|
| Thread: Good and Evil Terms transfered to Physics |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted November 27, 2013 04:02 AM |
|
|
|
Heh heh... See you round mvass.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 05:19 AM |
|
|
Does this thread even have a topic? Seems there should be one, based on the title. Want to try to stick to it, please?
If you just want to discuss the topic of free will, I'm sure there's already a thread around here somewhere for it. Or twelve.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 08:36 AM |
|
|
Sorry for adding something.
And it's a wrong decision anyway. The question isn't whether your will is "influenced" by factors - of course it is: necessities, circumstances, DESinformation, missing information - that doesn't even touch the question of free will.
The question is: are we just enacting a predetermined piece of theater here, IMAGINING a freedom to decide, but in fact, everything has been "set".
An example here is the Biblical Judas Ischariot. Was he DESTINED to do what he did? He HAD to betray Jesus to the Romans, otherwise JESUS'S destiny wouldn't have been fulfilled.
Instead of quoting the Bible I'll quote LLoyd/Webber who let Judas sing in Jesus Christ Superstar in "Damned for all time": "Ireally didn't come here of my own accord." 
Back to the issue: With THIS being part of the official Christian saga on ONE hand, on the other Christian religion is OF COURSE touting the concept of free will, because "God's justice" needs accountability of the individual in order to hold everyone responsible.
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 10:32 AM |
|
|
@Corribus: if there isnt free will, there can't be good/bad, if theres no good/bad it can't be transfered to physics.
So the qestion of free will is ultamately important for the question in the threadtitle.
@JJ:
'The question is: are we just enacting a predetermined piece of theater here, IMAGINING a freedom to decide, but in fact, everything has been "set".'
That i wanted to say,how dare you! :-)
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 11:34 AM |
|
|
Yes, exactly.
But the CHRISTIAN (influenced, that is, the WESTERN) tradition NEEDS to PROCLAIM the existence of a "Free Will", because otherwise their whole belief would implode. There is "God's Final Judgment", and for that to be "just", so that everyone gets what they deserve, FREE WILL is a necessity, because without free will no one is actually accountable for their "sins", at least not in any absolute sense that would justify drastic punishments like an eternity in hell.
OTHER traditions are a lot more open to the existence of something like a "fate" - or simply genetic causes for seemingly voluntary behavior.
Obviously, in practice we are willing to concede that there ARE things, decisions or "acts" that are definitely not the result of an application of a person's Free Will. In practice the question is somewhat irrelevant, since if circumstances are forceful enough, then the discouragement of making use of free will is simply overwhelming.
In practice, free will is only an absolute term to describe what I would call "decision making process".
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 11:52 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:13, 27 Nov 2013.
|
JollyJoker said:
Yes, exactly.
In practice, free will is only an absolute term to describe what I would call "decision making process".
Yes, and it's the "absolute" part I disagree with and I'm quite on common ground with your definition. However, I dont think the problem is as Christianity based as you assume. A level of free will is necessary to be able to talk about any sort of moral responsability, if you cant choose how can you be held accountable. Think of the secular laws of any country, if you prove to the court you are insane, temporarily mad or below a certain age, you are then presumed innocent for you were not deciding to do the crime. The (abrahamic) religous side of the story is always a paradox between an omnipotent, omniscient God who decides and knows everything and a subject with free will who can be held accountable for his sins. I don't consider your solution to the paradox (paralel universes) something they thought of back then, it's a revisionist solution.
Corribus said:
Does this thread even have a topic? Seems there should be one, based on the title. Want to try to stick to it, please?
If you just want to discuss the topic of free will, I'm sure there's already a thread around here somewhere for it. Or twelve.
I think this whole thread would be better merged with the main morality thread but as far as I remember you mods cant do that. A lot of threads would have been better if it was possible to merge them.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 12:34 PM |
|
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 01:08 PM |
|
|
Well we could just assume free will exists for the sake of this topic
If it exists, do you think good or bad could be transfered?
Btw, what i mean with physics is not excluding other 'nature'-siences, just excluding linguitic sciences which just turn words around.
And _imo_ good/bad comes from such a linguistic science, named the church (insert here random religions).
Sad, that besides the 'Oetzi' nothing was found about there moral views back then 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 01:22 PM |
|
|
artu said:
JollyJoker said:
Yes, exactly.
In practice, free will is only an absolute term to describe what I would call "decision making process".
Yes, and it's the "absolute" part I disagree with and I'm quite on common ground with your definition.
What I mean is, that making this a strict EITHER OR in an sbsolute sense is based on Christian thinking. If free will is relative, "guilt" becomes relative as well and suddenly even starts to vanish into thin air.
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 01:40 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
artu said:
JollyJoker said:
Yes, exactly.
In practice, free will is only an absolute term to describe what I would call "decision making process".
Yes, and it's the "absolute" part I disagree with and I'm quite on common ground with your definition.
What I mean is, that making this a strict EITHER OR in an sbsolute sense is based on Christian thinking. If free will is relative, "guilt" becomes relative as well and suddenly even starts to vanish into thin air.
Hi, only the guilt in the morally view, not in the justical sense.
Societies would still have to secure themselves from bad guys, wether they're guilty or not.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 02:38 PM |
|
|
No, they would have to put a lot more resources into PREVENTION which means that society would have to try and eliminate sources that support "becoming evil":
If FREE WILL is dominating -> punish the guilty because they want to be.
If OTHER circumstances SUPPORT the will to be evil - so that it isn't completely free - it makes sense to try and eliminate those. Example: It would seem that a lot of the people that abuse children have been abused themselves as a child.
THAT would mean, all those who are known victims of child abuse have a certain probability of becoming abusive themselves which would mean that we need a lot more (and different) forms of therapy for them.
We would also need to be more alert as a society for alarm signs with a view on child abuse.
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 03:15 PM |
|
|
what you describe is utopia, thats a ideal, but you cant just NOW say, well you are all victims of circumstances so we let you all free.
It has to be a gradual process, btw no matter if its free will or not.
By securing the society i mean not jail, i talk about therapies or resocialisation camps.
But the jails could indeed serve as any of those, you just had to rename them. (sure, prisoncages are not attempting, but i mean the houses itself, you just had to replace guards with doctors/therapiests)
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 04:18 PM |
|
|
|
Freedom is a state of mind.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 06:31 PM |
|
|
No free will doesn't necessarily imply no punishment. If punishing people reduces crime even if they aren't morally responsible for it, there is a case for punishment regardless.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 09:14 PM |
|
|
|
It seems to me that the decision to either punish/rehabilitate criminals hinges on the degree to which one believes in free will vs. determinism.
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 11:11 PM |
|
|
Punishment as an instrument to decrease crime is silly.
Just look at death sentece statistics (with capital crimestats) vs capital crime stats in states (of USA) which have no death sentence.
Punishment=/=securing society from culprits
A punishment is another form of revenge, not taken from the victim(s), but from the society.
While securing the society can have different approaches, like putting every criminal on an island without further punishment.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 11:25 PM |
|
|
No.
Punishment is like CO-INSURANCE. It's a HURDLE. On one hand it keeps potential offenders to actually becoming criminal.
On the other it lerads to criminals becoming more ruthless, because once they ARE punishlable, they have to make sure to make it worth the while to come out ahead.
So once you reach a satisfying level of general happiness you can REDUCE punishment, because there won't be a noticable number of people who are willing to risk punishment, since the alternative is too good.
Main offenders won't give up as well easily instead of risking something.
However, a certain level of punishment is necessary. It's like with loans. It makes no sense to have ZERO (or even negative) interest rates, because if you have, lebding money has no negative cconsequences, so you just start LENDINF MONEY as much as you can ...
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2013 11:44 PM |
|
|
Look at the statistics, then explain me the reasoning behind punishment other then delivering justice. It's a stupid and obsolete form of dealing with criminals.
If the deterrent of the death sentence REALLY would be that great as you think, noone would ever do anything that's punished with ds.
And if it has no deterrent(exagerrated) then the only other effect is delivering justice, WHICH IS A FORM OF REVENGE.
Because securing the society from criminals can be done by other means, listed above.
Quote:
It's like with loans.
that's a fallacy, because the interest and the interestinerest (sry) is the main reason why the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and in effect of that crimes(not only in the justical sense) are committed.
If i saved one single Penny 2000 years ago with 0,5% interest rate, i could buy the world probably 20 times 
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 28, 2013 07:01 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
On the other it lerads to criminals becoming more ruthless, because once they ARE punishlable, they have to make sure to make it worth the while to come out ahead.
Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2013 02:17 PM |
|
|
It would seem that you both do not really understand what I'm saying.
Punishment = negative consequence of breaking the law
1) Punishment is necessary because you an actual discouragement to avoid people breaking the law just for kicks or as an easy last escape route, if they run into trouble.
2) As with insurance, for discouragement a low hurdle is enough to discourage the normally good and law-abiding citizens
3) Massive penalties are actually counterproductive, because once people ARE punishable and have to expect a severe punishment, there is nothing that would keep them from trying to escape that punishment and/or get the most out of things until it is game over.
4) Keeping lawbreakers exclusively in the company of other lawbreakers and their jailers is counterproductive, because whether it's a prison or an island, such a place is governed by different laws. Doing 10 years in some high security main offender prison is much more likely to produce a predatory career criminal for the rest of his life than anything else.
5) Whether people will become criminals or not is depending largely on the circumstances of your growing-up: neighborhood, parental situation, economic situation, etc. Most criminals are not born that way, but MADE that way. There are 2 main reasons for high crime:
a) development of slums;
b) stupid laws (lots are bound to break, criminalizing a large percentage of the population).
Conclusion: society should start to legalize all "vices": drugs, gambling, prostitution, and in a responsible way that would involve regulations and government control; and it should start eliminating slums or the reason for their existence.
As a PS: Vices and Slums were made for each other. There is a demand for vices, so that demand creates work for entrepreneurs, and the unemployed are a natural pool from which to recruit the work force. Fits like apple pie and whipped cream.
|
| |
|
|
