Because if he is right, there’s a lot at stake. It’s okay if you’re not sure whether his premises are correct, and I can’t promise you that you ever will be sure, but the only way to understand his observations is to carefully study his work. You’re not obligated to tentatively accept his premises if you don’t think it’s worth it. Totally up to you.
Does his premise entail nowA-me cannot determine what nowB-me will think, feel, or do?
If so, I reject it.
So you decide to jump.
How is THAT determined?
So you admit that some people have free-will, and others do not. How do you qualify the difference? Is it a matter of faith? Does God ordain it? God chooses, ‘determines’ who has free-will and who does not?
That’s fine, you can retreat if you want. You’ve already demonstrated that you do not believe in free-will, because you have no free-will, and believe that your status applies to everyone else although it doesn’t. Furthermore, you take your Author (Lessan) as your Authority. I guess whichever book you choose, is objectively true for all time and everybody else? As-if your (ir)rationalization cannot be questioned?
So-called “evil people” would not want that. And I side with them on this. You have not shown any modicum of ability to correctly judge the characters of others, given your position on Determinism. Why should anybody believe you, when you openly admit that you are not free?
Your conflation between free-will and morality, is noted. I already understand the opposition of Free-Will and Determinism. Determinism is based on an Abrahamic faith-based system, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. Determinism is based on Creationism, or the secular form of Big Bang Theory and Science-ism. It posits a “First Cause” from which all things source, representing a Mono-theistic metaphysics. “All come from One/God.” This is all common sense. Everybody knows this. So you’re not really saying much new, other than that it is your belief system, and you correctly conclude that you are not free. Your mistake is believing that your lack of freedom applies to others, when it doesn’t.
So the Author holds you hostage from the premise?
That if you don’t agree with him, that you’re hurting people, and are therefore evil? Right??
Is that the best you got, peacegirl? That doesn’t sound very peaceful.
Unwrong:So the Author holds you hostage from the premise?
Peacegirl: He holds no one hostage. The craziest thing I’ve heard yet.
Unwrong: That if you don’t agree with him, that you’re hurting people, and are therefore evil? Right??
Peacegirl: No, but if he’s demonstrating a way to prevent war, crime and poverty on a global scale, and people won’t take the time to study his work, it is preventing what could save many lives at a quicker rate than if we wait another 100 years. It’s not about him which you seem to be focused on. It’s about the knowledge.
Unwrong: Is that the best you got, peacegirl? That doesn’t sound very peaceful.
Peacegirl: I guess that’s all I got. 
It looks like you don’t have much then. Holding the reader hostage, and “saving the world”, has little to do with Truth.
Truth is, violence is inherent in Nature. Removing it, is removing self-defense, and therefore removing life.
I’m certain that what you believe to be ‘Evil’ is purely subjective and from your own, personal, selfish perspective. You aren’t in the position to judge Good from Evil.
[quote=“Urwrongx1000”]
It looks like you don’t have much then. Holding the reader hostage, and “saving the world”, has little to do with Truth.
Peacegirl: If you conclude that there is no way to prevent war and crime, therefore it’s not truth, you will never study his findings. That’s not up to me.
Unwrong: Truth is, violence is inherent in Nature. Removing it, is removing self-defense, and therefore removing life.
Peacegirl: He never once said you can’t defend yourself if you are being hurt. This just exposes YOUR ignorance.
Unwrong: I’m certain that what you believe to be ‘Evil’ is purely subjective and from your own, personal, selfish perspective. You aren’t in the position to judge Good from Evil.
Peacegirl: No one is intrinsically evil, but we live in a world of hurt, or science and religion would not be trying to find so hard to find solutions to this escalating danger which is very real.
Your idea of Determinism, and hence Free-Will, is tied up completely with your notion of Morality. This is not philosophy nor philosophical. You have your conclusion, before your premise, that violence is “bad” and “evil” is not innate. Again this proves how you have no free-will, but you’re still not demonstrating much about others. This demonstrates your selfishness and self-centeredness. You haven’t proven, really anything regarding your case. All you’ve shown is your obsession with Moral Goodness, not Truth, and definitely not Determinism / Free-Will.
Hypothetically, according to your own morality (Christianity / Abrahamism), God still requires that humans make the Choice to become Good or Evil, and it is a Choice, hence mankind is free. This is the conclusion of your morality. Without these premises, you don’t even have a notion of good or evil.
It sounds like you need a dose of Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. You’ve already been disputed, hundreds of years ago.
Nietzsche disowned his will. Hence identifying with others he wasn’t.
Nonsense
- Peacegirl: If you conclude that there is no way to prevent war and crime, therefore it’s not truth, you will never study his findings. That’s not up to me.
Unwrong: Truth is, violence is inherent in Nature. Removing it, is removing self-defense, and therefore removing life.
Peacegirl: What? Truth doesn’t change our need to use self-defense. But we are not going to keep war and murder going in order to use it.
- Peacegirl: He never once said you can’t defend yourself if you are being hurt. This just exposes YOUR ignorance.
Unwrong: I’m certain that what you believe to be ‘Evil’ is purely subjective and from your own, personal, selfish perspective. You aren’t in the position to judge Good from Evil.
Peacegirl: I’m not the judge. I even said what is good to one person may be evil or bad to another. But there is an objective standard that defines evil (I.e., hurt) and that is anything that you don’t want done to yourself. Wouldn’t you rather live in a place that isn’t being bombed? Be honest.
- Peacegirl: No one is intrinsically evil, but we live in a world of hurt, or science and religion would not be trying to find so hard to find solutions to this escalating danger which is very real.
Unwrong: Your idea of Determinism, and hence Free-Will, is tied up completely with your notion of Morality. This is not philosophy nor philosophical.
Peacegirl: This knowledge is about no judgment, so how can my “idea” of determinism have to do with free will when it proves we don’t have any? And how can my “idea” of determinism be tied up with my notion of morality when the word itself implies a judgment by others as to what is right and wrong? You’re right that this is not philosophical. It is a psychological law of our nature, but this topic was borne out of philosophical thought.
Unwrong: You have your conclusion, before your premise, that violence is “bad” and “evil” is not innate.
Peacegirl: Again, what is evil to you might be good to me. It is a normal reaction to be violent if you are retaliating against someone that hurt you.
Unwrong: Again this proves how you have no free-will, but you’re still not demonstrating much about others. This demonstrates your selfishness and self-centeredness. You haven’t proven, really anything regarding your case. All you’ve shown is your obsession with Moral Goodness, not Truth, and definitely not Determinism / Free-Will.
Peacegirl: Not at all. Goodness can only come from the desire to be good (i. e., not hurt) because there is no reason to be bad.
Unwrong: Hypothetically, according to your own morality (Christianity / Abrahamism), God still requires that humans make the Choice to become Good or Evil, and it is a Choice, hence mankind is free.
Peacegirl: False! Being able to contemplate options does not grant you free will. You’ve listened to nothing. You don’t have a clue what this author is demonstrating.
Unwrong: This is the conclusion of your morality. Without these premises, you don’t even have a notion of good or evil.
Peacegirl: What morality are you talking about? We are born with the seeds of conscience. If our environment is unfavorable to normal development, we will end up serial killers and mass murderers. Serial killers and mass murderers are not born evil.
Unwrong: It sounds like you need a dose of Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. You’ve already been disputed, hundreds of years ago.
Peacegirl: This discovery has nothing to do with moral judgment of good and evil. It only deals with what no one wants and can now be prevented.
Yep
You can’t prevent all the bad stuff, but you can love folks despite it and help them do better once it comes to light.
Yes, Peacegirl’s massive failures are her own, and none else. I would point out here, that if somebody ever wanted to do ‘Good’ by the world, then you should at least begin to understand the difference between what is ‘Good’ and what is, hypothetically, ‘Evil’. Because it’s apparent now that Peacegirl does not know the difference, or to the best of her ability, it would expose her ignorance about both.
Moral Good cannot be premised upon Subjective, personal desires, and emotional whims. Never, otherwise it is easily revealed as Evil. Because what is more Evil than disguising one’s own “Pure and Innocent” motivations as Good, when it is not, and when it is only self-serving??
[quote=“Urwrongx1000”]
Yes, Peacegirl’s massive failures are her own, and none else. I would point out here, that if somebody ever wanted to do ‘Good’ by the world, then you should at least begin to understand the difference between what is ‘Good’ and what is, hypothetically, ‘Evil’. Because it’s apparent now that Peacegirl does not know the difference, or to the best of her ability, it would expose her ignorance about both.
Peacegirl: I know the difference.
Unwrong: Moral Good cannot be premised upon Subjective, personal desires, and emotional whims. Never, otherwise it is easily revealed as Evil. Because what is more Evil than disguising one’s own “Pure and Innocent” motivations as Good, when it is not, and when it is only self-serving??
Peacegirl: THERE IS NO MORAL GOOD!!! We all are self-serving even the so-called called saints. I have said all along that these terms are subjective, so what’s your beef Unwrong other than trying to show up this author when you have no idea what he is demonstrating.
As long as your joy comes from treating the other/them as self/us (and vice versa), it’s good, selfless joy.
I don’t like the idea of people not taking responsibility for their ‘Determination’, especially when you / they lump their motivations into this idea of what’s morally good or not. I mean, what is more Evil and corrupt than that??
This whole subject matter of Determinism, therefore, is primarily about shirking personal responsibility onto others, and when that fails, onto “God did it”. Meanwhile, the Determiner believes s/he can get away scott-free, and hide the crime perfectly.
Because s/he lied to herself first and foremost.
Maybe that’s why women obsess about these matters more than men do?
Unwrong: I don’t like the idea of people not taking responsibility for their ‘Determination’, especially when you / they lump their motivations into this idea of what’s morally good or not. I mean, what is more Evil and corrupt than that??
Peacegirl: But it doesn’t do that Unwrong. It increases responsibility.
Unwrong: This whole subject matter of Determinism, therefore, is primarily about shirking personal responsibility onto others, and when that fails, onto “God did it”. Meanwhile, the Determiner believes s/he can get away scott-free, and hide the crime perfectly.
Peacegirl: You don’t know what you’re talking about. How can someone shift his responsibility when no one is holding him responsible? You are lost!
Unwrong: Because s/he lied to herself first and foremost.
Peacegirl: How can someone lie to themselves when no one is holding them responsible?
Unwrong: Maybe that’s why women obsess about these matters more than men do?
Peacegirl: That’s a crazy assertion. Women are more expressive but men think about these things as much as women. No one can hurt someone without justification, man or woman.