5 of 11
5
Did Your Brain Make You Do It? (NYT 7/29)
Posted: 13 August 2012 11:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

FWIW, I think you both have made a big mess here mixing up the science of morality (how and why people behave the way they do) with the philosophy of morality, including the descriptive definition of morality (describing that which you think is moral) and the normative definition of morality (the “universal moral law”). I bet you don’t even know anymore what it is you’re actually discussing. You may want to start over and try to keep those three subjects separate.

[ Edited: 13 August 2012 11:43 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6139
Joined  2006-12-20
VYAZMA - 12 August 2012 04:11 PM

Secondly, what the heck is wrong with people “believing” something is just and fair? 

What is wrong with it is 1) It isn’t true. 2) There are negative consequences of believing it.

In order for it to be true that someone can deserve to suffer as a result of their choices they would need the right kind of control of those choices to make that possible.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 07:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
StephenLawrence - 13 August 2012 12:05 PM
VYAZMA - 12 August 2012 04:11 PM

Secondly, what the heck is wrong with people “believing” something is just and fair? 

What is wrong with it is 1) It isn’t true. 2) There are negative consequences of believing it.

In order for it to be true that someone can deserve to suffer as a result of their choices they would need the right kind of control of those choices to make that possible.

Stephen

Right.  And is this what GdB thinks too?
GdB?  Is this what you think?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 07:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

GdB-There is a criterion ‘outside’ that cannot be caught by an ‘objective’ description of the scientific praxis: that truths are related to observations and experiments.

Ok, I can accept that tenet prima faciea, the tenet that is!
Why don’t you explain how that tenet applies to your ideas concerning deserts.
What specifically is on the “outside” that would have you believe, if I’m not mistaken, that human’s propensity for deserts can be unlearned(?)?
I asked you in my last post, “What isn’t ready yet?” You said we weren’t ready.  Ready for what?
Are you suggesting that evolutionary human behavior is wrong?  If so was there a time when animals/humans didn’t feel a need for revenge or reward?
You think “deserving” is a man-made concept like interest on a mortgage?  Yes/No?
Are you just continually circumlocuting around an idea of utopianism here?
We can stamp out punishment and reward?  Do we stamp out the unfullfilled emotions that go with that too?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 10:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4521
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 13 August 2012 11:23 AM

FWIW, I think you both have made a big mess here mixing up the science of morality (how and why people behave the way they do) with the philosophy of morality, including the descriptive definition of morality (describing that which you think is moral) and the normative definition of morality (the “universal moral law”). I bet you don’t even know anymore what it is you’re actually discussing. You may want to start over and try to keep those three subjects separate.

Then I’ve been doing a bad job. My point, in your terminology, lies in the domain of prescriptive morality. E.g. how should we punish speeding with 100 km/h through a village where 50 km/h is the speed limit? In finding answers we will exchange arguments, based on what we think is reasonable, like looking at possible or actual consequences of the speeding, compare with other similar deeds, or with other deeds with a similar punishment etc etc.

In this domain the concept of ‘desert’ attributes nothing. At most it will bring in elements of lynch justice and ‘gesundes Volksempfinden’.

VYAZMA seems to think I don’t want to punish people. I don’t know where he read such a thing. What I am saying is that we should be able to give reasons for our verdicts, and that I believe that the concept of ‘desert’ is a show stopper for reasoning, and not an element of it. It is a remnant of the times that people thought God put the norms and they could know who deserved what based on God’s laws.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 10:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4521
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:09 PM
StephenLawrence - 13 August 2012 12:05 PM

In order for it to be true that someone can deserve to suffer as a result of their choices they would need the right kind of control of those choices to make that possible.

Right.  And is this what GdB thinks too?
GdB?  Is this what you think?

No. But that is because Stephen still uses the word ‘deserve’.

I am afraid he thinks as follows:
- In order to punish people, they must deserve it
- Only people that have free will (‘the right kind of control of those choices’) can deserve punishments
- Nobody has free will (or its companion ‘ultimate responsibility’)
Ergo, we have no right to punish.

And even if I could somehow agree with the words ‘they would need the right kind of control of those choices’, I have a completely different understanding of their meaning than Stephen, which you can read in my first posting in this thread.

And no, I am not, and never was, in jail. (Not even as a visitor…)

[ Edited: 13 August 2012 11:10 PM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 11:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4521
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:20 PM

GdB-There is a criterion ‘outside’ that cannot be caught by an ‘objective’ description of the scientific praxis: that truths are related to observations and experiments.

Ok, I can accept that tenet prima faciea, the tenet that is!
Why don’t you explain how that tenet applies to your ideas concerning deserts.

Didn’t you read on? Do that first, and then come back.

VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:20 PM

I asked you in my last post, “What isn’t ready yet?” You said we weren’t ready.  Ready for what?

Not ready for what. Ready with what. With overcoming our religious past, with ideas about souls, God, and an absolute moral order.

VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:20 PM

You think “deserving” is a man-made concept like interest on a mortgage?  Yes/No?

Yes. God is a man-made concept. Desert is a man-made concept. Interest on a mortgage is a man-made concept. And possibly you can give a natural history of them too.

VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:20 PM

We can stamp out punishment and reward?

It would would be nice, don’t you think? But I do not think we will ever succeed. There will always be cheaters in a society of cooperators. And those cooperators should have their measures against cheaters. But they should always try to improve these measures, and also adapt them when circumstances change.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 08:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6139
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 13 August 2012 10:53 PM
VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:09 PM
StephenLawrence - 13 August 2012 12:05 PM

In order for it to be true that someone can deserve to suffer as a result of their choices they would need the right kind of control of those choices to make that possible.

Right.  And is this what GdB thinks too?
GdB?  Is this what you think?

No. But that is because Stephen still uses the word ‘deserve’.

I think we do agree.

I am afraid he thinks as follows:
- In order to punish people, they must deserve it
- Only people that have free will (‘the right kind of control of those choices’) can deserve punishments
- Nobody has free will (or its companion ‘ultimate responsibility’)
Ergo, we have no right to punish.

No. I’d steer away from the word punishment and say we need penalties. Just it’s unhelpful, to say the least, to believe people can deserve to suffer. Which we seem to agree on.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6139
Joined  2006-12-20
VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:20 PM

  Do we stamp out the unfullfilled emotions that go with that too?

The point is these emotions are distorted by the belief that we ‘have a choice’ in a way that makes us deserving of rewards and punishment.

So we don’t stamp out the emotions but by giving up belief in Libertarian free will they change for the better.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 09:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 13 August 2012 11:08 PM
VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:20 PM

GdB-There is a criterion ‘outside’ that cannot be caught by an ‘objective’ description of the scientific praxis: that truths are related to observations and experiments.

Ok, I can accept that tenet prima faciea, the tenet that is!
Why don’t you explain how that tenet applies to your ideas concerning deserts.

Didn’t you read on? Do that first, and then come back.

VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:20 PM

I asked you in my last post, “What isn’t ready yet?” You said we weren’t ready.  Ready for what?

Not ready for what. Ready with what. With overcoming our religious past, with ideas about souls, God, and an absolute moral order.

VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:20 PM

You think “deserving” is a man-made concept like interest on a mortgage?  Yes/No?

Yes. God is a man-made concept. Desert is a man-made concept. Interest on a mortgage is a man-made concept. And possibly you can give a natural history of them too.

VYAZMA - 13 August 2012 07:20 PM

We can stamp out punishment and reward?

It would would be nice, don’t you think? But I do not think we will ever succeed. There will always be cheaters in a society of cooperators. And those cooperators should have their measures against cheaters. But they should always try to improve these measures, and also adapt them when circumstances change.

Yes I read on after that.  I just re-read it. A description of someone pleading with reason for a more fitting sentence.  A description of a judge using reason to mete out a sentence.  Did I miss something else?

So you do think that deserts is a consciously thought out tool.  A man-made(I use the term figuratively here!)concept!
This is why 6 pages or so of this topic gets sidetracked, and you feign incredulousness at my reaction to your seemingly logical argument.
I dislike this trait in debaters, I really do.  What a waste of time. I repeatedly ask you simple questions and you reply with long winded, sidetracks and obfusgations.
At least 3-4 times above I have put forth the proposition that human’s propensity for “deserts” or “feeling that someone or something deserves reward or punishment” is a natural human emotion.  A behavioral response that is automatic and related to interpersonal, social behaviors.  Just like smiling.  Just like jealousy.  Just like cosmetics.  Just like a dog salivating when a bell rings.(yes this last Pavlovian example has nothing to do with social behavior I know.)

[ Edited: 14 August 2012 10:03 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 10:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

The concept of desert is of use. Or we wouldn’t have that emotion/behavior anymore.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 10:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6139
Joined  2006-12-20
VYAZMA - 14 August 2012 09:55 AM

At least 3-4 times above I have put forth the proposition that human’s propensity for “deserts” or “feeling that someone or something deserves reward or punishment” is a natural human emotion.  A behavioral response that is automatic and related to interpersonal, social behaviors.  Just like smiling.  Just like jealousy.  Just like cosmetics.  Just like a dog salivating when a bell rings.

But it isn’t because attached is the belief that it is fair that someone suffers (in the case of punishment). This is quite different to unfortunately we need penalties and they were unlucky to be the recipient.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6139
Joined  2006-12-20
VYAZMA - 14 August 2012 10:01 AM

The concept of desert is of use. Or we wouldn’t have that emotion/behavior anymore.

You would still have some natural reactions. What you wouldnt have is a deepening, lengthening and distorting of them by the belief they are justified by it being fair to the recipient that they are made to suffer. Edit: So gaining satisfaction from suffering would go, which is one tremendous benefit, I would have thought.

Stephen

[ Edited: 14 August 2012 10:08 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
StephenLawrence - 14 August 2012 10:03 AM
VYAZMA - 14 August 2012 09:55 AM

At least 3-4 times above I have put forth the proposition that human’s propensity for “deserts” or “feeling that someone or something deserves reward or punishment” is a natural human emotion.  A behavioral response that is automatic and related to interpersonal, social behaviors.  Just like smiling.  Just like jealousy.  Just like cosmetics.  Just like a dog salivating when a bell rings.

But it isn’t because attached is the belief that it is fair that someone suffers (in the case of punishment). This is quite different to unfortunately we need penalties and they were unlucky to be the recipient.

Stephen

Can you touch up the syntax please here Steve.  I know I’m just as guilty, but I can’t get your point here.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2012 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
StephenLawrence - 14 August 2012 10:06 AM
VYAZMA - 14 August 2012 10:01 AM

The concept of desert is of use. Or we wouldn’t have that emotion/behavior anymore.

You would still have some natural reactions. What you wouldnt have is a deepening, lengthening and distorting of them by the belief they are justified by it being fair to the recipient that they are made to suffer.

Stephen

Just off the surface, real fast…... that varies by culture, and especially population density in regards to “deepening, lengthening” and especially so-called “distorting”.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 11
5
 
‹‹ Prime mover      Empathy? ››