Moral consquences of determinism

[Jonti]

The trouble with fatalism, is that it is not a doctrine a person can actually believe.

To the extent it is legitimate to infer a person's belief from their behaviour, no-one seems to hold that their thoughts and perceptions are irrelevant to the way things turn out for them. The lived truth is that sentience is essentially active; our whole conscious life involves effort.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But before he decides, it is possible that he could take either path.

What is a decision, though? Isn't that the crux of it?

I'm inclined to agree with kabbes, but with the proviso that, as purposeful beings, it feels like we are able to change the nature of our purposeful drives.

Ultimately, though, I think the nature of our decision-making process must necessarily remain mysterious to us. Just as we don't will certain thoughts to come into our heads rather than others.

I do think the experience of psychotics is relevant here. If our consciousness breaks down (ie if the representation of reality that we make to ourselves breaks down), the feeling that somehow there is a separate 'I' that is in control also disappears. Yet we continue to act and make decisions nonetheless.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The trouble with fatalism, is that it is not a doctrine a person can actually believe.

I'm coming round to the idea that stating that I am a purposeful being that acts for reasons determined by itself is good enough. That I am also a conscious being causes me to feel that I have something called free will. Ultimately, the truth or falsity of this feeling is irrelevant to how I live – it doesn't add any information that can usefully be used to decide what to do.

 

[8ball]

I do think the experience of psychotics is relevant here. If our consciousness breaks down (ie if the representation of reality that we make to ourselves breaks down), the feeling that somehow there is a separate 'I' that is in control also disappears. Yet we continue to act and make decisions nonetheless.

Though in these instances we don't hold people responsible for those actions, so the link between choice and morality remains unbroken.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Though in these instances we don't hold people responsible for those actions, so the link between choice and morality remains unbroken.

Yep. But a being with a properly functioning consciousness has a means of constant feedback – it can look at what it is doing and see the consequences of its actions. Thus the nature of its decision-making is different. If our consciousness is working properly, the only action we can't be held responsible for is one instantaneous action that had not been premeditated in any way and which we could not look at in our conscious representation until after it happened. And various laws do indeed allow for different treatment of such a 'crime of passion'. We experience such an action afterwards with the slightly bewildered 'I can't believe I just did that'.

 

[bhamgeezer]

But before he decides, it is possible that he could take either path.

Fair enough, but within this thought experiment it would be possible for me to know through observation that John took the one path he did, from where do you derive the belief that the path he did not take was ever a possibility?

 

[8ball]

And various laws do indeed allow for different treatment of such a 'crime of passion'. We experience such an action afterwards with the slightly bewildered 'I can't believe I just did that'.

I don't think such laws are based on the idea that the person concerned didn't know what was going on until afterwards.

 

[8ball]

Fair enough, but within this thought experiment it would be possible for me to know through observation that John took the one path he did, from where do you derive the belief that the path he did not take was ever a possibility?

Yes. You know afterwards, not before.

Unless this thought experiment is just a rewindable movie . .

 

[kabbes]

Thought experiments are all very well and have their place. It can certainly be instructive to imagine the results of a procedure or experiment we currently cannot carry out.

But, what use can a thought experiment be, if it cannot in principle happen in the real world?

Because (potentially) it demonstrates that although we appear to have a choice and although in principle it is possible for us to make any of the range of choices on offer, in practice this choice is an illusion. You are who you are, therefore you make the choice that you make. It could not have been otherwise.

But before he decides, it is possible that he could take either path.

Only theoretically. But if (and it is a big if, I know), John would *always* choose path A because his entire physical and metaphysical being determines this, it isn't really possible that he could take either path at all, is it?

The trouble with fatalism, is that it is not a doctrine a person can actually believe.

To the extent it is legitimate to infer a person's belief from their behaviour, no-one seems to hold that their thoughts and perceptions are irrelevant to the way things turn out for them. The lived truth is that sentience is essentially active; our whole conscious life involves effort.

But our very struggle to "better" ourselves, to make moral choices, to take advantage of free agency, to make choices -- all of these, maybe, are an inevitable consequence of your intrinsic self. You HAD to make that decision at that time because if you had not, you would not have been you.

Lest I sound too nuts, I have to say that my interest in this as a philosphical debate is only surface deep. My interest in it is far more from the perspective of social policy. If what I am saying has any basis in fact at all, the consequence is that things like crime and anti-social behaviour are an inevitability of the way society is set up, in that the very fact of their existence demonstrates that the context we place people in results in them occurring. People cannot break out of their own headspace in order to make a different choice in the matter. So the only way of dealing with such behaviour is to change the context in the first place.

 

[8ball]

Only theoretically. But if (and it is a big if, I know), John would *always* choose path A because his entire physical and metaphysical being determines this, it isn't really possible that he could take either path at all, is it?

And thus no decision has been made, which was my original point.

My interest in it is far more from the perspective of social policy. If what I am saying has any basis in fact at all, the consequence is that things like crime and anti-social behaviour are an inevitability of the way society is set up, in that the very fact of their existence demonstrates that the context we place people in results in them occurring. People cannot break out of their own headspace in order to make a different choice in the matter. So the only way of dealing with such behaviour is to change the context in the first place.

Part of that context is the threat of punishment, so that line of argument could head down a very Draconian route.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think such laws are based on the idea that the person concerned didn't know what was going on until afterwards.

If not, then maybe they should be. My understanding is that they are.

There are two distinct phenomena here:

The action itself, of which we are only ever aware after it has happened – consciousness is a live stream with a time delay on it, if you like.

An intention to act in a particular way, which is determined by the conscious self.

And of course, the conscious self and the 'pre-conscious self' are both the same self. I think humans get into all kinds of twists because of the way our consciousness operates. It causes us to experience an apparent duality.

 

[kabbes]

It's true -- it is possible that such an argument leads to an unpleasant context for society. But that's been tried and it still didn't stop the behaviour.

The problem, as I see it, is with people who insist that everybody has free choice in everything, meaning that criminals have "chosen" to be criminals. That seems to me to be really sweeping your problems under the rug. I am increasingly of the opinion that nobody, really, ever made a truly free choice to do anything. At the very least, somebody who ends up in crime has not done so because they had a replica of my context, for example, but then made a different choice.

 

[bhamgeezer]

Yes. You know afterwards, not before.

Unless this thought experiment is just a rewindable movie . .

Sure I know afterwards, but surely this is superior to not being able to know at all

 

[8ball]

The problem, as I see it, is with people who insist that everybody has free choice in everything, meaning that criminals have "chosen" to be criminals. That seems to me to be really sweeping your problems under the rug. I am increasingly of the opinion that nobody, really, ever made a truly free choice to do anything. At the very least, somebody who ends up in crime has not done so because they had a replica of my context, for example, but then made a different choice.

I think most people understand that choices that criminals make are made in a given context, that's why concessions get made for mitigating circumstances (and then the Government tries to reverse them after a bit of media-led hysteria).

 

[8ball]

Sure I know afterwards, but surely this is superior to not being able to know at all

Well, it's your thought experiment, you can make up any rules you like, but the fact that something is known after a decision is made is different to it being known beforehand.

 

[bhamgeezer]

I'm coming round to the idea that stating that I am a purposeful being that acts for reasons determined by itself is good enough. That I am also a conscious being causes me to feel that I have something called free will. Ultimately, the truth or falsity of this feeling is irrelevant to how I live – it doesn't add any information that can usefully be used to decide what to do.

So you are a compatibilistist really, as you believe that the truth or falsity of the determinism bears no moral consquences.

For me this is the most important issue really, the debate on whether determinism is the case is interesting but unproductive I feel.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So you are a compatibilistist really, as you believe that the truth or falsity of determinism bears no moral consquences.

First bit – I've not heard the term before, so I don't know.

The second bit – yes, and that also comes from the way I believe human codes of morality have come about: as we have become self-aware, the range of possible actions available to us has widened, so such codes are a response that keeps us along paths that have previously been followed due to our evolved disposition.

As an example, the taboo against incest: we are genetically predisposed to avoid sex with those we grow up with, as are many other animals; with self-awareness comes the realisation that we could do it anyway, out of badness if you like, and so a moral code has sprung up to stop us. I suspect that the root of all human morality is the admonishment by their parents of children whose self-awareness is developing for acts that the self-awareness itself has made possible.

 

[8ball]

Makes no sense. If anything, the existence of a social taboo against incest implies that most would be happy enough to pair up with siblings.

We are genetically predisposed to avoid falling off high things, so no social taboo id required.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Makes no sense. If anything, the existence of a social taboo against incest implies that most would be happy enough to pair up with siblings.

We are genetically predisposed to avoid falling off high things, so no social taboo id required.

Yet we don't choose to fall off high things because it would harm us.

I am convinced that cultural norms have developed to replace that which was formerly controlled by our genetic disposition as a response to self-awareness. This is why most of what Freud said was wrong – there never was a time 'before culture' when we were behaved like 'savages'.

As for incest, you are empirically wrong. Studies have shown that we 'naturally' avoid sex with those we shared a home with while we were both under the age of six. As I said, so do many other animals. Not surprising really – those without such an aversion will have produced inferior offspring and their lines will die out.

 

[bhamgeezer]

First bit – I've not heard the term before, so I don't know.

Well some may have noticed but I am stealing my vocabulary from Strawson's "Freedom and Resentment" which I found to be the most fascinating work on this issue that I have read Not to say I entirely agree with it but it is certainly illuminating.

The second bit – yes, and that also comes from the way I believe human codes of morality have come about: as we have become self-aware, the range of possible actions available to us has widened, so such codes are a response that keeps us along paths that have previously been followed due to our evolved disposition.

As an example, the taboo against incest: we are genetically predisposed to avoid sex with those we grow up with, as are many other animals; with self-awareness comes the realisation that we could do it anyway, out of badness if you like, and so a moral code has sprung up to stop us. I suspect that the root of all human morality is the admonishment by their parents of children whose self-awareness is developing for acts that the self-awareness itself has made possible.

I agree, however I believe the majority of people require some higher sanction for their morality, even amongst the most rational of individuals.

 

[8ball]

As for incest, you are empirically wrong. Studies have shown that we 'naturally' avoid sex with those we shared a home with while we were both under the age of six. As I said, so do many other animals. Not surprising really – those without such an aversion will have produced inferior offspring and their lines will die out.

It happens quite enough when the social taboos are broken or have been misplaced. So the taboo is in no way 'because' of the genetic predisposition, but because, if anything, it is insufficiently strong.

(I'd also like to see the methodology used in these studies, but that's something of a side issue).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So the taboo is in no way 'because' of the genetic predisposition, but because, if anything, it is insufficiently strong.

The taboo is both 'because' of the genetic predisposition and because that predisposition is insufficiently strong.

There's no taboo against jumping off high walls because our self-aware selves, aware that one possible choice of action would be to jump off a high wall, see how harmful that would be to us and so don't do it.

There is a taboo against incest because our self-aware selves see a choice to have sex with our siblings even if we're slightly revolted by the idea, and there is no immediate reason not to.

I've argued on here before that the replacing of 'natural' limits on actions with cultural norms has in fact led to a situation where those whose traits would otherwise have been selected out are now able to reproduce successfully. With the taboo comes a greater range of predispositions – those not predisposed against incest will not perform incest anyway because of the taboo, and so their lack of a predisposition against incest may no longer be selected out of the population. This could lead to a vicious circle – as the range of predispositions in the population increases, so the taboo needs to be strengthened, which in turn leads to an even wider range of predispositions, and so on.

The consequences of the above process could have deep implications for human happiness, as more and more of us feel ourselves constrained by cultural norms that we no longer feel inclined to obey.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Humans have been fully modern genetically speaking for around 200,000 years. Since then, different races have developed, but the genetic differences between the races are very small indeed, and we are all very much the same species.

What we have seen since then is what you might term cultural evolution. This is all that separates us from our ancestors 200,000 years ago. Put a modern baby with them or take a baby from them and put it with us and it will grow up to be a fully functioning member of its society.

During this period of cultural evolution, social mores such as sexual taboos have grown around the successful (evolutionarily speaking) patterns of behaviour that are our evolutionary heritage. These social mores may become strong enough to suppress behaviour that previously would have gone unsuppressed and led to the eventual failure of that individual's gene line or even the downfall of their group. Cultural evolution takes the place of biological evolution and in doing so allows different (you might say deviant) 'human natures' to reproduce successfully by having their destructive behaviour suppressed by taboo.

200,000 years in a relatively long-lived creature like humans is a very short time period evolutionarily speaking, but long enough, I'd have thought, for this process to be showing visible effects. If true (and it's a theory I'm formulating as I go along, so I'd be interested to hear criticism of it), then it is saying the direct opposite of Freud. Far from being introduced to suppress destructive behaviour, taboos in fact allow the urge to destructive behaviour to be passed on as the 'deviants' are no longer, or at least not as effectively, weeded out by natural selection. One might expect human nature, under the weight of cultural rules, to begin to diverge from a 'natural' propensity to obey these rules, which would presumably lead to ever more strictly enforced rules, which would produce ever greater divergence.

Sorry, I'm quoting myself again, but I think I expressed the same point better last time I made it.

 

[8ball]

I think it more likely that we have the fairly normal animal mate selection habit of choosing siblings last (for the understandable genetic reasons), rather than not choosing them at all, but as our societies have evolved the social element has come in because our social structures go a bit wobby without an outright ban.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think it more likely that we have the fairly normal animal mate selection habit of choosing siblings last (for the understandable genetic reasons), rather than not choosing them at all, but as our societies have evolved the social element has come in because our social structures go a bit wobby without an outright ban.

My theory, if right, explains every single cultural norm and social taboo. What you say above doesn't contradict it, but I believe mine is a fuller explanation.

 

[8ball]

My theory, if right, explains every single cultural norm and social taboo.

Yes, you seem to like big theories. Though I'm still a little foggy on what the theory actually is.

For instance, from what you've said, I don't see exactly where an evolutionary aversion 'seeds' a social norm, because if the aversion is working a taboo won't be necessary.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, you seem to like big theories. Though I'm still a little foggy on what the theory actually is.

For instance, from what you've said, I don't see exactly where an evolutionary aversion 'seeds' a social norm, because if the aversion is working a taboo won't be necessary.

Self-awareness – consciousness – seeds the norm. The ability to see (or at least the appearance of it) that we make choices when we act widens the range of our possible actions. Plus, as I said above (and this is a provisional idea only):

I suspect that the root of all human morality is the admonishment by their parents of children whose self-awareness is developing for acts that the self-awareness itself has made possible.

Sorry, I know you don't like provisional ideas, but at least I'm clearly flagging it up as such - this particular thought (the one quoted above) is one I only had today.

 

[Santino]

I suspect that the root of all human morality is the admonishment by their parents of children whose self-awareness is developing for acts that the self-awareness itself has made possible.

That would depend on an already-existent propensity to develop something like a moral awareness. I presume you don't think that one generation had no moral framework, but that they admonished their children who suddenly did have a moral framework.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That would depend on an already-existent propensity to develop something like a moral awareness. I presume you don't think that one generation had no moral framework, but that they admonished their children who suddenly did have a moral framework.

To your second point, of course I think it is something that developed gradually. How else could it have developed?

To your first point, I'd refer you to the idea that many characteristics that have evolved have come about initially as a by-product of other characteristics which were 'actively' selected for their advantage. (This idea is talked about at length by Stephen Jay Gould.)

Thus, nakedness may well have come about as a consequence of the neoteny that many think is necessary to develop humans' big and flexible brains. Those very big and flexible brains then worked out a way to overcome the disadvantages of nakedness by wearing clothes.

Gould talks about a number of characteristics whose evolutionary value is initially essentially neutral, but which are found to be advantageous at a later date. I'd put human consciousness in this bracket – a possible tale about self-awareness is that it has come about as a 'by-product' of the large brains that were selected initially so that we could exploit our flexible hands.

 

[Santino]

To your second point, of course I think it is something that developed gradually. How else could it have developed?

To your first point, I'd refer you to the idea that many characteristics that have evolved have come about initially as a by-product of other characteristics which were 'actively' selected for their advantage. (This idea is talked about at length by Stephen Jay Gould.)

Thus, nakedness may well have come about as a consequence of the neoteny that many think is necessary to develop humans' big and flexible brains. Those very big and flexible brains then worked out a way to overcome the disadvantages of nakedness by wearing clothes.

Gould talks about a number of characteristics whose evolutionary value is initially essentially neutral, but which are found to be advantageous at a later date. I'd put human consciousness in this bracket – a possible tale about self-awareness is that it has come about as a 'by-product' of the large brains that were selected initially so that we could exploit our flexible hands.

Assuming that the development of a moral consciousness is that gradual I don't see the value in arguing that its root lies in admonishment of children by their parents, any more than the root of language lies in children being taught to speak by their parents.