In a deterministic world everything is pre-determined including social interactions, emotions, instincts and behavior.
But what else is determined? Violence, conflict, destruction,anger, suffering and rage we could include is also pre-determined biologically or genetically.
If that is the case in constrast to that of morality how can a individual be guilty or wrong in the association of fulfilling their own bio-chemistry and physiology?
How can a person be guilty of their own physical qualities that marks their very being?
If we admit that we live in a deterministic universe in that what is determined in us is natural how can anything be wrong?
If we admit that we live in a deterministic universe why should we correct or make changes to anything if everything is natural and is as it should be.
In this world, which is deterministic, some actions are said to be wrong simply because it was determined that they so be. What caused society to look down upon some actions and up upon others is not only reason or philosophy, or some utilitarian intent. What caused society is everything that came before now, meaning that reason and philosophy had as much to do with the legal system as a butterfly flapping it’s wings 300 million years ago. In D everything and nothing is culpable for the present. The degree of culpability, or whether there even exists a degree, is something I haven’t really thought about.
So, in a sense, you are right in rhetorically stating that not any behavior or thing is wrong in a deterministic paradigm, but you failed to mention that all judgment made about rightness or wrongness are irrelevant, unless until they are.
What I’m saying is that if you look at the world as it now is, with it’s pretension of free will and agency and culpability from a deterministic lens, then first one has to take into account that they themselves are determined in this inquiry, and secondly that one’s evaluation of their position, too, is determined to be as it is. And unless you elevate reason and thought onto a plane of existence that transcends the deterministic plane, you must acknowledge that this is simply your opinion, and your evaluation about free will. Basically, a deterministic perspective nullifies the perceiver’s evaluations as being simply so caused to exist.
ps. In my haste, I missed this last sentence. I have some thoughts on it.
If we admit we live in a deterministic world, then reasons, such as the little argument you gave, has little to do (causally) with what comes next. That some might make changes to something they see as incorrect is determined to occur as it does. Some will think that everything is natural as it should be be-cause they were determined to think so, and that they further go on and do something about this, and then later think that their action was caused by their thought would have too been caused. Now, even though they think it was the thought that led to their action, in reality, it wasn’t only the thought, but everything preceding the action, including the person, their thought, their father beating them when they were little, a sight of a little pony 569 years prior to the occurance of the event by the person’s grand grand grand x4 father, the smell of a wet cat by the grand x5 father, a supernovae a 1000 lightyears away–these and everything else had a hand in what occurred. The thought that everything is natural and is as it should be accounts for very very little of what occurs next.
If certain actions exist beyond what people may think of them they were determined to be in existence as being necessary or integral nonetheless. This goes for actions of violence and malice too no matter what we may think.
If we also understand that differences of perspectives, preferences, feelings, and emotions are also determined to exist simultaneously it would make sense as to why existence is relative instead of being narrowly uniformic.
I agree that they are irrelevant.
I don’t believe in free will concerning that everything is determined.
I don’t see how free will can exist in a pre-determined world.
I understand what you are saying but notice that when you describe free-will it was along with the word pretension.
This goes along the lines of Nietzsche when he describes the deception of appearances versus apparent existence and so on.
If we understand violence and malicious actions as being apart of our bio-chemistry or physiology what exactly is there to persecute? What exactly is there to be guilty of?
If we understand that destruction, suffering, chaos and violence is a integral part of nature or existence it almost seems that through moral pretensions along with that of free will that we are declaring war on existence because we have the inability of accepting such instances as natural proceeding extensions.
We construct religion, morality and free-will because we hate existence or because we have a inability to accept the many violent facets of destruction that comes with the cosmos beyond the creative ones as a form of resentment.
( Articulated by Nietzsche)
Again, how can a man or woman be guilty of their bio-chemisty or physiology if they were pre-determined to act in the way that they do? This is a question that morality or ethics refuses to answer and is the core reason why they pretend that free will exists or is a dilemma even in contrast to overbearing amounts of evidence that we live in a deterministic universe without free will altogether.
Determinism is a philosophy that has causation as a central tenet. The determinant is everything preceding now. The determinant of now is then.
…no idea what you’re saying. Expand this into a paragraph of simple sentences.
again…no idea.
Because society was determined to find them guilty, just as they were determined to commit some act. There is no rightness, or wrongness in events, if the event is an effect. If all events are effects then all events are void of any intrinsic values of rightness or wrongness. Events that take place where one person, or society in general, finds another person guilty or whatever is an event essentially no different than a rock falling onto the ground, in that niether are in error. Both events just are. A rock is not in error when it falls to the ground, and neither is society when it does what it does. In one event, gravity just straight up pulled the rock. With people, there are a series of caused events inside the body, like the heart pumps blood, the brain gets oxygen, neurons fire, and an opinion is formed. The thing is, this opinion, this thought on the guilt of another, or on the idea of guilt in general, is just an event, and just like the rock falling, no value about correctness or whatnot inherently exists in it. There are no musts, or ought tos in a deterministic universe. There is only cause and effect. If you are an effect with much cause in you, then the effect emanating from you will have a considerable impact on society and the world.
I’m basically saying that violent behaviors of all sorts including the most shunned or horrific are predetermined undo being natural facets of reality and by simply existing they become necessary integral parts of our existence.
This is why I cannot understand ethics, morality, or that of the constructs which is the justice system by their pretensions of calling such behaviors diseases that should be rooted out when in a determinist understanding of reality there is nothing inherently “wrong” about such behaviors at all.
In a deterministic world morality and ethics become irrelevant as you so boldly put it.
By understanding violent behaviors as predetermined natural facets of natural reality in being necessary integral parts of our existence one can then be inclined to call them natural expressions of evolution itself as such behaviors can indeed be advantageous in use of survival.
So eventually this conversation repeats to my very first question of this thread:
How can one be guilty of their own bio-chemistry or physiology in a deterministic world?
I’m basically saying that what is unusual about morality, religion, ethics and indeed many metaphysical systemizations is how they are set up by narrowing the perceivement of existence with imagined tautologies in that they construct pretend limitations on existence by that of fervent belief in a aimless relative cosmos where no such limitations exist in the first place.
In our predetermined world there exists many relative preferences, perspectives, opinions and aesthetical beliefs on existence yet metaphyiscal systemizations alone put pretend narrow limitations on existence where there is none which through their collective resentment seem to despise this deterministic world altogether which they are readily supplied with their fanatical dispositions to cease upon with their absurd absolute notions.
In a sense I guess I’m trying to say that what really bothers me about the metaphysician is that they constantly try to build a imaginary pretend narrow gate by limiting existence where at the same time in contrast is absurd considering that existence is one of aimless relativity without limitations.
Exactly and by understanding determinism how does morality or ethics have a leg to stand on amongst all of this?
It just doesn’t make any sense.
Violent behaviors are predetermined as being natural necessary integral parts of our existence.
There is no rightness or wrongness in events.
So how exactly can morality or ethics justify anything without a pretend show of lies?
How can morality or ethics exist amongst all these contradictions in a deterministic world?
It would then seem to me that morals or ethics has no place to exist in a deterministic world beyond it’s pretensions of words and feelings where by that of elimination it would make sense to be rid of them completely.
If existence is a single ongoing perpetual whole where creation and destruction are as one tied together in the same sequence side by side instead of being some dualistic seperated notions that we are foolishly accustomed to by that of absurd like culture I believe morality along with ethics are useless concepts or symbols.
But isn’t morality or ethics the exact opposite of that belief?
In a moral or ethical viewpoint instead of just letting a rock fall down to the ground acclaiming it just to be what it is they instead describe a fable mythological narrative of a right or wrong label to the action itself where there none exists by that of phantom imagination.
Morality or ethics to me I believe is a beast that just isn’t compatible in a deterministic world.
What I said was that your, i.e. Joker’s, opinion about morality and ethics (that they are based on false premises, that they’re irrational and absurd, etc) becomes irrelevant unless until it does become relevant. Your opinion becomes irrelevant because your opinion is simply an effect of causation.
In a deterministic world morality and ethics become just another effect which has as a cause everything that precedes it, eg me typing on a computer is the effect of everything preceding this effect. You seem to think that the cause of morality is some people coming up with it via a flawed argument. This is just not so. Not completely so, anyways. The cause of morality under a deterministic lens, like the cause of anything in the now is everything in the past, then. Morality and ethics then are an event no different, or not any more illogical than me typing on a laptop or a rock falling down towards the center of gravity. Reason had and has very little to do with the conception and duration of morality.
Let’s use some different words here, because guilty just doesn’t cut it. Let’s put it this way. A facet of reality reacts to another facet of reality in a certain way whenever the later facet of reality does something. The first facet of reality calls it guilt, culpability, free will, etc, but the bottom line is that both facets are determined to play their parts. They’re both effects in which reason plays a small part in.
Because morality’s and ethics’ leg is not placed upon the understanding, or upon reason or logic for it’s support. Morality is an effect of much more than just reason.
As are the reactions to the violent behaviors.
Like I said above, reason has very little to do with morality, hence, morality does not have to justify it’s existence using logic anymore than you have to justify your existence using logic. Both of you are the way you both are and you couldn’t have been in any other way.
What part of morals and ethics being effects don’t you understand? Their existence is an effect just as the existence of some rock is an effect. Reason has very little to do with either events, so neither event has to justify their existence in order to continue existing. Both events just are.
…odd how nobody else has jumped on this. Determinism/freewill debates are pretty hot…last I checked.
Elir saved me from posting a bunch of stuff, because he said a majority of what i wanted to say.
Changes change. Judgments are determined, unless they are determined to change. I find with contradictions existing, it is best to accept all that exists as it is. I dont like war, but it mirrors my inner conflict. I must accept that a war is now, and that a war will end, and that a new war will start, unless it doesn’t.
Again it is best to accept all that exists or doesn’t exist. I didn’t always think that, but i like that thought now.
It’s strange having realized that, isn’t it? I mean, in realizing that you judgment is just an effect sort of takes away the motivation to do what you would normally do. And when you still have the motivation the action comes out of you very awkwardly, in that it is not instinctual. Sort of like when you think about your breathing, and in so doing your breathing becomes irregular and you conscious of your breathing pattern start taking giant gasps of air, but they’re irregular and not what your body is used to, so you begin having a panic attack which goes away as soon as you stop being conscious of your breathing pattern.
in light of free will being extreminated by determinism, we should not “hate” the criminal for what he has done, though deterministically we may be unable to do otherwise.
But we still give him the death penalty because he is still a murderer…
I understand what Erlir is saying. He’s basically saying that no matter what we as people may think everything including both polar opposites are determined where there is nothing to do but fully accept the pressing reality that is via a deterministic universe.
I was more interested in the aspect that some types of awareness do interfere with the autonomous body control.
I know that breathing pattern can be influenced by being aware of it, and also heart beat.
I was once going through ECG testing during medical check, and I somehow became a bit over conscious about my heart rhythm. And it started to change, and doctors were so intrigued that they kept me nearly an hour. After that, I never played with my heart beat or blood pressure too much during medical exam, other than trying to bring them into somewhat normal range.
However, I don’t think we can simply conclude that it’s better to leave it, stay unaware.
Although our physical functions are controlled automatically, our subconscious mind are also already interfering with the system. Unless we become pretty aware in both surface and subconscious interferences, see the causes, and let them stop, our body can’t function very well.
And to observe how our emotional/logical mind mixing/messing up with the physical functions, we have to have a sort of awareness that isn’t attached on the our mind.
Just like the awareness can interfere with the breathing, although it just messes up in some cases, the awareness can observe and somehow interfere with the thought processes.
Some athletes, dancers, musicians, etc. knows a bit about these things through their experiences, because what they do requires high degree of precision and “the state of the mind” or “how the awareness is permuting our mind/body” starts to play more important role in the outcome.
Still, we can see that everything is predetermined, if we prefer, I guess.
A view like this might have the effect of calming those who are over conscious or over zealous. For lazy people, it may simply provide another excuse, though.
What determinism refers to is very rarely deterministic.
Yeah, humans are predisposed to act in a lot of ways, but we’re also capable of circumstancially amazing flexibility as well. The ultimate number of potential actions is *at least * every way any human has ever acted, and probably many many more.
lots of disorders fuck with a person’s ability to have a full range of options though. Say, getting a spike through your head, autism, a tumor on certain parts of your brain, a malfunctioning prefrontal cortex, etc.
determinism is a fancy word thrown around by idiots who don’t know what their talking about (and no I don’t mean joker) but social scientists making nonsensical and emotionally based criticism of biology based psychological theory, or biology based ANYTHING
Yes it should obsolve the punishment if the punishment is say, death, ,or 40 years imprisonment that won’t do anything.
If a person has a brain tumor which can spontaneously increase rage/get rid of emotional stop-points, and this person murders someone randomly (say sitting at a starbucks sipping a coffee and this insaNe urge to butcher the person by smashing their head into a table that they can’t over-come)
Imagine it, you’re sipping at your coffee, things go black, when you come to you’re covered in blood and you’re hand is on the back of some guy’s head who no longer has a face and everyone is looking at your in horror.
The only ‘punishment’ a person should have for that is the treatment which would cure them of the disorder.
most cases aren’t clear cut what-so-ever though. In real life determining responsibility is never a simple cut forward matter, well rarely it can be. but very rarely.
It also raises the issue of incurable insanity. A lot of criminals locked up to be released are not ‘cured’ but just serve a sentence more twisted when released into the outside world.
Most people who go on about determinism are social scientists talking about claims made by biologists. As in a lot of social scientists misunderstand biological arguements, they come back with this word/claim ‘determinism’ and go on about it at length. The idea being that biology/biologists talking about innate mechanisms and specific adaptations in human mental life (past a generalized learning computer) are deterministic, constrains the potential actions of the organism.
For example, saying that humans can be violent, and that anger/tendency to be violent is largely inherited, up to 50% is called ‘deterministic’ by social scientists, social scientists also like to use it as a word that means discountable, so when ‘deterministic’ theories of the human mind come up, they’re easily discountable by a buzz-word.
