8 ms·

I agree. I think this gives ethicists the task of accepting deterministic reality the way it's always been, and developing a moral framework that is in harmony

I agree. I think this gives ethicists the task of accepting deterministic reality the way it's always been, and developing a moral framework that is in harmony with that reality. Morals can still exist without the principle of free will, just like they can exist without God dictating a list of 10 commandments. Murder can still be wrong without free will, just like it can still be wrong without God saying so.

adjkant 6y ago
Completely agreed, and there's a ton of low hanging fruit from simply applying determinism to ethics and really following it. I think it becomes an incredibly powerful tool in moral philosophy that really clears a path of progress that I think the field has been struggling to move on. It kills some ideas dead in the water and makes very strong cases for others, unsticking so many fundamental debates that often came down to "agree to disagree" for so many philosophers that didn't have the formal argumentation tools to properly refute big ideas.
naasking 6y ago
> Morals can still exist without the principle of free will Not really, because you've just done away with moral blame. If there can be no moral blame, then the moral classification of actions has no meaning.
- adjkant 6y ago
  This is only true if you ground morality in objectivism and objective meaning, and require all useful conceptions of morality to fit that. What you have highlighted is that the meta-ethical view of objectivism is not compatible with determinism. Subjectivisms (both individualist and things like cultural relativism) and error theory are perfectly compatible with determinism. I personally ascribe to and argue for error theory which essentially leads to moral psychology actually dictating what ethics are. Based on that, it's quite easy to get to "murder is bad" via human traits like empathy and our social nature.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Ethics are already predetermined, though. There is no need for error theory or any moral or ethical theory in a predetermined world - none of it matters. Arguments for determinism always have these "answers" to morality, but the only convincing one is moral nihilism.
    - adjkant 6y ago
      > Ethics are already predetermined, though. No argument here, but knowing them still seems useful to humans. So in relation to humans, those terms and ideas are 100% needed. You're taking moral nihilism and jumping straight to general nihilism without any steps. > Arguments for determinism always have these "answers" to morality, but the only convincing one is moral nihilism. Error theory is a form of moral nihilism - what are you exactly disagreeing with here? ------------------------------------------------------ The bigger question is where you go from that moral nihilism. There is nothing that says just because our formal definitions of morality are false that the entire world doesn't matter. I still care for my happiness and life. So do many others. We need both this idea and these further terms and ideas in order to be able to answer the questions we were originally attempting to answer with objective morality because those problems did not magically go away.
      - tsegratis 6y ago
        Thanks for your clear distinctions. But still I don't understand Caring about happiness and life, to the point they have value is objective Do you have any other way to distinguish between moral and general nihilism? -- surely such a thing would need to be objective But you make a good point in that if there is no objective morality, there may still be some other way to make a value statement. But how could such a thing give value to moral nihilism, and still maintain the nihilism?? To be honest, I don't understand these HN comments any better than the original article -- but I do greatly appreciate them for their importance
        dkn775 6y ago
        For me I think that value arises in a nihilistic world when regardless of what individuals actually do, over time we move further into chaotic outcomes, or that things gradually get more harmonious (less conflict and negative externalities). The latter comes from the realization that some things (ie actions based only on gaining money/power/fame, knowingly taking advantage of people, needlessly killing, laziness, cheating for gain, not helping the poor, not forgiving people). This arises from nihilism because some believe that it can't be possible that nothing matters when these values are "beyond our earthly realm" in that it often requires seeing things on a more spiritual level, and thinking beyond immediate gratification. It is then that one may see nihilistic people as those feeding their temptations as these are often the easiest things to do (running vs. sitting and getting fat). So while one can think nothing matters, some may then see that indeed some actions "retard" not just ourselves but all, and others are a net benefit for society. Though believing that such actions are actually a net benefit may be considered "faith" because I can't know for sure. Just my thoughts.
- Fricken 6y ago
  If, say, a boulder is rolling down a hill towards my home, I don't need to assign any sense of will or blame to the boulder to know that it's dangerous or to want to stop it. As social animals, we have an intrinsic interest in preserving social harmony, in as much as the reproductive success of any individual is contingent on the success of the group as a whole. Morality is just the game theory element of this being played out. I could make reasoned moral arguments on behalf of the well being of chickens or why we shouldn't destroy the planet, and you may nod and agree, but without a strong emotional impulse to attach to these moral causes, it's hard to get people to take these things very seriously. It's too much of an abstraction.
  - naasking 6y ago
    > As social animals, we have an intrinsic interest in preserving social harmony, in as much as the reproductive success of any individual is contingent on the success of the group as a whole. Morality is just the game theory element of this being played out. In other words, you acknowledge that you have no moral justification for assigning blame, you simply do it out of convenience. That's weak sauce IMO. Giving up cognitivism and moral realism is very problematic on multiple levels, and your response hand waves away these other problems IMO [1]. You just end up reinventing free will and calling it something different. For people that accept that moral propositions actually have truth values (most people), assigning blame requires free will, and ultimately, we end up in the same place anyway, just with a bunch more people being confused about why we have new jargon that serves the exact same function as the old jargon. [1] Edit: for instance, life no longer has any intrinsic value, so you can justify all sorts of morally repugnant conclusions, like that totalitarian regimes are justifiable, or that a government should only care about the death rate of its citizens in order to keep it low enough to prevent widespread revolt.
    - Fricken 6y ago
      Assigning blame requires only the impulse to assign blame, which is derived from a very primitive impulse to neutralize a threat, be it a tiger, or a thief, or whatever. The whole notion of free will is a cultural construct. There are societies that have no perception of it, they believe that their actions are guided by spirits. Western concepts of justice are founded on the idea of free will, so of course you need it for western rationalizations of how to apply justice, but arguing that we need free will for justice to work is putting the cart before the horse. We just need it for our version of justice. My cat doesn't need it to take a swipe at the dog when it goes for the cat's food. It is in my interest to argue that life has intrinsic value because if I don't I risk being considered a threat by people who happen to value their own lives quite a bit. It's just simple game theory. I don't see how free will, either real or imagined, is necessary to value the lives of others. And of course, there are no consequences for killing a chicken, so there are no strong moral impulses against it. By our own rationalizations, life doesn't have any intrinsic value unless it is a life that serves us, or has power over us, and the value of a chicken's life extends only as far as it is tasty to us.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > If there can be no moral blame, then the moral classification of actions has no meaning. At the risk of mirroring Fricken's reply, this isn't so. Suppose a brain tumour drives someone to commit murder, as may have been the case with Charles Whitman. The act remains morally atrocious even if the individual's culpability is doubtful. Same goes for a killer animal, or natural disaster, or even disease. Moral blame is discounted entirely in pure utilitarianism (which is of course deeply flawed, but I think it's still illustrative here).
  - naasking 6y ago
    > The act remains morally atrocious even if the individual's culpability is doubtful. And why is his culpability doubtful? I think you'll find his lack of free will implicit in your argument.

adjkant 6y ago

Completely agreed, and there's a ton of low hanging fruit from simply applying determinism to ethics and really following it. I think it becomes an incredibly powerful tool in moral philosophy that really clears a path of progress that I think the field has been struggling to move on. It kills some ideas dead in the water and makes very strong cases for others, unsticking so many fundamental debates that often came down to "agree to disagree" for so many philosophers that didn't have the formal argumentation tools to properly refute big ideas.

naasking 6y ago

> Morals can still exist without the principle of free will Not really, because you've just done away with moral blame. If there can be no moral blame, then the moral classification of actions has no meaning.

adjkant 6y ago
This is only true if you ground morality in objectivism and objective meaning, and require all useful conceptions of morality to fit that. What you have highlighted is that the meta-ethical view of objectivism is not compatible with determinism. Subjectivisms (both individualist and things like cultural relativism) and error theory are perfectly compatible with determinism. I personally ascribe to and argue for error theory which essentially leads to moral psychology actually dictating what ethics are. Based on that, it's quite easy to get to "murder is bad" via human traits like empathy and our social nature.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Ethics are already predetermined, though. There is no need for error theory or any moral or ethical theory in a predetermined world - none of it matters. Arguments for determinism always have these "answers" to morality, but the only convincing one is moral nihilism.
  - adjkant 6y ago
    > Ethics are already predetermined, though. No argument here, but knowing them still seems useful to humans. So in relation to humans, those terms and ideas are 100% needed. You're taking moral nihilism and jumping straight to general nihilism without any steps. > Arguments for determinism always have these "answers" to morality, but the only convincing one is moral nihilism. Error theory is a form of moral nihilism - what are you exactly disagreeing with here? ------------------------------------------------------ The bigger question is where you go from that moral nihilism. There is nothing that says just because our formal definitions of morality are false that the entire world doesn't matter. I still care for my happiness and life. So do many others. We need both this idea and these further terms and ideas in order to be able to answer the questions we were originally attempting to answer with objective morality because those problems did not magically go away.
    - tsegratis 6y ago
      Thanks for your clear distinctions. But still I don't understand Caring about happiness and life, to the point they have value is objective Do you have any other way to distinguish between moral and general nihilism? -- surely such a thing would need to be objective But you make a good point in that if there is no objective morality, there may still be some other way to make a value statement. But how could such a thing give value to moral nihilism, and still maintain the nihilism?? To be honest, I don't understand these HN comments any better than the original article -- but I do greatly appreciate them for their importance
      - dkn775 6y ago
        For me I think that value arises in a nihilistic world when regardless of what individuals actually do, over time we move further into chaotic outcomes, or that things gradually get more harmonious (less conflict and negative externalities). The latter comes from the realization that some things (ie actions based only on gaining money/power/fame, knowingly taking advantage of people, needlessly killing, laziness, cheating for gain, not helping the poor, not forgiving people). This arises from nihilism because some believe that it can't be possible that nothing matters when these values are "beyond our earthly realm" in that it often requires seeing things on a more spiritual level, and thinking beyond immediate gratification. It is then that one may see nihilistic people as those feeding their temptations as these are often the easiest things to do (running vs. sitting and getting fat). So while one can think nothing matters, some may then see that indeed some actions "retard" not just ourselves but all, and others are a net benefit for society. Though believing that such actions are actually a net benefit may be considered "faith" because I can't know for sure. Just my thoughts.
Fricken 6y ago
If, say, a boulder is rolling down a hill towards my home, I don't need to assign any sense of will or blame to the boulder to know that it's dangerous or to want to stop it. As social animals, we have an intrinsic interest in preserving social harmony, in as much as the reproductive success of any individual is contingent on the success of the group as a whole. Morality is just the game theory element of this being played out. I could make reasoned moral arguments on behalf of the well being of chickens or why we shouldn't destroy the planet, and you may nod and agree, but without a strong emotional impulse to attach to these moral causes, it's hard to get people to take these things very seriously. It's too much of an abstraction.
- naasking 6y ago
  > As social animals, we have an intrinsic interest in preserving social harmony, in as much as the reproductive success of any individual is contingent on the success of the group as a whole. Morality is just the game theory element of this being played out. In other words, you acknowledge that you have no moral justification for assigning blame, you simply do it out of convenience. That's weak sauce IMO. Giving up cognitivism and moral realism is very problematic on multiple levels, and your response hand waves away these other problems IMO [1]. You just end up reinventing free will and calling it something different. For people that accept that moral propositions actually have truth values (most people), assigning blame requires free will, and ultimately, we end up in the same place anyway, just with a bunch more people being confused about why we have new jargon that serves the exact same function as the old jargon. [1] Edit: for instance, life no longer has any intrinsic value, so you can justify all sorts of morally repugnant conclusions, like that totalitarian regimes are justifiable, or that a government should only care about the death rate of its citizens in order to keep it low enough to prevent widespread revolt.
  - Fricken 6y ago
    Assigning blame requires only the impulse to assign blame, which is derived from a very primitive impulse to neutralize a threat, be it a tiger, or a thief, or whatever. The whole notion of free will is a cultural construct. There are societies that have no perception of it, they believe that their actions are guided by spirits. Western concepts of justice are founded on the idea of free will, so of course you need it for western rationalizations of how to apply justice, but arguing that we need free will for justice to work is putting the cart before the horse. We just need it for our version of justice. My cat doesn't need it to take a swipe at the dog when it goes for the cat's food. It is in my interest to argue that life has intrinsic value because if I don't I risk being considered a threat by people who happen to value their own lives quite a bit. It's just simple game theory. I don't see how free will, either real or imagined, is necessary to value the lives of others. And of course, there are no consequences for killing a chicken, so there are no strong moral impulses against it. By our own rationalizations, life doesn't have any intrinsic value unless it is a life that serves us, or has power over us, and the value of a chicken's life extends only as far as it is tasty to us.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> If there can be no moral blame, then the moral classification of actions has no meaning. At the risk of mirroring Fricken's reply, this isn't so. Suppose a brain tumour drives someone to commit murder, as may have been the case with Charles Whitman. The act remains morally atrocious even if the individual's culpability is doubtful. Same goes for a killer animal, or natural disaster, or even disease. Moral blame is discounted entirely in pure utilitarianism (which is of course deeply flawed, but I think it's still illustrative here).
- naasking 6y ago
  > The act remains morally atrocious even if the individual's culpability is doubtful. And why is his culpability doubtful? I think you'll find his lack of free will implicit in your argument.