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
There is no distortion. Look at it this way: People don’t have a choice in deciding that someone made a choice! It’s self cancelling in regards to your point of view, if you follow my meaning. That’s the most important part of my argument.
It’s natural for people to want revenge. It’s just as determined for people to “believe” or “know” that someone made a free-will choice, and now deserves rewards or punishment.
You can’t rest on the idea that people were helpless in their actions by causality, but then turn around and try to “will” away the attendant emotions!
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.
The point is it’s not just the natural emotion, it’s the natural emotion + the belief that the natural emotion is justified by it being fair to the person that they suffer + the further emotions resulting from the belief.
What is expressed over and over in conversations is that people think we ‘have a choice’ and therefore ‘deserve to suffer’ in some cases. this is undoubtably what ‘desert’ is to most people.
It’s not true. We aren’t morally responsible in the way people suppose. We do need to hold each other responsible for practical reasons however.
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
There is no distortion. Look at it this way: People don’t have a choice in deciding that someone made a choice! It’s self cancelling in reagrds to your point of view, if you follow my meaning. That’s the most important part of my argument.
It’s natural for people to want revenge. It’s just as determined for people to “believe” or “know” that someone made a free-will choice, and now deserves rewards or punishment.
You can’t rest on the idea that people were helpless in their actions by causality, but then turn around and try to “will” away the attendant emotions!
What you can do is say if people didn’t believe X they wouldn’t feel Y.
[quoteIt’s not true. We aren’t morally responsible in the way people suppose. We do need to hold each other responsible for practical reasons however.
Stephen
This is an individual, subjective point of view on the matter. The “way” people suppose is the natural, over-riding law. Always has been, always will be.
This is your chink. This is where you err in your logic or reasoning.
You, myself and everyone else have subjective ideas about what just deserts are. Most of the time they overlap and are relatively similiar in a given time and culture. You show a slight, extra-reasoned approach to deserts. It isn’t wrong, but it is highly subjective in light of collective thinking. Like I said, it is one of the main reasons for the liberalization of laws and liberties over time.
Deserts does have a use. Your using the concept right now. Subjectively reasoning that someone “deserves” leniency or mercy. It’s just the other side of the coin. Nature sees no difference. It’s a great balance.
Of course there is a problem with that, Stephen: it may get you killed. In a real life, philosophy is not very practical.
It’s a question of the costs V benefits of giving up belief in libertarian free will and the moral responsibility that is supposed to follow.
If the benefits far outweigh the costs, it’s practical. This is just the same as skepticism about any erroneous belief.
This is a principle you’d generally agree with, I think. But I think you treat free will and moral responsibility as an exception, without justification.
Yes. And it is natural to be religious. Why else would humans have been religious for such a long time? Does that mean that we should stick to it?
And now that it seems to be possible to leave religion behind: why shouldn’t it be possible to leave behind the concept of ‘desert’?
VYAZMA - 14 August 2012 09:55 AM
So you do think that deserts is a consciously thought out tool.
No. I nowhere said that, and I definitely do not think that. Why else do you think that I I agree with the natural description you gave?
The point is that you refuse to see the full scope of morality, when you leave out the inside view of the moral discourse, the one you are in when you discuss if a sentence for a crime is too hight or too low. It is as if, I repeat it again, you give a natural explanation why people do mathematics. If you say ‘and that is all there is’, then you have not captured what mathematics is, even if your natural explanation is perfectly valid.
Of course there is a problem with that, Stephen: it may get you killed. In a real life, philosophy is not very practical.
It’s a question of the costs V benefits of giving up belief in libertarian free will and the moral responsibility that is supposed to follow.
If the benefits far outweigh the costs, it’s practical. This is just the same as skepticism about any erroneous belief.
This is a principle you’d generally agree with, I think. But I think you treat free will and moral responsibility as an exception, without justification.
Stephen
You can’t get people to give up feeling that they have libertarian free-will. It’s the illusion of free-will that makes our reality. It’s why the saying “Perception is 99% of reality” holds true.
I “feel” I have libertarian free-will. You do too. Everyone does. Our(ie..your’s and mine) mental hobby as it were, is to logically reason out why we don’t have free-will, but we live in a Matrix of Free-will.
We are correct..we don’t have free-will. But the expression of this is just a mental hobby really. Occasionally laws and customs are influenced by “deterministic values expressed by people”, but really everything is a free-will matrix. Socially and introspectively.
This is an individual, subjective point of view on the matter. The “way” people suppose is the natural, over-riding law. Always has been, always will be.
This is your chink. This is where you err in your logic or reasoning.
The truth is it’s a lottery, we make the choices we make because of the genes we got and the experiences we’ve had.
That’s not subjective, that’s objective. The truth is ‘just desert’ the way people suppose doesn’t fit with that. That’s an objective truth not subjective.
What you can do is say if people didn’t believe X they wouldn’t feel Y.
There is no problem with that at all.
Stephen
You can say that. But you will never, never, never be able to get people to stop “believing” X. Ever! So what’s your point Steve?
I think you’re wrong here, VYAZMA. If I put on my philosophy hat, I would probably find it very difficult to condemn anybody. But I would only do that if I knew that my decision is not going to affect my life—say, in the case of trying to decide if the killing of Bin Ladin was justified. Of course, if I was to judge a person who might have hurt a person I care for, I’ll leave my philosophy hat locked in my closet.
GdB-Yes. And it is natural to be religious. Why else would humans have been religious for such a long time? Does that mean that we should stick to it?
And now that it seems to be possible to leave religion behind: why shouldn’t it be possible to leave behind the concept of ‘desert’?
Your religion argument is a red herring(is that the right term?)
My retort is this: It does seem possible to leave religion behind? Really?
This is the fulcrum point between us. Don’t stray, come back to this point in your reply:
Desert is NOT a concept. It is a natural human behavioral mechanic that has followed our species up through evolution. It adapts to time and culture and other environmental stimuli. Just like religion. Just like sexual customs or agriculture.
What you can do is say if people didn’t believe X they wouldn’t feel Y.
There is no problem with that at all.
Stephen
You can say that. But you will never, never, never be able to get people to stop “believing” X. Ever! So what’s your point Steve?
I think you’re wrong here, VYAZMA. If I put on my philosophy hat, I would probably find it very difficult to condemn anybody. But I would only do that if I knew that my decision is not going to affect my life—say, in the case of trying to decide if the killing of Bin Ladin was justified. Of course, if I was to judge a person who might have hurt a person I care for, I’ll leave my philosophy hat locked in my closet.
I’m not talking about individual cases George. I was assuming X was deserts. You will never ever, ever get people to stop feeling the emotion of deserving. That’s what I was saying. I don’t know why we need Xs and Ys.
