Why an atheist based morality is inferior
Offline Let's set up a simple game. We'll call it Moral. It is a two person non-zero sum game.
Suppose you have the following conditions for the game:
1) A moral choice that each player agrees exists. Each player has two available strategies: one, make the moral choice (do the right thing), and two, not make the moral choice (cheat).
2) Defined individually preferred payoffs based on adherence to this moral choice, where the payoff is greater for either player if that player can silently cheat the system.
The game does not rely on what the exact details of the moral choice is only that the players agree what it is. As it exists both players when acting with rational self interest will choose to cheat.
Suppose we add a third condition:
3) A third party judge that both players believe exists and is omniscient and fair. Both players also agree that this judge can punish cheating by reducing payoffs to zero.
The game does not rely on the judge actually existing only that the players believe he exists. The judge adds the component of complete knowledge. If the omniscient judge does not exist and there is no notion of complete knowledge the players are more prone to cheat the system.
- Login to post comments
Offline OrdinaryClay wrote:BobSpence1 wrote:Behaving in our our perceived self-interest is normal of course, and common, and does not inherently involve 'cheating'. But emphasizing such motivation downplays the influence of emotional drives and inhibitions, which, for example, make people less likely to 'cheat' their friends and associates. IMHO you way overstate the amount of serious 'cheating' that goes on - by serious I mean actions which cause serious loss or suffering to another party.
I am not saying the behavior you describe does not occur quite a lot, but you seem to imply it is involved in most interactions, to such an extent as to actually cause significant negative outcomes.
We have in place significant deterrents to uncontrolled self interest. Still we constantly see gaming (cheating). In fact, there is a never ending "arms race" between the inevitable desire to cheat and the restrictions in place to circumvent it.
Supports my argument. Statistics across regions and nations show that even draconian disincentives, even belief in a supreme judge, have limited effect on behavior, precisely because most people do not consistently and carefully reason about these things. I don't think it is a desire to 'cheat', it is a desire for gratification of all kinds, including pleasure, feelings of power, revenge, as well as monetary gain. All of which supports my point that 'rational self-interest' is not the main principle governing our behavior, especially in many areas which involve 'criminal' conduct.
Many studies show that we a very prone to take big risks for the chance of a big payoff, even when a rational assessment of the odds would argue against it.
Your mincing words. I don't mean, and never have meant, rational to mean smart or a careful planner. Even if there is emotion driving the choice it is rational in the sense that it is in the drive of self interest. It is not psychotic. Cheat is meant to mean anything counter to the moral choice. Also, I have never said, which would be obvious had you read the thread, there is perfect enforcement or disincentive against cheating. Some people will always way in favor of the cheating benefit. This does not mean you eliminate disincentive, enforcement, judgement or punishment.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Eloise wrote:No it reflects a simplified version of reality,
Oh, I see.
I probably should have put emphasis on 'version' there to make it clearer, I do not agree said game is a sound model of reality minus a few exceptional cases because to me it looks more like it is the exceptional case. Everyone agrees on what is and isn't moral (exceptional) Choosing to do what your counterpart believes you should do has less reward than going against their will (that's quite exceptional too) ..... not to mention the part where everyone believes in a omniscient judge and is scared of his retribution....
Quote:... which isn't totally convincing.. But most importantly it isn't at all convincing of what you claim in the title of the thread, but you keep evading on that point.
I'm not evading anything. There are 5 pages. Do you really think you are the only person that has not pointed out their disagreement with the inferior conclusion. I try and answer all ingenuous questions. I talked about it earlier. You will have to do the search your self. Sorry.
I asked because I have done the search. I've been reading this thread with interest and I don't recall you explaining the connection between your thread title and the conclusion of your argument, directly, ever. In fact I'm pretty sure every time someone has attempted to bring it up you've replied with a dodge. Consider yourself invited to prove me wrong if you think I am.
Quote:It doesn't matter if the judge intervenes during the game, you said the points were punished by reduction to zero. Reduction means they were gained, if only fleetingly.
If you assume fleeting as in one play then that is just plain silly...
Why?
Quote:I didn't play a loophole, I showed you that the maths does not agree with your conclusion. Your game, even with the judge, offers an extra payoff to cheats. It's not rationally self-interested to ignore that. (where does the idea that I was playing a loophole come from? BTW)
Your "maths" aren't exactly clear. Were you assuming N plays or 1 play.
I gave you the coefficients for n plays where a player hedges his bets that way.
The loophole of enjoying the cheat "before the judge came along" whatever that means.
Oh so the judge takes the point away before it's on the table?
Ok, that's fine but it changes the dynamics of the game altogether. Now there is no incentive to choose anything but moral so the players aren't choosing between moral and not moral because of the judge's powers, you've just triangulated their agreement with the other player and the judge and called it the next iteration. If you tried to do the same in the first game it would come out as: because the players agree they will never choose to do the not-moral thing. Of course that is an equivocation, just because they agree it is moral doesn't mean they agree to do what is moral.
This is quintessential human behavior. Knowing the moral choice agreed to by your partner. You still try and extract gain even though you know the judgement will come.
Again with the "you try to extract gain even though you know" ...?
According to the game rational self interested people will try to extract gain even if they "know" there is judgement coming after.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Using Eloise's system, we see that the point spread and your estimated likelihood of their being a Judge determines the best choice. Let's say you determine the Judge's existence is 10% likely. Using Eloise's point spread it would be wise to cheat. You have two outcomes: a (by your own reckoning) 90% likelihood of getting 2 points per play and a 10% chance of getting 0 points per play.
But this means that there are more factors a rational player needs to consider. What if the Judge can turn 2s into negative points (ie, punishments such as hell)? What if there are many different possible Judges that each give different point spreads, but you are unsure which is real, if any are real at all? What if someone follows a Judge-free moral system (or, better yet, claims that moral systems based off of fearing Judges are not moral systems at all) and that person values being moral so highly that they see the greatest payoffs as being moral despite a rejection of moral Judges? All of these factors are very important to real-world morality, yet are missed by this morality game. There reaches a point where the analogy is missing too many vital real-life components to be applicable anymore.
As a side note, this is not a 'moral' game, it is a 'legal' game. It is merely making people act nice out of fear of punishment. This registers as a Kohlberg's level 1 morality system; the lowest and most underdeveloped system that could possibly pass as a moral system. It is fit only for frightening young children into not acting up. Most adolecents are suppost to have more sense than to follow this kind of a system. I would hate to think that this 'inferior atheist morality' is your term for advanced moral systems that are fit for use by adults.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
- Login to post comments
Offline I probably should have put emphasis on 'version' there to make it clearer, I do not agree said game is a sound model of reality minus a few exceptional cases because to me it looks more like it is the exceptional case. Everyone agrees on what is and isn't moral (exceptional) Choosing to do what your counterpart believes you should do has less reward than going against their will (that's quite exceptional too) ..... not to mention the part where everyone believes in a omniscient judge and is scared of his retribution....
Your response here is indicative of your "careful" attention to the thread. I never said everyone agrees on morals. I went so far as to allow for relative morals (which is absurd at the end of day), and you still pretend I don't. I never said everyone agrees on the judge.
I asked because I have done the search. I've been reading this thread with interest and I don't recall you explaining the connection between your thread title and the conclusion of your argument, directly, ever. In fact I'm pretty sure every time someone has attempted to bring it up you've replied with a dodge. Consider yourself invited to prove me wrong if you think I am.
You didn't look very hard. You are "pretty sure" someone brought it up? I've plainly stated why I used inferior. I've plainly stated my argument. I've plainly stated the purpose of the game. I've plainly stated what it highlights. A person who does not want to be convinced is unconvincable. The essence of your objection is that "we are not bad". It is a frequent common factor.
Why?
Strategies are integral.
I gave you the coefficients for n plays where a player hedges his bets that way.
This is why I made the comment about the terms of the game. The advantage of your perspective is that it allows you to game the system up to N times depending on how risk averse one is. Reality at play again. You did not calculate coeffiencents. There was no hedging of any bet. There was no triangulation. The dynamics of the game is the same as it has been. You created a way for the players to obtain "fleeting" gain.
Oh so the judge takes the point away before it's on the table?
Ok, that's fine but it changes the dynamics of the game altogether. Now there is no incentive to choose anything but moral so the players aren't choosing between moral and not moral because of the judge's powers, you've just triangulated their agreement with the other player and the judge and called it the next iteration. If you tried to do the same in the first game it would come out as: because the players agree they will never choose to do the not-moral thing. Of course that is an equivocation, just because they agree it is moral doesn't mean they agree to do what is moral.
As I have said you can change the terms of the game all you want. The abstraction still reflects reality. There are a multitude of variations and complications. You can try and hide reality, but it can not be hid. You can rationalize your emotional universe to include the "good" things if it makes you feel better. The world says differently. Whether it fits your fantasy or not we live in a world where cheating (or any other name you chose to use) is a dominate behavior(continuously quenched by prevention), and it is driven by self interest.
Again with the "you try to extract gain even though you know" ...?
According to the game rational self interested people will try to extract gain even if they "know" there is judgement coming after.
What is so hard to understand. You added the interpretation that the strategy was playable in such a way as to extract "fleeting" gain. That was my point about the loophole. Self interest seeks to game the system as you point out - again ironic.
BTW - What does this mean "Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist"?
- Login to post comments
Offline ... All of these factors are very important to real-world morality, yet are missed by this morality game. There reaches a point where the analogy is missing too many vital real-life components to be applicable anymore.
I pointed out many, many times the game is an abstraction. If the abstraction addresses a core behavior it has value. All your twists and turns do not demonstrate that our behavior is different. We cheat. Any method that is used to prevent this is an admission to this fact. Given that we cheat any method that produced results not in our self interest would reduce cheating. This is what the real world says and has always said. It is no coincidence that the world and its history screams this.
I left the nature of the judge vague to make the point given my limited definition of inferior. I agree that depending on the judge and how the details of life play out things get complicated, but it does not change the core abstraction. I'm a devout Christian. I believe in one particular judge myself.
As a side note, this is not a 'moral' game, it is a 'legal' game. It is merely making people act nice out of fear of punishment.
In your first two paragraphs you add all kinds of twists and interpretations. Now you want to hold to a hard definition of the game. Yes people want to cheat using any scheme they can and they don't want to be told what to do. You can pretend that our dominate behavior is moral actions based on a simple desire to act morally, but reality says otherwise.
- Login to post comments
Offline Jormungander wrote:... All of these factors are very important to real-world morality, yet are missed by this morality game. There reaches a point where the analogy is missing too many vital real-life components to be applicable anymore.
I pointed out many, many times the game is an abstraction. If the abstraction addresses a core behavior it has value. All your twists and turns do not demonstrate that our behavior is different. We cheat. Any method that is used to prevent this is an admission to this fact. Given that we cheat any method that produced results not in our self interest would reduce cheating. This is what the real world says and has always said. It is no coincidence that the world and its history screams this.
I left the nature of the judge vague to make the point given my limited definition of inferior. I agree that depending on the judge and how the details of life play out things get complicated, but it does not change the core abstraction. I'm a devout Christian. I believe in one particular judge myself.
Quote:As a side note, this is not a 'moral' game, it is a 'legal' game. It is merely making people act nice out of fear of punishment.
In your first two paragraphs you add all kinds of twists and interpretations. Now you want to hold to a hard definition of the game. Yes people want to cheat using any scheme they can and they don't want to be told what to do. You can pretend that our dominate behavior is moral actions based on a simple desire to act morally, but reality says otherwise.
And your judge doesn't play by the rules you describe in your game so your abstraction makes no sense.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Confidence in the correctness of a cheated answer. It is gain.
... So what you are saying is that the confidence of the cheater is always greater than the one who knows how to do the math? Being able to solve the problem is far more useful and thus a greater gain, than the cheaters solution.
Are you going to answer this?
Cheating by definition involves greater payoff, or at least the perception of greater payoff. Can you think of any perfect cheating that does not provide a payoff greater then not cheating.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline Are you going to answer this?
I'm not sure what you quesiton is?
- Login to post comments
Offline Magus wrote:Are you going to answer this?
I'm not sure what you quesiton is?
Just wow...
So what you are saying is that the confidence of the cheater is always greater than the one who knows how to do the math? Being able to solve the problem is far more useful and thus a greater gain, than the cheaters solution.
It is a clarification quesiton, but a question non-the-less you know the one that begins in "What" and ends in "?"
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise wrote:I probably should have put emphasis on 'version' there to make it clearer, I do not agree said game is a sound model of reality minus a few exceptional cases because to me it looks more like it is the exceptional case. Everyone agrees on what is and isn't moral (exceptional) Choosing to do what your counterpart believes you should do has less reward than going against their will (that's quite exceptional too) ..... not to mention the part where everyone believes in a omniscient judge and is scared of his retribution....
Your response here is indicative of your "careful" attention to the thread. I never said everyone agrees on morals. I went so far as to allow for relative morals (which is absurd at the end of day), and you still pretend I don't. I never said everyone agrees on the judge.
er.... it's one of the rules of the game.. are you reading what I'm writing, or just getting hot-headed because I'm still indicating disagreement instead of appeasing you?
You Wrote:
Suppose you have the following conditions for the game:
1) A moral choice that each player agrees exists.
You didn't look very hard. You are "pretty sure" someone brought it up? I've plainly stated why I used inferior.
State it again? If it is easy to make plain then do it again, please.
The essence of your objection is that "we are not bad". It is a frequent common factor.
Why is that a problem?
Quote:Why?
Strategies are integral.
Okay, you've lost me there... If I assume fleeting as in one play it's silly because strategies are integral?
I assume fleeting because it's no longer a game of strategy without at least that, there's no strategy left to be had if there are no choices at all.
Quote:I gave you the coefficients for n plays where a player hedges his bets that way.
This is why I made the comment about the terms of the game. The advantage of your perspective is that it allows you to game the system up to N times depending on how risk averse one is. Reality at play again. You did not calculate coeffiencents. There was no hedging of any bet. There was no triangulation. The dynamics of the game is the same as it has been. You created a way for the players to obtain "fleeting" gain.
Funny how when I said:
Then, OrdinaryClay adds an end-game arbiter who can reduce all the 2's to zero.
You replied:
Nice summary,
And now that the summary of the arbiter as an end-game participant no longer works to your purposes you label it: [creating] a way for the players to obtain "fleeting" gain.
Anyhow, I did calculate coefficients. based on my (perfectly fair) assumption that I had summarised your game correctly. It's strange and disingenuous for you to deflect the responsibility for your own change of heart onto me now, don't you think.
As I have said you can change the terms of the game all you want. The abstraction still reflects reality. There are a multitude of variations and complications. You can try and hide reality, but it can not be hid. You can rationalize your emotional universe to include the "good" things if it makes you feel better. The world says differently. Whether it fits your fantasy or not we live in a world where cheating (or any other name you chose to use) is a dominate behavior(continuously quenched by prevention), and it is driven by self interest.
It's the normal form of your second game which is a bother here. Let's not get hung up on me not being a card carrying member of total-depravity-r-us, ok.
Are you trying to say that the second game reflects a strategic choice on behalf of the participants or not? Cause I really don't think it can say what you want it to say if it does.
Consider another example. Lets say for arguments sake that humanity is fundamentally depraved, and your normal form for the game with the judge reflects strategic players acting in self-interest. Since as self-interested people they have no choice of positions to take in the matrix, their strategic proclivity will shift to the situation where choice exists. You've given them the choice to agree on what is moral and recieve payoff for doing that. So they will, since they are so virulently depraved, circumvent your game and usurp your "moral" elements by electing to use their agreement for their own self interest, will they not?
Self interest seeks to game the system as you point out - again ironic.
Ooh, you play dirty. Good luck with that.
BTW - What does this mean "Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist"?
It means I identify with Gnosticism, as a Gnostic (yes, I read all those terrible heretical Nag Hammadi Gospels and I put at least as much stock in them as in any other God story) and my belief is in a God which is defined by panentheism my reasons for which are, best described as, Philosophical.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline er.... it's one of the rules of the game.. are you reading what I'm writing, or just getting hot-headed because I'm still indicating disagreement instead of appeasing you?
You misunderstand my appreciation for your posts. My comment was nothing more then genuine honesty. This is an atheist board. I was under no illusions as to why people post here. You're not concerned about your status on the board are you?
You Wrote:Suppose you have the following conditions for the game:
1) A moral choice that each player agrees exists.
Reread your statement. This was not what you said.
State it again? If it is easy to make plain then do it again, please.
Look again. If your depth of understanding is as deep as you believe then it should pop right out at you.
Why is that a problem?
You seemed to have skipped the rest of what I said.
I assume fleeting because it's no longer a game of strategy without at least that, there's no strategy left to be had if there are no choices at all.
It's a game. Because you don't like the pick of strategies does not make it any less so.
Funny how when I said:
Why is it funny?
Anyhow, I did calculate coefficients. based on my (perfectly fair) assumption that I had summarised your game correctly. It's strange and disingenuous for you to deflect the responsibility for your own change of heart onto me now, don't you think.
What change of heart did I have? Your summary did not contain any indication of fleeting gain. You're not a victim.
It's the normal form of your second game which is a bother here. Let's not get hung up on me not being a card carrying member of total-depravity-r-us, ok.
Are you trying to say that the second game reflects a strategic choice on behalf of the participants or not? Cause I really don't think it can say what you want it to say if it does.
The second game assumes a moral choice. This moral choice has implicit in it the idea that the players have someone hoping they do not cheat.
Consider another example. Lets say for arguments sake that humanity is fundamentally depraved, and your normal form for the game with the judge reflects strategic players acting in self-interest. Since as self-interested people they have no choice of positions to take in the matrix, their strategic proclivity will shift to the situation where choice exists. You've given them the choice to agree on what is moral and recieve payoff for doing that. So they will, since they are so virulently depraved, circumvent your game and usurp your "moral" elements by electing to use their agreement for their own self interest, will they not?
Games do not require automatons.
Ooh, you play dirty. Good luck with that.
Why do you say that?
It means I identify with Gnosticism, as a Gnostic (yes, I read all those terrible heretical Nag Hammadi Gospels and I put at least as much stock in them as in any other God story) and my belief is in a God which is defined by panentheism my reasons for which are, best described as, Philosophical.
Is there a thread where you have debated your faith? I would like to read it.
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise wrote:er.... it's one of the rules of the game.. are you reading what I'm writing, or just getting hot-headed because I'm still indicating disagreement instead of appeasing you?
You misunderstand my appreciation for your posts. My comment was nothing more then genuine honesty. This is an atheist board. I was under no illusions as to why people post here. You're not concerned about your status on the board are you?
And I am being honest also. You agreed with my earlier post so I have simply continued under what I think are reasonable assumptions based on that. I don't think I have a status on these boards, I don't think anyone finds me that interesting. IAGAY called himself an Eloise fan, (R.I.P. Old Mate, he was a great character, I miss his posts) but other than that, I don't think anyone gives a sheet if I make an ass of myself.
Quote:
You Wrote:Suppose you have the following conditions for the game:
1) A moral choice that each player agrees exists.Reread your statement. This was not what you said.
No, it must be you who is mistaken. What I said was (paraphrased) Your game does not look like an abstract of reality minuc some exceptions, it looks like one of the exceptions because for example everyone agrees on the moral. (everyone meaning the players and the judge*)
*If the Judge doesn't agree then we have too much incertainty in the second matrix to make a call on the distribution of the payoffs, so we must assume he does. Nigel asked for clarification of this on the first page of the thread and I seconded his question.
Quote:State it again? If it is easy to make plain then do it again, please.
Look again. If your depth of understanding is as deep as you believe then it should pop right out at you.
I'm giving up. I will just assume you don't want to say it.
Quote:Why is that a problem?
You seemed to have skipped the rest of what I said.
yeah... well it all seemed to be saying the same thing, that it's a problem. You were leading me on a rant somewhat, but not really stating in an objective sense why it bothered you.
Rational self-interest does not ≡ bad. If you think it does, in a sense other than the fact that you've set it up as bad in your game by setting the payoffs for "bad" higher, then consider yourself invited to state your proof.
Quote:I assume fleeting because it's no longer a game of strategy without at least that, there's no strategy left to be had if there are no choices at all.
It's a game. Because you don't like the pick of strategies does not make it any less so.
There isn't a pick of strategies in a game with self-interested people where one of the options, throughout, has a zero payoff. It's equivalent to that option not even being a part of the game at all. so we're left with a "game" that doesn't have any moves it's not a 'game' except by affirming the the precedent.
Quote:Funny how when I said:
Why is it funny?
It's not, there was a hint of sarcasm there. You agreed with me as long as it suited you to do so.
Quote:Anyhow, I did calculate coefficients. based on my (perfectly fair) assumption that I had summarised your game correctly. It's strange and disingenuous for you to deflect the responsibility for your own change of heart onto me now, don't you think.
What change of heart did I have? Your summary did not contain any indication of fleeting gain. You're not a victim.
My summary contained an end-game arbitration by the judge. If the judges powers are exercised at the end of the game then there is a fleeting gain. If the judges powers are exercised at the beginning of the game then there is no game. If the judges powers are exercised during the game for n games, same story, post play=fleeting gain, before play=no game.
Quote:It's the normal form of your second game which is a bother here. Let's not get hung up on me not being a card carrying member of total-depravity-r-us, ok.
Are you trying to say that the second game reflects a strategic choice on behalf of the participants or not? Cause I really don't think it can say what you want it to say if it does.
The second game assumes a moral choice. This moral choice has implicit in it the idea that the players have someone hoping they do not cheat.
Huh? someone hoping they do not cheat? where did that come from?
Anyhow, if the second game assumes a moral choice then removes all choice it has removed itself from its own assumption.
Quote:Consider another example. Lets say for arguments sake that humanity is fundamentally depraved, and your normal form for the game with the judge reflects strategic players acting in self-interest. Since as self-interested people they have no choice of positions to take in the matrix, their strategic proclivity will shift to the situation where choice exists. You've given them the choice to agree on what is moral and recieve payoff for doing that. So they will, since they are so virulently depraved, circumvent your game and usurp your "moral" elements by electing to use their agreement for their own self interest, will they not?
Games do not require automatons.
What has that got to do with price of dan??
Quote:Ooh, you play dirty. Good luck with that.
Why do you say that?
Ad hominem is no way to argue, Clay. You tried to poison the well with insinuations about my honesty. It's of no interest to me, stick to the players in the game.
Is there a thread where you have debated your faith? I would like to read it.
There are several, possibly hundreds. Try the science and philosophy forums for threads on brains minds and materialistic theories of mind, use the search function to google pantheism, and there was one specific case where Kevin and I held a semi-formal closed debate in the one-on-one forum, here.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline So what you are saying is that the confidence of the cheater is always greater than the one who knows how to do the math? Being able to solve the problem is far more useful and thus a greater gain, than the cheaters solution.
It's not. I know this for a fact. 
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't think I have a status on these boards, I don't think anyone finds me that interesting
I think you and your posts are very interesting, Eloise. I'm really still new here, more or less, but I enjoy your posts. Though I sometimes can't follow them- not having a mathematics or formal logic background, sometimes the terms you use are just over my head. And when the formulae start showing up? Glazed eyes.
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.
- Login to post comments
Offline But you're still setting up a straw man. Probabilistic inference does not give us "what happened could not have been otherwise given the circumstances". Instead, it's "what happened could have been otherwise to varying degrees of probability", and that's a big difference. Pure Cartesian determinism just doesn't work in reality.
I would actually like to focus on this a little more.
All you are telling me is that absolute certainty does not exist in reality. That does not address the central issue. In your probabilistic model of reality, where does free choice come into play?
ASSUMED PREMISE: All events are physical events.
(2) Human volition is an event.
(3) Therefore, human volition is a physical event.
ASSUMED PREMISE: All physical events are necessitated by other physical events.
(5) Human volition is necessitated by other physical events.
You need to demonstrate to me why this argument is false. For me, it's easy. I would argue that the first AP is false. Human volition is not a physical event. It cannot be because we have free will. If it was a physical event, then it could not justifiably be known as "human volition."
Free will is a metaphysical concept that requires us to be exempt from any sort of causal order that exists in nature, linear or otherwise.
What would you say?
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:I don't think I have a status on these boards, I don't think anyone finds me that interestingI think you and your posts are very interesting, Eloise. I'm really still new here, more or less, but I enjoy your posts. Though I sometimes can't follow them- not having a mathematics or formal logic background, sometimes the terms you use are just over my head. And when the formulae start showing up? Glazed eyes.
I second that sentiment crazymonkie. Even though Eloise is a theist member of an atheist message board I consider her a valuable asset to this forum. She possesses a formidable amount of technical / academic knowledge. She is neither dogmatic nor condescending. She elaborates without flippancy. In short, she's just a nice person with some weird beliefs that I don't understand 
- Login to post comments
Offline You're not concerned about your status on the board are you?
I wouldn't worry about that. Eloise already has a reputation for making well thought out and meaningful posts. She doesn't have to cater to our views. She thinks differently than me in many ways, but she is thoughtful and writes posts that seem to really mean something (which, sadly, is a rare find on the internet). I would worry more about your reputation as being the new Paisley.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
- Login to post comments
Offline This is an atheist board. I was under no illusions as to why people post here. You're not concerned about your status on the board are you?
I do not instantly shun all theists or write them off as delusional morons. In order to understand other perspectives, we have to lower the walls and discuss controversial issues instead of developing an in-group/out-group mentality. My main problem isn't even with theism; it's with fundamentalism and/or faith and/or anti-intellectualism. I think most of the other posters would agree with me on this. At least, I hope they do.
In a recent thread about pantheism, I found Eloise's position to be extremely well-developed (in fact, probably more detailed than my own). While I still think her philosophical reasons are insufficient to establish this "God," I actually think her position contains a fairly strong argument, certainly better than any other argument for God I've ever observed. But, of course, her God, if you can even call it God, is definitely not the same as yours.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
Offline long thread...
and i do not get to read all of it now since I`m at work , so excuse me if this has been touched allready but...
1. Who defines the moral; sets for the 2 players? If they do , well then all that your little game proves is that defining a set of morals that would give the adherant less "gain" if he would follow them then they would if he would cheat them is ...bad?
I mean , why the assumption that laws (moral laws , general laws , whatever) are set in place to limit personal gain?
Or are you simply arguing that humans would not act in cooperation unless cooperation is enforced by fear of punishment?
to wrap things up (had this argument today allready with a church person) , laws and morality are "set in place" to ensure maximal PERSONAL gain , even though for the lesser minded they appear to hinder personal gain and favor the others. I mean WHY HE GETS AND I NOT GETS? I KILL HIM AND GETS IT
see, we are herd animals and it`s in our nature to develop herd behaviour that ultimately favors each and every individual by first cattering to the entire herd . That we translated these behaviours into morality and law thatnks to our ability to use language and...yeah that`s another story
more to your point , i would play with you , and my morality would be "subjective to any question or situation i would be presented with, it would be moral for me to do the thing that would give me the most benefits " Now you come and give me an argument for cheating this
"edit : you said I get to define "gains" right?"
- Login to post comments
Offline HisWillness wrote:But you're still setting up a straw man. Probabilistic inference does not give us "what happened could not have been otherwise given the circumstances". Instead, it's "what happened could have been otherwise to varying degrees of probability", and that's a big difference. Pure Cartesian determinism just doesn't work in reality.
I would actually like to focus on this a little more.
All you are telling me is that absolute certainty does not exist in reality. That does not address the central issue. In your probabilistic model of reality, where does free choice come into play?
ASSUMED PREMISE: All events are physical events.
(2) Human volition is an event.
(3) Therefore, human volition is a physical event.
ASSUMED PREMISE: All physical events are necessitated by other physical events.
(5) Human volition is necessitated by other physical events.
You need to demonstrate to me why this argument is false. For me, it's easy. I would argue that the first AP is false. Human volition is not a physical event. It cannot be because we have free will. If it was a physical event, then it could not justifiably be known as "human volition."
Free will is a metaphysical concept that requires us to be exempt from any sort of causal order that exists in nature, linear or otherwise.
What would you say?
1) Immateriality is an incoherent concept, so you've argued yourself into incoherence.
2) Your arguments presents and unjustified, or false dilema. There is no contradiction between materialism and free will. You need to go look up the term "compatibalism"
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Let's set up a simple game. We'll call it Moral. It is a two person non-zero sum game.
Suppose you have the following conditions for the game:
1) A moral choice that each player agrees exists. Each player has two available strategies: one, make the moral choice (do the right thing), and two, not make the moral choice (cheat).
2) Defined individually preferred payoffs based on adherence to this moral choice, where the payoff is greater for either player if that player can silently cheat the system.
The game does not rely on what the exact details of the moral choice is only that the players agree what it is. As it exists both players when acting with rational self interest will choose to cheat.
Suppose we add a third condition:
3) A third party judge that both players believe exists and is omniscient and fair. Both players also agree that this judge can punish cheating by reducing payoffs to zero.
The game does not rely on the judge actually existing only that the players believe he exists. The judge adds the component of complete knowledge. If the omniscient judge does not exist and there is no notion of complete knowledge the players are more prone to cheat the system.
The flawed assumption here is that an external force is required for morality. In fact, there can be no true morality at all, as long as moral rules are enforced externally. You are describing consequentialism, which is sheer prudence, and not morality.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/christians_must_steal_from_secular_morality
Morality based on external force is the 'morality of infants.' Its what we must rely on, when dealing with infants, until children begin to internalize rules and develop empathy.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline In a recent thread about pantheism, I found Eloise's position to be extremely well-developed (in fact, probably more detailed than my own). While I still think her philosophical reasons are insufficient to establish this "God," I actually think her position contains a fairly strong argument, certainly better than any other argument for God I've ever observed. But, of course, her God, if you can even call it God, is definitely not the same as yours.
Just curious, could you paraphrase her argument? (I know what it is since I read the thread she posted above.) Is it her argument or is it the appeal of a deity that requires nothing from you.
- Login to post comments
Offline The flawed assumption here is that an external force is required for morality. In fact, there can be no true morality at all, as long as moral rules are enforced externally. You are describing consequentialism, which is sheer prudence, and not morality.
...
Morality based on external force is the 'morality of infants.' Its what we must rely on, when dealing with infants, until children begin to internalize rules and develop empathy.
The argument that "we are not bad" has already been made. Reality defies this on its face. With out some form of threat of enforcement we do not conform. That said, I do believe altruism does exist, but it is certainly not an inevitable and normal part of moral "maturity". The idea that enforcement nullifies morality is a false dichotomy. There can be an enforcement factor and simultaneously an independent definition as to what is right and wrong.
- Login to post comments
Offline todangst wrote:The flawed assumption here is that an external force is required for morality. In fact, there can be no true morality at all, as long as moral rules are enforced externally. You are describing consequentialism, which is sheer prudence, and not morality.
...
Morality based on external force is the 'morality of infants.' Its what we must rely on, when dealing with infants, until children begin to internalize rules and develop empathy.
The argument that "we are not bad" has already been made. Reality defies this on its face. With out some form of threat of enforcement we do not conform. That said, I do believe altruism does exist, but it is certainly not an inevitable and normal part of moral "maturity". The idea that enforcement nullifies morality is a false dichotomy. There can be an enforcement factor and simultaneously an independent definition as to what is right and wrong.
Try reading what he wrote again. You've managed to misrepresent it completely. You might also want to familiarize yourself with some ethical philosophy, including discussions of prudential morality. A good sourcebook would be "Ethics", edited by James Sterba.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline todangst wrote:The flawed assumption here is that an external force is required for morality. In fact, there can be no true morality at all, as long as moral rules are enforced externally. You are describing consequentialism, which is sheer prudence, and not morality.
...
Morality based on external force is the 'morality of infants.' Its what we must rely on, when dealing with infants, until children begin to internalize rules and develop empathy.
The argument that "we are not bad" has already been made. Reality defies this on its face. With out some form of threat of enforcement we do not conform. That said, I do believe altruism does exist, but it is certainly not an inevitable and normal part of moral "maturity". The idea that enforcement nullifies morality is a false dichotomy. There can be an enforcement factor and simultaneously an independent definition as to what is right and wrong.
Who said we didn't have a threat of enforcement? Human society polices itself in most cases on the basis of what is good being beneficial to that society and what is bad being harmful to it.
Why the need to add any magic man - let alone one that isn't bound by the rules he gives to his followers (like the god of the Bible)? In the parlance of your game, the players won't cheat because of the omnipotent judge but the judge is free to enforce/not enforce the rules at will.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Couching your words for impression often makes them less impressive to the informed.
Just because simple games allow a complete strategy analysis does not make them logical deductions. Just because a particular game construct is an abstraction does not make it less of an indicator toward reality. There is nothing odd or less convincing about simple games having dominate strategies. If the essence of something can be reduced to simplicity it can be very valuable. People can deny and rationalize their own self interested behavior all they want, but it does not make it any less so. Nothing about your meta analysis reduces my point.
Don't be silly. When I make an argument for Christ I never do it indirectly.
Ok sure, if that's what you think I'm doing then you've already gotten your measure of me and concluded this discussion. Why go on?
No it's not convincing that the game is an abstraction of any significance to the question it purports to answer. This has been my position all along and why I asked you to clarify your assumptions in my first post. You've set morality up as a dilemma, you haven't found it is one and that's fine if your conclusions refer to that with consistency, but declaring "Wow, morality is a dilemma, look at that" isn't consistent. Of course it's a dilemma, that's the way you wrote it.
So your conclusion must be, if morality is a dilemma of precisely X form, a judge of Y form is a clear solution which doesn't go to anything, really, regarding the status of atheist bases for morality.
Then argue the title of your thread directly, or please explain how it is not an argument for Christ.
You really believe that? Moreover, do you believe your game proves that? Remember that your judge only deducts points at the end of the game, a rational self-interested person would still have payoffs to gain in the short term by cheating.
Take a player who hedges their bets in the normal form game I drew up say by playing 1/4 of the game cheating 3/4 of the game fairly. This player ends up with (2*1/4) = 1/2 a point deducted and still has (1*3/4) = 3/4 of a full point at the end of the game. Compare this to a player who plays fairly all the way through to get 1 point over the span of the whole game, the cheater got an extra 1/4 of payoff before the judge came along. Will you tell me a rationally self-interested person wouldn't capitalise on this loophole?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
"Invariably" came from how you set up your game. You tried to build it so that the atheist would always cheat and the christian would always pick the moral choice.
Are you ever going to post all the rules of your game? Especially that one that allows Christians to cheat without penalty as long as they apologize to the judge after each incident.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
My "measure" of you, which I don't have, is irrelevant.
Because you are not the only one reading.
I don't understand your fixation on the word dilemma here, to be honest, but I did clarify based on our earlier exchange.
Let's start from first principals ...
1) a moral system has as its goal that individuals follow these morals. This allows us to draw a direct analogy in the form of game rules.
2) a moral system has the notion of not being moral. This is in fact cheating.
3) a moral system has the notion of payoffs for being moral or cheating. This allows us to build a payoff matrix.
4) a moral system has the notion of being caught cheating. This allows us to introduce a judge, and a conscience for that matter.
As I explained a multitude of times variations due to uncertainly can be added in several places. We can even factor out the cases where the payoff for cheating is below that of not cheating. The structure of the game is still sound and does in fact reflect reality in its simplest form.
I did.
I don't recall saying anything about the term of the game or when the judge intervenes. I do find it ironic that you make your point by playing a "loophole". It's irresistible isn't it. We even want to cheat the judge, just like we want to cheat the group.
Bingo.
I think this one is wrapped up, but just so you know I'm paying attention:
Game, set, match, tournament, grand slam.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
What don't you understand??
Your whole scenario only relates to 'morality' if you totally define morality as obedience to a set of rules. You have only made it sound like it is relevant to morality by labeling one (undefined) action as 'cheating'.
It would only be relevant to morality if the 'cheating' behavior actually penalized the other player as well as paying off to the cheater.
You have just confirmed my opinion that Theists have a debased concept of morality.
In my view i
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Even without 'invariably', my point still stands. People do not act out of 'rational self interest' as a dominant basis for action. 'Perceived self interest' would be a more accurate description, but still, in many situations, not the most likely determinant of action.
Particularly when the situation evokes strong emotions, compulsive or 'driven' behavior, deeply-held beliefs, 'gut reactions', strong aversion reactions to the behavior of the other, or even aversion to what would appear to the 'rational' course of action, transgression of taboos, etc, for at least one of the parties, 'rational self interest' just doesn't come into it. And such situations are the sort that are likely in the extreme cases to lead to some of the worst 'bad' behavior, especially violence, including murder.
'Self-interest' would be more likely to apply to other categories of behavior such as deception for the purpose of making profit, which would include the group behavior to refer to.
Even then, much behavior, even of the more calculated kind, is aimed at gaining some emotional payoff, which is not necessarily in the longer-term interest of the individual.
Behaving in our our perceived self-interest is normal of course, and common, and does not inherently involve 'cheating'. But emphasizing such motivation downplays the influence of emotional drives and inhibitions, which, for example, make people less likely to 'cheat' their friends and associates. IMHO you way overstate the amount of serious 'cheating' that goes on - by serious I mean actions which cause serious loss or suffering to another party.
I am not saying the behavior you describe does not occur quite a lot, but you seem to imply it is involved in most interactions, to such an extent as to actually cause significant negative outcomes.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Yes you did clarify, but I thought I should remind you that I did already contest your thread title on the basis of the the way you set up the game. My objections are not a sudden change of heart.
As for the word dilemma, how about predicament? double bind? what would you call the player's situation in your original game matrix?
Assuming that the existence of such a system is not made impossible by the players' differences of opinion with each other or the judge. Recall, we don't take into account anything your players have trouble agreeing on.
Maybe it's cheating. Maybe there are better ways to exploit a system of rules that cannot be defined as directly taking option 2. It's not like this doesn't happen.
No, but we can build one under that assumption, sure.
Assuming 3, yes.
No it reflects a simplified version of reality, which isn't totally convincing.. But most importantly it isn't at all convincing of what you claim in the title of the thread, but you keep evading on that point.
Where?
But doesn't matter if the judge intervenes during the game, you said the points were punished by reduction to zero. Reduction means they were gained, if only fleetingly.
I didn't play a loophole, I showed you that the maths does not agree with your conclusion. Your game, even with the judge, offers an extra payoff to cheats. It's not rationally self-interested to ignore that. (where does the idea that I was playing a loophole come from? BTW)
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
It comes from being crushed. What was it, three different ways? I predict that nothing after this will make sense.
OC, you're getting chucked around the ring at this point. Your corner really needs to throw in the towel.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
How your quote, I included, has any relevance to your response to my comment about your quote admitting the relevancy of disincentives.
Nothing any theist could say would sway your predetermined opinion.
We have in place significant deterrents to uncontrolled self interest. Still we constantly see gaming (cheating). In fact, there is a never ending "arms race" between the inevitable desire to cheat and the restrictions in place to circumvent it.
Supports my argument. Statistics across regions and nations show that even draconian disincentives, even belief in a supreme judge, have limited effect on behavior, precisely because most people do not consistently and carefully reason about these things. I don't think it is a desire to 'cheat', it is a desire for gratification of all kinds, including pleasure, feelings of power, revenge, as well as monetary gain. All of which supports my point that 'rational self-interest' is not the main principle governing our behavior, especially in many areas which involve 'criminal' conduct.
Many studies show that we a very prone to take big risks for the chance of a big payoff, even when a rational assessment of the odds would argue against it.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
What it is. Strategy choice.
Oh, I see.
I'm not evading anything. There are 5 pages. Do you really think you are the only person that has not pointed out their disagreement with the inferior conclusion. I try and answer all ingenuous questions. I talked about it earlier. You will have to do the search your self. Sorry.
If you assume fleeting as in one play then that is just plain silly, but I'm sure you will try and make an argument based on it. Feel free.
Your "maths" aren't exactly clear. Were you assuming N plays or 1 play.
The loophole of enjoying the cheat "before the judge came along" whatever that means. This is quintessential human behavior. Knowing the moral choice agreed to by your partner. You still try and extract gain even though you know the judgement will come.