in a foreign country worth fighting for?" The question refers to Iraq, since the overarching question we as a class have been trying to answer is, "Is the Iraq war justified?" So, I interpreted the question as meaning, "Is democracy in Iraq worth fighting for?" Nevertheless I tried to discuss the larger theme of global democratization in the paper.
In the first part of my paper I argue that yes, democratic ideals are definitely worth fighting for. I point out that many people have fought and died to protect these ideals, and that we should be grateful. Our founding documents and our laws express the sentiment that democratic freedoms are intrinsically valuable. We believe they allow the greatest number of people to have the opportunity to lead the fullest possible lives.
Then I point out that just because something is worth fighting for, that doesn't mean we should fight for it in any and every situation. There are other means to get the results we want; war should be the absolute last resort.
In my paper I looked at a few reasons that President Bush offered in a speech in 2003, explaining his reasoning behind deposing Saddam and promoting democracy in Iraq. He gave three main reasons: 1) democratic ideals promote peace and stability, 2)success in Iraq will eventually result in peace throughout the Middle East, especially between Israel and the envisioned Palestinian state, and 3)deposing Saddam is a blow to terrorism. I argue against all three points.
My responses, very briefly:
1) Democratization is not well understood, and there is evidence showing that stability and prosperity facilitate democracy, not the other way around.
2)Iraq is in some ways less stable today than it was before Saddam was deposed. The U.S. administration refuses to estimate how many Iraqi civilians have been killed since military operations began. Estimates by other sources range, but the best conservative estimate is around 20,000 deaths that have occurred over and above what would have occurred had Saddam stayed in power. The real toll could be well over 100,000. These figures do not even consider people that have been wounded and maimed, only those killed. Furthermore, corruption is rampant in the new government. In one case alone, contractor Custer Battles defrauded the U.S. of $50 million of reconstruction money. Whistleblowers wanted to sue, but the Bush administration refused to back up the lawsuit.
3) Deposing Saddam has not been a blow to terrorism. U.S. intelligence has not shown any link between Saddam and Al Qaida, or 9/11. On the other hand, Iraq seems to have become a rallying cry for terrorists, since it is claimed that our actions there are proof of our imperialism. Our troops and Iraqi police and officials are attacked by insurgents on a daily basis.
Iraq is not yet a stable democracy. Elections were held, but under the heavy shadow of the U.S. presence there. Iraq will not be a true beacon of democracy until the U.S. can withdraw and leave a stable government in its wake. It does not seem that this can happen in the very near future.
The National Priorities Project has estimated the cost for Americans of the war in Iraq has been 183.8 BILLION dollars and climbing by thousands of dollars every second.
In conclusion, I state that although democratic ideals are worth fighting for, sometimes those same ideals would seem to indicate that it is sometimes better not to fight; rather we should pursue our goals by peaceful means.
Yesterday I completed the report for my communication class. This is the one in which I was expected to answer the question, "Is democracy in a foreign country worth fighting for?" The question refers to Iraq, since the overarching question we as a class have been trying to answer is, "Is the Iraq war justified?" So, I interpreted the question as meaning, "Is democracy in Iraq worth fighting for?" Nevertheless I tried to discuss the larger theme of global democratization in the paper.
In the first part of my paper I argue that yes, democratic ideals are definitely worth fighting for. I point out that many people have fought and died to protect these ideals, and that we should be grateful. Our founding documents and our laws express the sentiment that democratic freedoms are intrinsically valuable. We believe they allow the greatest number of people to have the opportunity to lead the fullest possible lives.
Then I point out that just because something is worth fighting for, that doesn't mean we should fight for it in any and every situation. There are other means to get the results we want; war should be the absolute last resort.
In my paper I looked at a few reasons that President Bush offered in a speech in 2003, explaining his reasoning behind deposing Saddam and promoting democracy in Iraq. He gave three main reasons: 1) democratic ideals promote peace and stability, 2)success in Iraq will eventually result in peace throughout the Middle East, especially between Israel and the envisioned Palestinian state, and 3)deposing Saddam is a blow to terrorism. I argue against all three points.
My responses, very briefly:
1) Democratization is not well understood, and there is evidence showing that stability and prosperity facilitate democracy, not the other way around.
2)Iraq is in some ways less stable today than it was before Saddam was deposed. The U.S. administration refuses to estimate how many Iraqi civilians have been killed since military operations began. Estimates by other sources range, but the best conservative estimate is around 20,000 deaths that have occurred over and above what would have occurred had Saddam stayed in power. The real toll could be well over 100,000. These figures do not even consider people that have been wounded and maimed, only those killed. Furthermore, corruption is rampant in the new government. In one case alone, contractor Custer Battles defrauded the U.S. of $50 million of reconstruction money. Whistleblowers wanted to sue, but the Bush administration refused to back up the lawsuit.
3) Deposing Saddam has not been a blow to terrorism. U.S. intelligence has not shown any link between Saddam and Al Qaida, or 9/11. On the other hand, Iraq seems to have become a rallying cry for terrorists, since it is claimed that our actions there are proof of our imperialism. Our troops and Iraqi police and officials are attacked by insurgents on a daily basis.
Iraq is not yet a stable democracy. Elections were held, but under the heavy shadow of the U.S. presence there. Iraq will not be a true beacon of democracy until the U.S. can withdraw and leave a stable government in its wake. It does not seem that this can happen in the very near future.
The National Priorities Project has estimated the cost for Americans of the war in Iraq has been 183.8 BILLION dollars and climbing by thousands of dollars every second.
In conclusion, I state that although democratic ideals are worth fighting for, sometimes those same ideals would seem to indicate that it is sometimes better not to fight; rather we should pursue our goals by peaceful means.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
I got the rough draft of my paper back from Dr. Korcz.
I believed my argument against the existence of possible worlds other than our own was brilliant, but I now see that my argument needs quite a bit of refinement.
This is going to require a lot of thought. But I'm not giving up; this do I solemnly swear by all I hold dear ...
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANN!!!!*
I will strike, I will jab. I will flay about with razor logic until all possibilities are exhausted - no superficial subjunctives shall stand! I shall remain sillily triumphant in my own mind!!!!**
If you want to speak up for the existence of possible worlds, now's the time ... before I demonstrate once and for all the awesome power of a determined mind and lay waste to all that is not actual (in the non-indexical sense***)!!!!!!!!!****
*Thanks Arglor for the recent post.
** Unless I become convinced that the antithesis of the case contraindicated by the one I propose is correct, is correct.
*** David lewis maintains that actuality is whatever goes on here - no matter which possible world you happen to be in.
**** Emphatic, aren't I?
I believed my argument against the existence of possible worlds other than our own was brilliant, but I now see that my argument needs quite a bit of refinement.
This is going to require a lot of thought. But I'm not giving up; this do I solemnly swear by all I hold dear ...
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANN!!!!*
I will strike, I will jab. I will flay about with razor logic until all possibilities are exhausted - no superficial subjunctives shall stand! I shall remain sillily triumphant in my own mind!!!!**
If you want to speak up for the existence of possible worlds, now's the time ... before I demonstrate once and for all the awesome power of a determined mind and lay waste to all that is not actual (in the non-indexical sense***)!!!!!!!!!****
*Thanks Arglor for the recent post.
** Unless I become convinced that the antithesis of the case contraindicated by the one I propose is correct, is correct.
*** David lewis maintains that actuality is whatever goes on here - no matter which possible world you happen to be in.
**** Emphatic, aren't I?
Thursday, April 07, 2005
What?! Doctor Who?
I just found out that Doctor Who has been revamped as a brand new series and they already have made three new episodes!
Why did no one tell me this? You there! Why didn't you tell me this?
The Doctor Who series had a profound influence on me growing up. My favorite was Tom Baker, but I also loved Pertwee. I enjoyed Hartnell whenever I could but they hardly ever ran those where I lived. There was another Doctor - number two - but I only ever saw him in the episode "The Three Doctors" and then again when they made "The Five Doctors'. I wasn't too keen on most of the Doctors that came after, but I still would watch them whenever I could.
I can't wait to get my hands on some of the new episodes, to see how they measure up. BBC has a fantastic web site for the new series. That's how I discovered it. Check it out.
I can't believe it. A new Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy Movie, and a new Doctor Who series. I feel like I've regenerated into a younger, more vibrant version!
Why did no one tell me this? You there! Why didn't you tell me this?
The Doctor Who series had a profound influence on me growing up. My favorite was Tom Baker, but I also loved Pertwee. I enjoyed Hartnell whenever I could but they hardly ever ran those where I lived. There was another Doctor - number two - but I only ever saw him in the episode "The Three Doctors" and then again when they made "The Five Doctors'. I wasn't too keen on most of the Doctors that came after, but I still would watch them whenever I could.
I can't wait to get my hands on some of the new episodes, to see how they measure up. BBC has a fantastic web site for the new series. That's how I discovered it. Check it out.
I can't believe it. A new Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy Movie, and a new Doctor Who series. I feel like I've regenerated into a younger, more vibrant version!
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Intelligent design?
This says it all. By Tom Toles. Here is a link: intelligent design cartoon;
By the way, I noticed that the a-words are now about trains. I can't wait to see what comes up next. I'll have to think of some interesting things to write about, and see how they respond. This could get fun!
Has anyone else noticed that the a-words change in the comment windows? I bet if you're creative with your comments you can get some interesting results. (I guess I'm asking Arglor since no one else reads this. Or if they do, they are very quiet.)
Come on snaars fans! Tell me what you really think about this cartoon!
Monday, April 04, 2005
Disembarking ... all aboard for the next stop!
It is now 5:30AM on the day my metaphysics paper is due. I just printed out the paper. I have spent the last 20 hours writing. I spent all day Saturday writing.
I am feeling okay now but I will crash this afternoon.
I have another paper due tomorrow, for my philosophy of law class. I have not yet started it.
I have a night class tonight. I go there after work. The class does not end until 8:50PM. Something's got to give.
Hey Arglor. If you're reading this - I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
I am feeling okay now but I will crash this afternoon.
I have another paper due tomorrow, for my philosophy of law class. I have not yet started it.
I have a night class tonight. I go there after work. The class does not end until 8:50PM. Something's got to give.
Hey Arglor. If you're reading this - I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Chug-a Chug-a Choo Choo
Someone told me recently that I do well under pressure. I disagree. I perform admirably under pressure, but I don't "do well". There's nothing worse than being stuck at work all day when I have school deadlines coming at me like boxcars on a freight train. I've got my foot wedged in the track of life. Or the track of philosophy. No, wait - I've got it - The train is philosophy, and I'm the conductor, and the deadlines are like a wall or collapsed tunnel ahead of me. ... No ... me, the conductor of philosophy? That would make me like a god or something. I've got it. Here goes. I'm tied to the track. The train track is modality and the conductor of the train is David K. Lewis. Philosophy is the black-caped man who tied me up. There! See, I can express myself with perfect clarity when I put my mind to it.
Did I mention that I haven't actually started to write anything for my paper which is due in three days?
Did I mention that I haven't actually started to write anything for my paper which is due in three days?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
