Yeah, it’s a good post. Thanks for bringing it up.
Thanks for this article, ThorsMitersaw. It was a thorough exercise in philosophy, I enjoyed it. [:)]
But as I said, I’ve found that libertarian ethics is pretty much water-proof in a context of human interaction. Likewise, statism is full of philosophical and moral contradictions. My objection wasn’t aimed at libertarian ethics as such, but rather at the means of keeping this justice alive and well in a purely voluntary society. I realized, however, that enforcement of just ethics does not affect ethics itself which I was somewhat unaware of in my original post.
Jon Irenicus:
Materialists might like to think they know everything about everything, or at least can, but this is just scientistic arrogance, the kind of which Mises complained.
Well … no offense intended, but doesn’t this boil down to the theist argument of “We don’t know everything yet, so we can’t say there’s no God at all”?
Anyone who has done philosophy of the mind should know how humbled materialists ought to be in their system’s utter breakdown when it comes to handling the mind in a non-question-begging, satisfying way that does not involve assuming it out of the picture.
There’s no doubt about the astonishing power and complexity of the human mind. Still, free will describes something non-material, a non-determining agent in a network of determining physical processes. I can’t really reconcile the two, can you?
unless one believes science can resolve every and all questions, which is a positivist article of faith itself.
So you don’t believe we will be able to describe the human brain in a purely physical way at some point in time?
I really think you need to read up on NR theory a bit, because it varies immensely
I ought to. But first, I need to finish Atlas Shrugged. [:)]
corpus delicti:
The fact is you can choose not to act upon a specific want, just as most of the higher mammals with less potent brains can.
Again, this is not proof of free will. You may have a strong desire to do x, but factor y makes you refrain from doing so. Factor y, as I pointed out, may even be the desire to prove me wrong on free will, but still, we have no proof that the decision has been formed by a free, non-material agent within your body.
For instance, socially inclined monkeys (not even to mention the great apes) are capable of feeling and acting on injustice if, say, you teach them to win treats in a game with certain rules and you then cheat by changing or making up the rules as the game proceeds.
So monkeys have developed a level of empathy and conscience that makes them realize social misbehavior and that creates a strong enough desire to act upon it. Still, this only proves the comparatively great potential in monkeys to deal with issues of a higher intellectual order, not their free will.
Incidentally, that is “all” you need to understand the concept of negative rights and choose not to aggress against the negative rights of others even though you might find you want to do so.
Right. However, in the absence of free will, we have to ask: where in nature do we find non-self-owners? Even a firefly can only do what it desires by itself, no other creature can change that (except firefly mates - but even these merely appeal to hereditary instincts).
As long as we treat ethics as correct behavior among humans only, no problem arises. But we’ve come to understand, I think, that humans are not some special animal “endowed” with peculiar abilities by their creator. Rather than that, they are the most adaptive and therefore the “strongest” living being on earth which puts them in a position of planetary rule. However, if might doesn’t make right as has been pointed out before in this thread, maybe it’s time to rethink the concept of human ethics completely.
The trouble is not one of permission but submission, i.e. you have to make yourself intelligible and show how you intend to act according to the concept of negative liberty.
Interesting. What about mentally handicapped people? Do they have rights, too, even if they cannot demonstrate their general understanding of the concept?
I challenge you to make me buy a specific product via advertising. You can choose the product. Or alternatively to convince the residents in Sahara to buy sand. If you are successful I will concede the non existance of free will. Moreover I will congratulate you on becomming the richest man alive
Hehe, we’ll see. But seriously, if advertising couldn’t make use of certain backdoors to the human mind, it would be a giant waste of money and time.
On the other hand, the state is a giant waste of money and time as well. Might have to rethink my position on advertising, then. [:)]
By the way, I’m sort of playing advocatus diaboli here since I myself do simply not want to give up the concept of free will as an instrinsic human quality. I also believe in God. But since I’m constantly getting inspiration for counter-arguments in debates with my acquaintances, I figured I might give it a shot.
Then we might very well agree more than it seems. I must admit, however, I’m very much an agnostic. I have nothing against believers, but my opinion is that existance of God adds or subtracts nothing to discussions of rights theories.
Nevertheless I am convinced that I have free will. If I met you in person I would assume you had it too. If you have heard or read about Robert Axelrod and the tit for tat program, think of me as that program. Now, I have convinced myself that I have free will. I am convinced that I have used my free will and in this process have come up with the insight that tit for tat is a brilliant strategy in this world. I have a right to defend myself against anyone trying to coerce me, I think, and, conversely, have no right to coerce any one else like me. To reason otherwise, I find, would be to contradict myself. Thus upon meeting you, I surmise, you are like me and will not try to coerce you. I could ignore you of course, because you have no right to get my attention. However, I don’t ignore you. You seem like a friendly being and perhaps I could offer you something as payment for helping me solve a problem I cannot solve on my own. If, however, you try to double-cross me you are in for trouble. Thus I assume, until proven otherwise, that you are good company in a gesellschaft kind of way. I gain something this way, and I suppose you do to, because you are like me; but of course I don’t really need to be sure about you benefitting. Fast forward. Perhaps by now the two of us have encountered 100 other beings. 80 of them were hostile and we chased them away. 20 were like-minded beings. We assume they are like us, but we cannot know. Together we might develop a vast scientific body of knowledge, us 22 beings, and as a result find out none of us really have free will. Everything we do can be explained in a purely materialistic way. So what? If what I originally thought was a good idea, tit for tat, wasn’t really my idea at all, but a puppet master’s or a result of biological process, so what?
I cannot disagree. But why do you want to rethink the concept of human ethics completely? What is it you don’t like about where we are now?
What about them? What about babies and children?
At any rate, that is not what I meant by “submission”. All I meant was that they should show an ability to “play by the rules” if they are beings I cannot assume, a priori, to be like me. When it comes to mentally handicapped I just assume they will not coerce me, that they are no danger to me. All in all, that they act in accordance with my negative rights. Picture a situation of killer babies and night-of-the-dead mentally handicapped all trying to eat me. If this was the case, I’m sorry to say, I would kill all the babies and mentally handicapped I could. But then again, back to reality, why would they pose a danger to me? Children and handicapped would have great difficulties surviving on their own in nature. Thus we can nearly always assume they have some kind of responsible guardians we could turn to if they misbehaved. If they had no guardians they would supposedly have been dead.
Do children and mentally handicapped have a positive right to be taken care of? The thing is, if we were to assert they had such right, how would it be provided for? Someone would have to be coerced. Who? The parents? Sure. Who then when the mentally handicapped outlives the parents? What if the parents themselves are mentally handicapped? Who? The easy answer is Society and next the State. The result is mentally handicapped and orphans living in monopolized care centers with top-of-the-line caretakers and funds rationally portioned by politicains caring about the next electins and the rest of society throwing them warm thoughts once in a while. What a worthy way to live.
I know my response was trivial, if not a little silly. But, seriously, what was you point about advertising?
If we directly experienced god as we do free agency, consciousness &c., sure. But we don’t. So it isn’t. They may all be illusions, of course - but there’s no way to step outside our own consciousness and establish that. I should note that the Aristotelian system is not even predicated on libertarian free will - it’s usually taken to be compatibilist.
Personally I have no problem with the notion. You should read the SEP article on dualism, where it addresses arguments based on physics surrounding the topic. The science does not and cannot rule it out - in fact it doesn’t even make it less probable. Another way of thinking of the mind is as a genuinely emergent phenomenon. It simply is not equivalent to the matter composing it (unless you’re a panexperientialist.)
No, I don’t, and I feel none the worse for it. I’m not a theist. but I find materialism lacking in explanatory power when it comes to the mental, aside from being dull and trite.
The authors mentioned in the article that Thorsmitersaw brought up are a good place to start.
corpus delicti, Jon Irenicus,
I hope you don’t mind me answering that late, but I felt we were moving in circles to an extent, and since this is not even my own position, I’ll leave it at these words. I appreciate your input, and I hope to hear from you again in the future.
I cannot disagree. But why do you want to rethink the concept of human ethics completely? What is it you don’t like about where we are now?
Oh, personally, I’m fine with all that. Ethics within the realm of human action has clear guidelines and can help us determine the right or wrong in human interaction. However, where to draw the line between humans and animals in terms of rights and duties has not yet been established, and may need to be rethought in the near future.
I know my response was trivial, if not a little silly. But, seriously, what was you point about advertising?
That it would not be a worthwhile endeavor if not a sufficient number of recipients could be moved by it. That doesn’t rule out free will, of course, it’s just anecdotal evidence.
Another way of thinking of the mind is as a genuinely emergent phenomenon.
A good point, as well as your other hints, thanks. I’ll consider it.
did you link to this article earlier in this post? if not can I please have the link?