Update: Knowing that free will is just an illusion, how to continue living?

[MischievousMonkey]

Morality depends on choice because if there were no choice involved, it would be amoral. Morality is a human concept.

For example a bear attacking humans is not open to the question of good and evil, the bear is simply doing what he was programmed to do. Just like a coral bush, an ant or a Venus fly trap.

Likewise if humans were the same way, morality would not be a valid concept to apply to our actions.



This is the "social" theory of morality in a nutshell. The theory that society 'creates' morality. But "society" does not create the need for morality. It is only an outgrowth. Our survival does.



This makes no sense. Again your logic seems to fall apart. Either morality is practical, meaning it is true or it is not.

Here's a syllogism to help you visualize this:

1+2 = 3 is practical and true

1+2= 100 is not true and therefore not practical

Even if you lived on an island by yourself, you would still need traditional morality (hard work, honesty, integrity etc) to survive. Just not the moral concepts that deals with other people.



So black people are predetermined to be slaves huh?



That's where this is going.

Oh okay, I see what's going on now.

I agree with your first four paragraphs so we're on the same wavelength about this.

What messed me up is that I used the wrong word. Practical in english defines what's happening in reality (as opposed as in theory), right? So that's what you mean when you say my statements are contradictory, because on one side I'm saying it only exists as a construct but on the other side by using the word practical I'm saying it's undoubtedly real as a universal rule.

The word I should have used was useful That's what I meant since the beginning.

Thanks.

I don't agree that you'd need morality to survive on an island. In fact, I even think that acting in so called amoral ways could end up being beneficial for you in many ways. Stealing, enslaving, manipulating the other people on that island are efficient ways to survive.

And yeah, black people were predetermined to be slaves, just as they were predetermined to be rulers and conquerors before that, and just as they are predetermined to rise from their situation in the future and get what's their. Everything is predetermined.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

@MyopicEagle so basically, your M.O is Objectivism, no?

for those that don't know

objectivism
ob·jec·tiv·ism
/əbˈjektəˌvizəm,äbˈjektəˌvizəm/
noun

1. 
   the tendency to lay stress on what is external to or independent of the mind.
2. 
   PHILOSOPHY
   the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.

EDIT: morality is needed for us to be human and to function as a society, being amoral is also necessary but often times it can lead to nihilism, nonchalance, and psychopathy. Where being amoral comes into being needed is when you need to make HARD decisions but you cant allow your moral compass to cloud your judgment

I wouldn't say so because I don't believe in the objectivity of moral truths. Morality is fully subjective to me.

Killing twins was not an amoral practice in some societies.

 

[Lamar Givens]

Atheist cac drivel

Believe I have no control over my life choices brehs

Believe you are a non sentient being brehs

Believe in subjective truth rather than objective proof brehs

This line of thought is where militant atheism takes/leads you

 

[MischievousMonkey]

I edited the OP to correct the use of the word practical.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Atheist cac drivel

Believe I have no control over my life choices brehs

Believe you are a non sentient being brehs

Believe in subjective truth rather than objective proof brehs

This line of thought is where militant atheism takes/leads you

I'm not an atheist at all Mr Givens

 

[Lamar Givens]

I'm not an atheist at all Mr Givens

That’s cool but your initial arguments are derived from atheist propositions.

I remember Sam Harris in an interview saying that human beings are nothing more than a computer simulation that makes choices based on some of the points you addressed; and he said therefore the human mind cannot be trusted.

I thought to myself this fool Sam Harris didn’t even realize he contradicted his own statement with his initial premise.

If the human mind can’t be trusted than how can he be so confident that his own belief system is even true

This is why atheism always leads to nihilism

 

[BlackJesus]

I wouldn't say so because I don't believe in the objectivity of moral truths. Morality is fully subjective to me.

Killing twins was not an amoral practice in some societies.

Oh okay, I see what's going on now.

I agree with your first four paragraphs so we're on the same wavelength about this.

What messed me up is that I used the wrong word. Practical in english defines what's happening in reality (as opposed as in theory), right? So that's what you mean when you say my statements are contradictory, because on one side I'm saying it only exists as a construct but on the other side by using the word practical I'm saying it's undoubtedly real as a universal rule.

The word I should have used was useful That's what I meant since the beginning.

Thanks.

I don't agree that you'd need morality to survive on an island. In fact, I even think that acting in so called amoral ways could end up being beneficial for you in many ways. Stealing, enslaving, manipulating the other people on that island are efficient ways to survive.

And yeah, black people were predetermined to be slaves, just as they were predetermined to be rulers and conquerors before that, and just as they are predetermined to rise from their situation in the future and get what's their. Everything is predetermined.

1. Killing twins, cannibalism, rape etc all occur quite often in primitive societies. Societies that never have and never will get beyond that level of development. The reason why is self explanatory.

Life in such places is nasty brutish, and short. Survival is an afterthought. They barely survive and most primitive tribes today are extinct or become modernized.

In civilized societies those practices are outlawed.

2. No we are not really in agreement. In fact we have two opposing viewpoints.

And lets not play with words practical means pretty much the same as useful.

3. Stealing, enslaving etc is a highly risky strategy on an island that could lead to retribution and an early death. Not a survival strategy at all. Not to mention the loss of trade partners which is another benefit of morality.

The French tried that very strategy on the the island of Haiti. They did literally everything you said. Suffice to say it didn't work out too well for them. They were slaughtered and genocided off the island. What goes around comes around.

4. Nice way to juelz your way out of that slavery question. You're talented at juelzing/semantics I'll give you that.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

That’s cool but your initial arguments are derived from atheist propositions.

I remember Sam Harris in an interview saying that human beings are nothing more than a computer simulation that makes choices based on some of the points you addressed; and he said therefore the human mind cannot be trusted.

I thought to myself this fool Sam Harris didn’t even realize he contradicted his own statement with his initial premise.

If the human mind can’t be trusted than how can he be so confident that his own belief system is even true

This is why atheism always leads to nihilism

Yeah I disagree with his conclusion. I don't think the mind can't be trusted.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

1. Killing twins, cannibalism, rape etc all occur quite often in primitive societies. Societies that never have and never will get beyond that level of development. The reason why is self explanatory.

Life in such places is nasty brutish, and short. Survival is an afterthought. They barely survive and most primitive tribes today are extinct or become modernized.

In civilized societies those practices are outlawed.

2. No we are not really in agreement. In fact we have two opposing viewpoints.

And lets not play with words practical means pretty much the same as useful.

3. Stealing, enslaving etc is a highly risky strategy on an island that could lead to retribution and an early death. Not a survival strategy at all. Not to mention the loss of trade partners which is another benefit of morality.

The French tried that very strategy on the the island of Haiti. They did literally everything you said. Suffice to say it didn't work out too well for them. They were slaughtered and genocided off the island. What goes around comes around.

4. Nice way to juelz your way out of that slavery question. You're talented at juelzing/semantics I'll give you that.

1. Doesn't negate my point at all. To do so you would need to show that these societies that you call primitive didn't have any moral code. I know it's false; their moral code just differs from yours and our modern society's. Whether or not their morality was efficient and allowed them to develop is not the question here.

"Civilized" societies instituted several forms of killing, such as duels or capital punishment, and considered these to be very moral. Those have been outlawed and deemed immoral in plenty modern societies. Goes to show the subjectivity of morality.

2. No, I thought that was what you pointed out but apparently it's not. Nevertheless I stand my ground. There's a nuance here that is important. Here's an illustration to get you to understand what I mean:

Santa does not exist as a person. He does exist as a concept. Even if the concept supposes a lie, an invention, it is useful. Which means you can use this concept to your advantage, in this case as a mean to please your children, make them dream, etc etc. But saying "Santa is practical" can be considered wrong, because he doesn't exist in practice, his concept does.

Same exact thought process for morality.

3. You said two persons or more were enough to form a society. If I'm alone on an island with one other person and I don't know if this person follows the same morals as me, treating them with respect or ignoring them could reveal to be as risky and dangerous as considering them a problem to take care of.

Knowing that morality is not universal and that individuals often stray away from it, killing before being potentially killed is a viable strategy. The point here isn't to say it's the best strategy; I don't even think it is (see prisoner dilemma). But what you're arguing here is morality is the best strategy. I don't care whether it is or not; I'm saying it's not necessary.

And it's easy to show, unless you believe that every single immoral action ever led to the demise of those who committed them. And in that case I would ask where's the payback for slavery in America.

What goes around definitely does not come around.

4. I didn't juelz out of that question, I explicitly answered it with a yes. Now prove me wrong if you can

 

[MischievousMonkey]

In nature animals will do what they do. There's not a reason that they won't. Like I said you won't find a wolf that only eats beans and grass because it thinks eating meat is wrong.

Animals behavior can be changed trough conditioning a la Pavlovs dog. The dog was trained that it'll get a treat after it hears a bell. He'd ring the bell the dog would salivate in anticipation of the treat. That's conditioning through intervention things like that wouldn't necessarily happen in the wild.

The man does have stimuli but we are more complex than just "the drink is too hot = don't / won't drink" we think, we rationalize

It's too hot, I'll let it cool down
I'll put ice in it
I'll blow on it
It'll be ready in a minute or two

Dog getting its mouth burned just thinks "pain = stop" it cant think why, or what to do to rectify it.

Our ability to think beyond the initial stimuli is what separates us. The ability to rationalize allows us to make choices/decisions.

What's rationalizing and how does it occur in the brain? Can you give me an example of a choice or a decision you took that required you to rationalize and tell me how it went?

 

[J Money]

@MyopicEagle Ima rep you again when I can my brother. Even a small thing like you making this thread has helped me with certain things like trying to connect dots together. Life is hard to understand man



I'm just a regular brotha with hundreds of questions. I'm trying to find the answers but it's hard man

 

[MischievousMonkey]

@MyopicEagle Ima rep you again when I can my brother. Even a small thing like you making this thread has helped me with certain things like trying to connect dots together. Life is hard to understand man



I'm just a regular brotha with hundreds of questions. I'm trying to find the answers but it's hard man

same breh... Same

 

[Wildin]

What's rationalizing and how does it occur in the brain? Can you give me an example of a choice or a decision you took that required you to rationalize and tell me how it went?

Humans have the ability (choice) to do a,b,c,d. We think things through and make decisions.

An animal doesn't rationalize. They don't think through multiple options and choose the best one.

They try one thing at a time.

Like I said back a few posts ago

You hand a dog a bowl of water, it's simple yes or no. For humans even if they answer is yes or no there is rational behind the answer.

No I'm not thirsty
I don't want 'that' drink
No I don't like that drink
The drink is too cold
The drink is too hot
Too sweet
Too bitter
Too sour

This is all rationale

You offer a dog water it'll look at it, smell it maybe take a sip and it either wants it or not. It's an on or off switch for the animal. Just yes or no, nothing beyond the initial stimuli.

For instance think of all the different ways you could walk up some stairs.
You could do two at a time,
you could make sure each foot touches each step
You could go single step (one foot at a time, no step gets touched twice)
You couple hop on one leg, and alternate legs
You could run up the stairs.

We have the ability to think of multiple ways and choose what we want to do on the fly.

Animals don't do that they just go, if they get a stimulus that tells them to run (like you begin to chase the cat or dog) they'll run, or if they get one to stop, they'll stop. They don't weigh out different options and choose the best one.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Humans have the ability (choice) to do a,b,c,d. We think things through and make decisions.

An animal doesn't rationalize. They don't think through multiple options and choose the best one.

They try one thing at a time.

Like I said back a few posts ago



For instance think of all the different ways you could walk up some stairs.
You could do two at a time,
you could make sure each foot touches each step
You could go single step (one foot at a time, no step gets touched twice)
You couple hop on one leg, and alternate legs
You could run up the stairs.

We have the ability to think of multiple ways and choose what we want to do on the fly.

Animals don't do that they just go, if they get a stimulus that tells them to run (like you begin to chase the cat or dog) they'll run, or if they get one to stop, they'll stop. They don't weigh out different options and choose the best one.

Do you agree there is no randomness in the "choice" we make concerning the way we are going to climb the stairs? That we choose a specific way for a reason?

 

[Wildin]

Do you agree there is no randomness in the "choice" we make concerning the way we are going to climb the stairs? That we choose a specific way for a reason?

Yes. Humans have choice free will. We can ignore stimuli, or choose how we want to react for the most part, and we can rationalize.

The things we don't aren't random. We have many choices and options to do what we do. Think about moving your right hand to scratch your right ear. A straight line by bending your elbow and slightly lifting your shoulder doesn't seem like it requires a lot of thought. If your ear actually itched and you scratched it by using that movement you wouldnt have broken it down into several options of how to get your hand to your ear. But if you sit in your chair you can think of 10 different movements to get your right hand to your right ear. We can think of and choose many options and choices in our life, we can literally define or redefine our experiences.