Consequentialism: A Broad Perspective Part II

[Theologica37]

This must have been the video you were referring to.

I'm not sure how I missed this.

These videos seem not to defend consequentialism, but rather a psuedo-determinism.

I must say, you were a couple of statements away from a video response; I feel you were very incorrect with your statements of Virtue Ethics as a whole. The differences between Utility and Virtue frameworks, in regard to moral discernment, cannot be understated.

Remember, Rule Utility still presupposes the PP as basic.

[HonestDiscussioner]

PP = pleasure principal I assume?

Not necessarily. While I'd say it is an important part in my view, it isn't necessary. Some might not find any utility in pleasure, but only in knowledge.

Perhaps you didn't see the first part, but I argue that the virtue of a person HAS consequences, thereby consequentialism framework includes the important aspects of virtue ethics with no need of free will. This is my version of consequentialism, it isn't held by all consequentialists\utilitarians of course

[WolfSyndrome]

okay...this whole freewill vs. determinism debate makes no sense whatsoever...

freewill = choose what you believe exists? (referring to the horse example)

determinism = pick from a set of responses that is most reasonable to you?

Picking and choosing are the same thing...so if in determinism you have the ability to "pick" then how is that any different from the ability to "choose"? Also, people CAN choose (or pick) irrational beliefs......so WTF!??

[trick0171]

Heya Wolf, how goes it?

There is a huge difference between "electing an option (picking)", and "choosing between more than one viable option". A computer program can elect from options A, B, and C, but what determines the election is the coding of the software. In other words, it is not "choosing" as there is only one path it can take (for example, electing B).

[WolfSyndrome]

I think I get it now...

Determinism says: genetics + environment = election B

Free will says: genetics + environment + ?? = choice A, B, or C

Am I right?

[trick0171]

Close enough :)

[HonestDiscussioner]

Yea, what trick said. If I can at one moment only come to one conclusion, and there was no way that my brain would choose something else, then it was never really a choice.

[PaddyCuinne]

brilliant video. i hope to get this good with youtube.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Glad you enjoyed it.

[fantasticalNINJA]

awesome vid.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Thanks fN.

[gambleor]

You mentioned something interesting. "Our beliefs come by being convinced." Mustn't one choose which information he wishes to hear and which he wants to ignore before one can be convinced?

[HonestDiscussioner]

You aren't describing someone "hearing" or "ignoring" you are describing the process by which someone calculates which view is best to hold.

[gambleor]

No, I'm describing the difference between having an open mind and a closed one. There is a difference between someone weighing his options and someone deciding that the other side has nothing worthwhile to say.

[HonestDiscussioner]

I'd argue that someone decides the other side has nothing worthwhile to say BY weighing options. There is no difference, each was caused.

[gambleor]

That's only if the other person heard what the first had to say and then stubbornly dismissed it. If the other person instead dismissed the argument and never even heard it, that is a choice. That choice is that this person does not want new information to process.

[HonestDiscussioner]

And why did they make that "choice"?

[gambleor]

They don't think that the new information is worthwhile. The reason it's a choice and not a deduction is because they could just have easily heard the argument and just stubbornly ignored it in favor of their previous position. Both situations lead to the same outcome.

[HonestDiscussioner]

But why were they stubborn about it?

You are neglecting confirmation bias as well which is the psychological phenomenon that people subconsciously filter out information that disagrees with their stance.

Unless you can show how a decision was not caused by what came before it then it isn't a choice but a result of causes.

[gambleor]

I'm not filtering out the confirmation bias. It's obviously there if someone will automatically ignore new information in favor of their position. The difference is that despite the fact that the result is the same (you can call it determined if you'd like) there are still abundant means to come to that stance which we are free to chose from. Since you like calculators, I'll use a mathematical analogy. Say you desire to add or subtract some numbers, any amount you want so you could get 2

[gambleor]

how would you do it?

[HonestDiscussioner]

1 + 1 because I've heard that one more often than any other. You have to come up with an uncaused action, and sadly I don't think that exists.

There are abundant means to, but they will only be realized if there is something to cause them. Someone can be convinced of anything, but only "if" a certain set or sets of events happened before it.

[gambleor]

Having a reason for choosing the calculation you wanted doesn't say anything about whether you had a choice or not. You had infinite choices in the means of coming to the result of 2.

[gambleor]

What I mean to say is that deciding on something for the sake of pressing factors does 1 of 2 things - it either allows for that which you desire to be realized, or it does not. Either you want something and can have it, or you want something and cannot. The act of wanting is the will. Whether you can have this "it" may be subject to factors beyond your control, and so, determined, but the act of wanting "it" is free of cause and effect. Of course, there are exceptions to this I willingly admit.

[gambleor]

I see where we differ though and I agree with your conclusions, but we're seeing the problem, I think, from different perspectives. I'm looking at it from the point of desire and you're looking at it from the point of actualizing the deduction made as a result of the desire.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Give me an example of an uncaused desire then.

[gambleor]

Not so much that events don't lead to the desire, but that the desire is unfruitful in it's effect - it does not become realized.

[HonestDiscussioner]

What would cause the desire to be unfruitful then?

[gambleor]

the factors which sway the decision of whether one would do that which he freely wills or, due to circumstances beyond his power, succumb to his capabilities and do that which is against his will.

[HonestDiscussioner]

I had infinite possibilities, but what I would think would be the best way to do it, I had no choice in. Something came to my mind, I didn't choose for it to come to my mind.

[Nomiss9]

How can animals commit such abominatons as homosexuality without free will? :O

[HonestDiscussioner]

Satan makes them.

[itsmaxinthebox]

The horse I'm riding doesn't exist! So nya! pwnd! Oh crap, I think I killed my cat... >.>

[itsmaxinthebox]

In case anyone doesn't notice... that was sarcasm... Lots and lots of it. ^_-

[HonestDiscussioner]

I noticed ;-)

[WayOfTheBastard]

I thought that migs defense of free will with morality, was like defending ufos with aliens. One supernatural concept cannot defend another. Good videos here, I think you explained meaningful non-absolute morality exceptionally well here. Were's the link to my video =P?

[HonestDiscussioner]

Oh *$!$ you're right. Sorry. Thanks for reminding me.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

What? only 2 videos? LOL

[HonestDiscussioner]

I know, I'm slipping.