Evil

[whyBish]

A person who does not believe in absolute good or evil has no motivation to make "the right choice", and a person who does not believe in free will has no motivation to make a choice at all.

Well, again my opinion is that no-one is actually deciding to make the "right choice" they are just utility maximising, and they give "morally right" decisions a high weighting in their utility function. This would mean that ppl that don't believe in free will do have a motivation to make a choice, they make a choice that maximises their utility function, which may even include "morally right" as a positive weighting.

"On the other hand, if good, evil, and free will all do exist, then it matters a great deal that we believe in them."
OK so my questions to this are:
1) Why does it matter?
2 ) What are the implications of not believing in one or both?
3) What is your definition of "free will" and how do you test for it (if it is possible to test), i.e. is there an action that can occur that can only be interpreted as "free will" has occured?


My opinion of free will is not testable, as I have defined free will as being behaviour that is not programmed.

[jahcs]

free will
n.
The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


free will
1. A will free from improper coercion or restraint.
2. The power asserted of moral beings of willing or choosing without the restraints of physical or absolute necessity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


free will
n : the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies [syn: discretion]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Will, defined and described. Interesting reading!

I believe that I understand your definition of free will and, by that meaning, it does not exist. If that is true then we are slaves to the electrochemical activity in our own brains. We do not choose, therefore we do not think, ponder, or yearn. Hope, happiness, envy, greed, hate, right, and wrong do not exist. They are just convenient names used to describe our actions. We are just REACTING to releases of chemicals and patterns of bioelectricity careening around in our grey matter. (It might make an interesting premise in a criminal court case.)

Will is the name english speaking humans have given to our ability to choose. The continuation of that is free will, the ability to choose, not based on neccesity, fate, or outside interference. In this context I would footnote that outside interference is not necessarily what our senses tell us is around us, but what other beings attempt to do to us or impose on us.

This almost borders on the "Chicken or the Egg argument." Are we slaves to our electrochemical activity or does our spirit or soul (if they do exist) direct the formation and function of these discharges and patterns.


Whybish, whether we agree, disagree, or agree to disagree, I thank you for this engaging conversation. I know I have learned a few things and done some real mental exploration.

edit: minor clarification inserted.

[whyBish]

Are we slaves to our electrochemical activity or does our spirit or soul (if they do exist) direct the formation and function of these discharges and patterns.
[right][snapback]61130[/snapback][/right]

Yup, exactly the root I was mentioning above.

...except I would not have described it as being a slave to our electrochemical activity, but more that our electrochemical activity is who we are (as opposed to the soul or spirit is who we are and can bypass the laws of physics).

I also have been pondering this issue for far too long, and the more I think about it, the more I dislike the labels good and evil when used as an explanation for observed behaviour (whether it exists or not). This is because it does not help towards understanding. Is a rapist evil, or is the rapist making decisions to do so on some basis (or impulse or imbalance or whatever)? Labelling as evil is post-facto, so we cannot predict that a person will be likely to do XYZ, or that people under certain circumstances are likely to respond in certain ways etc. does not lead to an understanding of cause and effect as we don't have a test for 'evil' that is not post-facto.

As an end-note, I spent four years as a non-Christian living with up to twelve Christian fundamentalists debating these and various other issues (where did the water from the flood go, why can we see light from stars more than 40k light-years away, why did God set up the universe to look as if cosmology/evolutionary ideas are plausible, is science fundamentally any different to a belief/religion, what are the fundamental axioms of science, what are the fundamental axioms of Christianity, how many scientific axioms can (fundamental) Christianity take without generating inconsistencies, how many Christian axioms can science take without creating inconsistencies, can both be internally consistent individually and explain the world (i.e. does every event that occurs have an adequate Christian, and Scientific explanation), what are the goals of the two systems, can a population with the two separate systems coexist (or will one win out), what are the implications of the two systems in how one will lead life, if one system is wrong but people believe it, would that be a bad thing?), and I would like to state for the record that when it comes to things like this, the last thing I want to do is change someones mind, all I am after is to find out why they think the way that they do :)

[Guest]

Sorry for misunderstanding the American constitution.
Why 'troll' in my own thread? Not knowing the whole US constitution,my answer was honest,based upon my logic .

Let's say I'm a terrible racist against Polish people (chosen for this example only because that's the bulk of my ancestry).  Have I commited a crime in thinking less of them, and thus must be punished?  Nope
[right][snapback]60702[/snapback][/right]

No law/nobody can prevent you from thinking what you want,whether it may be right or wrong,this is your freedom of thought,this can't be taken from you and it is part of your freedom;however,there is a big difference between thinking that Polish people should die (for instance in your case),and telling it.
So,I ask you and anybody who reads this,
Is telling that "Jews/Blacks,etc.. have to die/should die", is freedom of speech according to the US constitution ?
Answer yes or no.
If it's no,then tell me when a racist talk is not part of your freedom of speech any longer; where are the limits?
limits can be slim when you talk about what can be tolerated and what can't be.

I've done nothing wrong but hold my own personal opinion.  If a personal opinion is a crime, then YES, I can be prosecuted.
These people are free to hold any opinions they wish, but inciting a riot or being party to a murder are crimes just as any.
[right][snapback]60702[/snapback][/right]

Let's take the case of neo-nazis organizations:
They claim the same ideology/ideas.. as the nazis ,however they are allowed/tolerated in the USA because of 'freedom of speech';the nazis have committed murders in the name of their ideology,so should it be right to think that this ideology should be illegal? then,if this ideology should be illegal,the groups who have ideologies which involve the death of a certain category of people,should be declared illegal;that's my logic about freedom of speech,belief..
I still think that freedom of speech for evil/racist/etc..groups or organizations is a flaw of the US constitution.
By the way,let's go back to the original topic.

[Zarathustra]

Is telling that "Jews/Blacks,etc.. have to die/should die", is freedom of speech according to the US constitution ?
Answer yes or no.
If it's no,then tell me when a racist talk is not  part of your freedom of speech any longer; where are the limits?
[right][snapback]61232[/snapback][/right]

Yes, that is freedom of speech and I am glad the government does not stand over my shoulder telling me what I can and can not say.

To answer the second question, one's rights end when they infring upon those of another.

[Rinnhart]

Sorry for misunderstanding the American constitution.
Why 'troll' in my own thread? Not knowing the whole US constitution,my answer was honest,based upon my logic .

No law/nobody can prevent you from thinking what you want,whether it may be right or wrong,this is your freedom of thought,this can't be taken from you and it is part of your freedom;however,there is a big difference between thinking that Polish people should die (for instance in your case),and telling it.
So,I ask you and anybody who reads this,
Is telling that "Jews/Blacks,etc.. have to die/should die", is freedom of speech according to the US constitution ?
Answer yes or no.
If it's no,then tell me when a racist talk is not  part of your freedom of speech any longer; where are the limits?
limits can be slim when you talk about what can be tolerated and what can't be.

Let's take the case of neo-nazis organizations:
They claim the same ideology/ideas.. as the nazis ,however they are allowed/tolerated in the USA  because of 'freedom of speech';the nazis have committed murders in the name of their ideology,so should it be right to think that this ideology should be illegal? then,if this ideology should be illegal,the groups who have ideologies which involve the death of a certain category of people,should be declared illegal;that's my logic about freedom of speech,belief..
I still think that freedom of speech for evil/racist/etc..groups or organizations is a flaw of the US constitution.
[right][snapback]61232[/snapback][/right]

You do not grasp the limitations of Freedom of Speech and really need to go do some heavy reading before you start commenting upon it's American incarnation. Your current logic is fundamentally erred in not taking into account the many layers of laws that augment the constitution, primarily those regarding threats and hate crimes.

The core concept is to not allow the government to dictate what can and cannot be said as that inevitably evolves into restrictions by the ruling party relating to ideals and opinions they find offensive.

In the USA , I guess that only those who committed the crimes would be guilty whereas in the European Union,those who 'did' plus those who encouraged would be punished.

Anyone who plans or aids in the commission of a crime is also guilty of that crime, or of conspiracy to commit the crime. Within limits.

You see,freedom should be limited not only for acts but also for speech;according to me,100 % freedom of speech is a major flaw of the US constitution.Too much freedom may kill freedom,and your freedom of speech could cause civil wars in America.

"What the #$%&" is all I can say.

By the way,let's go back to the original topic.

As if someone besides yourself derailed it.