posted
Having an implicit goal in mind doesn't solve that problem; it just moves it up one more level. Instead of "why should you do the right thing?" you must ask "why should you pursue that particular goal?"
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not necessarily a "should" question anymore. For example, if I claimed that my goals were ultimately motivated by my desire for a positive mental state then physics takes over. Both my desire and the causes of my mental states can be explained by evolution, game theory, and memetics. Granted our current explanations lack precision but that is a problem with our technology. It's well confirmed that our emotional states are caused by natural processes.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are talking about what "causes" us to do things now, rather than why we "choose" to do things. If you reject the concept of free will, then morality becomes irrelevant, so one might as well not even discuss it.
But that's a bit absurd pragmatically speaking. You can't go around pretending you don't control the choices you make in life. We do possess free will, and we can choose whether to do one thing or another, so the question is always one of what we "should" choose to do. You can choose to follow a goal, but then you still must answer why you chose that goal rather than some alternative goal.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
At what point do these "natural processes" take over from the mind? Is everything I do controlled by some chemical in my brain?
You seem to be saying people don't have free will because of nature, others say people don't have free will because of god. No matter which way you go everyone comes to the same conclusion
quote:Is everything I do controlled by some chemical in my brain?
Yes. Remove all the chemicals from your brain, then try to do something. Heck, try to try something. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: You can choose to follow a goal, but then you still must answer why you chose that goal rather than some alternative goal.
I already did but you rejected the notion of using natural processes as an explanation. It's silly to pretend like our wants and desires can be disconnected from our evolutionary history and cultural upbringing.
Again, what does it mean for something to be the "right" thing to do and how can you determine the right thing to do without having an implicit goal in mind?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, good point. I didn't mean to imply the goal itself is chosen. And yes, it is a very specific kind of goal. I would say it is that which one feels ought or ought not to be in universal terms. Where that feeling comes from is a related but separate issue I think.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A discussion of morality is input to the chemicals in your brain, and therefore quite relevant and useful even in the absence of free will.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the implication is that for any given decision path, there is always an optimal decision in either the long or short run, and that choosing a sub-optimal path is the "wrong" decision.
Not necessarily. Why does it have to be that either everything or nothing is relative? Whether or not a painting seems good or not seems relative, and yet, when I ask whether a moral action is good or not, what is to keep us from saying that there is an objective answer to the question?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An objective answer that cannot be discovered doesn't exist in any meaningful sense, any more than the invisible heatless dragon in your garage.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, what does it mean for something to be the "right" thing to do and how can you determine the right thing to do without having an implicit goal in mind?
I think you do need implicit goals in order to determine how to act - but the key is figuring out which goals are right to have and which are not. For instance, "Acquiring personal wealth" and "Improving the well-being of others" are both goals one could pursue, but I'd argue the latter takes precedence morally.
How do you determine which goals are best? I think the answer to that is something written into you as a person. They are the actions that are good for your soul, which is just another way of saying they are the actions which make you a good person. You determine them through experience, whether by your own trial and error, or by listening to the collective teaching of others. It doesn't necessarily make you happy, but you nonetheless fulfills a fundamental need to do the right thing.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By that argument, any action can be defended as being good for your particular soul. Sure, it wouldn't be good for you to stab someone in the back for a promotion, but - so sorry - my sould requires that I do this to get to my personal goals. Do you mind turning around for a moment?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
