One last time on substance dualism and divine-command morality

[Deliratio]

urbster dropped the ball on morality

[TheGamingWeasel]

Migkillertwo seriously needs to go to a Philosophy of Mind 101 class.

[Raffzeee]

I think dualism and monism are I both inaccurate. The actual reality is something more exciting! It is yet to be theorised. After this, there will still be room to have believe or disbelieve God/Soul etc.

[Knowntje]

isnt substance dualism pretty much indistinguishable from monism and isnt substance dualism completely compatible with atheism or even naturalism?

[migkillertwo]

no substance dualism is the antithesis of monism.

and while it is  compatible with atheism, it is not compatible with naturalism.

[Knowntje]

well then I dont uinderstand what substance dualism really is, because what you are describing it to be in the video is that the physical brain causes the mind. But in monism it is the same, because the mind is a manifestation of brain functions. or put another the word "mind" describes a process of brain functions

[migkillertwo]

its pretty much teh same thing as mind/body dualism.

"describes a process of brain functions"

that's not entirely true, as those functions are very physical. mind/body dualists hold that the mind is not material.

they basically believe in souls.

[Knowntje]

well in that case it sounds to me that dualists simply call that brain process "the immaterial soul" and monists dont.

[facilisdescenus]

Do a post on the difference between substance dualism and Thomistic dualism!!!

I assumed you held to Thomistic dualism because you used moreland's arguments.

[GBart]

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one supposing something metaphysical. When the brain stops working, consciousness ends. When it is chemically altered, consciousness is altered. When it is damaged, same deal. Always. You do not have to suppose anything extra to say that there is a direct correlation, and that the mind is simply a physical product of the brain, like Windows is a product of my computer hardware. Dualism failed even before that analogy was available.

[GBart]

Suppose we didn't know what causes lightning. Basically, you're saying that if I said that while I don't know the exact cause of lightning, I would bet it's purely physical, and may be related to the phenomenon now known as static electricity, and you say that it's obviously the magic of Zeus, then the burden of proof is on me.

Resorting to metaphysics is giving up.

[Deliratio]

"The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one supposing something metaphysical. "

You mean like goodness?

[GBart]

goodness?

[Deliratio]

Yes. We want to explain why some things are good or right and other evil or bad.

[GBart]

That's not metaphysical. Did you read any of my other posts? You could also watch my video about morality.

Pretend for a moment you live in a world without any gods or anything supernatural. Which would you prefer - that murder become acceptable or remain illegal, and why? How would each affect you, in tangible, physical ways?

Also, if there isn't a practical, rational basis for morality, how do you know whether God's commandments are good or evil?

[Deliratio]

"Pretend for a moment you live in a world without any gods or anything supernatural. Which would you prefer - that murder become acceptable or remain illegal, and why? How would each affect you, in tangible, physical ways?"

I would prefer it if murder would stay illegal because I don't like it. However, I also don't like Tokio Hotel or when the sunlight hurts my eyes.

[GBart]

"because I don't like it."

Right, because it has real, serious negative consequences on your life. It could end your life or that of someone you love, and it's intentional.

The sun is amoral because nobody controls it. But they do sell sunglasses.

If someone knows you don't like Tokio Hotel then they can be polite and not listen to it around you. It's only a mild annoyance to you, though, so ithey're not really obligated. What if people are annoyed by music you like? Isnt it just better...

[GBart]

...to give each other the right to listen to whatever music you want? I think that's a fair trade. That's what "rights" are. They're the invisible currency of our moral consensus. That's why killing in self-defense is more moral than murder, and capital punishment. There are better ways to deal with those situations, but a murderer has chosen to forfeit their right to life by violating yours.

It's only when we respect each other's rights that they mean something.

[Deliratio]

So you pretty much admit that morals are nothing but conventions.

[GBart]

No. Not at all. How did you get that?

Convention implies that it's arbitrary. Once again, there is nothing arbitrary about the fact that people don't want to suffer, and the fact that murder causes suffering. It only depends on the knowledge we have.

[Deliratio]

"Isnt it just better to give each other the right to listen to whatever music you want? I think that's a fair trade. That's what "rights" are. They're the invisible currency of our moral consensus."

Conventions.

[GBart]

No. Whether or not they will benefit us is not arbitrary. Our morality is limited by our knowledge of what governances, rights, etc. will benefit us.

[Deliratio]

You defined morals as conventions and you are to proud of yourself to admit it. Priceless. You're even less grown up than I am.

[GBart]

"You defined morals as conventions"

No I didn't. They're not arbitrary. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Why would I call them arbitrary if I'm arguing the opposite?

[GBart]

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by convention. If it's a (non-arbitrary) means or standard by which we make decisions, then morality is a convention in that sense.

[GBart]

Once again, let me put it as simply as I can:

What causes suffering is not arbitrary. Our goal is to limit suffering, because we don't like it - I would define suffering as that which we really don't want to happen to us. Morality is a behavioral code for groups of 2 or more beings that are able to suffer and which have effects on each other (a society) that aims to minimize suffering.

[GBart]

It is limited by practicality, and the availability of knowledge of what will cause the most suffering, and what will cause the most health and happiness. It is approximated using rights and laws, and religion was the first attempt by humans at codifying such a system, hence the Bible.

[legodesi]

"The sun is amoral because nobody controls it"

I'd say it's a-moral because it's completely within the control of the universe. Do you think that being moral requires being responsible for our actions?

[GBart]

Uh, I guess? That sounds right. Morality involves decisions made and actions performed by conscious beings that can anticipate the consequences and have a purpose in mind. So far this probably only includes human beings.

[legodesi]

Right. So what is involved, exactly, in being responsible? Would you say that something is responsible for an action if he freely chose it? Someone freely chooses an action if he may have decided to do otherwise instead of it. So you would agree that to be responsible for our actions, we choose them freely?

[GBart]

"So what is involved, exactly, in being responsible?"

My actions affect you and yours affect me, albeit in a small way. I am responsible to you and you are responsible to me.

"we choose them freely?"

Our freedom is severely limited, but yes, to an extent. Really, my "choices" are merely the result of the chemical mechanisms in my brain with the input of the conditions of my life, and some random chance.

[legodesi]

"My actions affect you and yours affect me, albeit in a small way"

But the sun does that; it affects you. Why isn't the sun responsible for its actions?

"Really, my "choices" are merely the result of the chemical mechanisms in my brain with the input of the conditions of my life, and some random chance."

Take a position: Is your choice random, and not really your own free choice? Then you're not responsible. Is it free? Then it's not reducible to chemical reactions in your brain.

[GBart]

"Why isn't the sun responsible for its actions?"

Because it is not aware of its actions or their consequences, and it cannot change its actions.

"Take a position:"

Ultimately my decisions are mechanical (with some random input, not COMPLETELY random), but this causation is extremely complicated. If there were no mechanism, the field of psychology wouldn't exist. I'm still responsible, but everything I decide is actually reducible to chemical reactions.

[legodesi]

How can you be responsible for your actions if your actions are reducible to chemical reactions? Did you will those chemical reactions to take place? Can you decide how they operate? How would you be any freer than the sun is to its own actions?

[GBart]

"How can you be responsible for your actions if your actions are reducible to chemical reactions?"

Explain why this is a problem.

"Did you will those chemical reactions to take place? Can you decide how they operate?"

They are my will and my decisions.

"How would you be any freer than the sun is to its own actions?"

What do you mean by "free"?

I can change my actions based on my knowledge of their consequences. I am also able to suffer. That's how I differ from the sun.

[legodesi]

Wait. Your mind chooses the chemical reactions that your mind is determined by?

If your actions are determined exhaustively by external factors, you were not free in choosing them, because they were external.

[GBart]

"Your mind chooses the chemical reactions that your mind is determined by?"

No, my mind IS those chemical reactions.

"If your actions are determined exhaustively by external factors, you were not free in choosing them, because they were external."

Ok, then they're not free. If we're talking about the molecular level, we don't really have free will.

[GBart]

"God's nature would give these values"

Yes, but how would you know that they were good?

"The metaphysical nature of morality"

This has not been demonstrated. Certain actions cause people to suffer. There is nothing metaphysical about that. My behavior influences the well-being and also the behavior of others. That is not metaphysical. Life is better for all of us if we choose to act in ways that improve each other's mutual well-being, and the opposite is true. Nothing metaphysical.

[GBart]

So what about it is metaphysical? The "should" part? "should" just means we want it to be so, or it's part of our plan, because it improves our well-being. There's no basis beyond that and there doesn't need to be.

I put it simply in my morality video a few months ago (you should watch it):

Would you want to live in a world where murder is permissible? Why?

Would you rather live in a world where it is not tolerated? Why?

These questions have very simple answers, and they all have to...

[GBart]

...do with the REAL, PHYSICAL effects that you can evaluate, not anything metaphysical. Beyond that it requires understanding that our actions affect each other, thus it's almost like a group decision (look up game theory).

[Ishta5]

so you now say that the mind is an emergent property of the neurons, as information makes music, as in not divine.

[Ishta5]

math and logic is used to simulate from known causes. That way we do not have to store any event possible but simulate using prior events and make predictions. And this is based on actual patterns in the physical world

[urbster1]

this was disappointing. i should really make another response to this that clarifies my points even further because you're so good at misunderstanding my arguments! i said there doesn't need to be any identity relationship established: would you posit an identity relationship between "windows the operating system" and "a physical hard drive"??? I don't think so.

furthermore, i explained the metaphysical aspect of morality which you did not refute with any evidence. i also explained "ought"