I'm not to blame

[Washington]

Nothing we do is done for no reason. Something is always the cause of our actions. Our will, free as it may seem, is actually determined by antecedents. If it wasn't its operation would be utterly random. One can't really do anything more than what the accumulative prior events lead one to do. So, if all our actions have an unavoidable cause can we really be held responsible for what we do?

Ethics and morals are simply convenient means of evaluating actions that cannot be otherwise.

 

[Everlasting33]

Interesting.

Perhaps this is why I so much enjoy childhood analysis in regards to therapy and overcoming personal pains and struggles.

Our past determines to a great extent our character, thoughts, actions, and self/ overall perception.

However, I still believe we have the power to choose and we are responsible for our own actions...rule number 1 in therapy!

 

[QuakerOats]

Nothing we do is done for no reason. Something is always the cause of our actions. Our will, free as it may seem, is actually determined by antecedents. If it wasn't its operation would be utterly random. One can't really do anything more than what the accumulative prior events lead one to do. So, if all our actions have an unavoidable cause can we really be held responsible for what we do?

Ethics and morals are simply convenient means of evaluating actions that cannot be otherwise.

Yes, we can (and should) be held responsible because we are still able to decide how we respond to a situation, even if said situation is thrust upon us, and not one of our choosing.

 

[Exhausted]

Well, human morality also serves to induce stimuli to the human brain, such that we are discouraged from the "immoral" and encouraged to be "moral."

A universe without free will and with free will look largely the same to me. If there's free will, immorality is punished so that, recalling the punishment, future decisions will be moral. If there's no free will, immorality is punished so that, recalling the punishment, future decisions will be moral.

 

[Washington]

I still believe we have the power to choose and we are responsible for our own actions...

So when you choose, ask yourself why you made that particular choice. Whatever that reason is functions as a cause of your choice. Then ask yourself why that particular reason made such an impact--there must be a reason (cause) for it. And there must be a reason (cause) why that cause "outranked" all others. And there must be . . . . The point is, your final choice was determined by all the antecedent cause-effects that led up to that choice, determining that IT happen rather than any supposed alternative.

Yes, we can (and should) be held responsible because we are still able to decide how we respond to a situation, even if said situation is thrust upon us, and not one of our choosing.

As I pointed out above, all our decisions arise because we couldn't do otherwise. If we could have we would have. We do A rather than B because that is what all relevant prior events in our life led us to do. We really couldn't do otherwise.

 

[Jade Margery]

Nothing we do is done for no reason. Something is always the cause of our actions. Our will, free as it may seem, is actually determined by antecedents. If it wasn't its operation would be utterly random. One can't really do anything more than what the accumulative prior events lead one to do. So, if all our actions have an unavoidable cause can we really be held responsible for what we do?

Ethics and morals are simply convenient means of evaluating actions that cannot be otherwise.

Ah, a reductionist! I used to wonder about this myself.

Going past just our lives, you can look at all of the reactions in the universe as predictable events. When you pour two solutions together in a lab, you can estimate based on your limited knowledge how many atoms are in each beaker and what the reaction will be, but the fact is that there is a definable number of atoms with definable charges and, if you could perfectly replicate every part of the experiment, you could theoretically get the exact same result every time you did it. The idea is that if one could know where every single positive and negative charge in the universe is and how fast they are going, one could predict everything that ever has or will happen.

Apply this to biological functions, and poof, no free will. Everything is predetermined, every action you take calculated and described before your ancestors even crawled gasping out of the ocean.

Logically, free will is a myth.

Except....

There's this thing called quantum physics, which says that even if you could replicate your beaker mixtures perfectly, you would NOT get the same result every time. It says that there is a level of randomness inherent in the very molecules that make the world. Nothing can be certain, only predicted based on probability. Everything has a probability it will occur, instead of a calculated certainty, including our behaviors. So, if one could calculate the a person has a fifty/fifty chance of going or staying, then whether they do one or the other... that's choice. That's free will. And yeah, people are going to hold you accountable for it.

(I've only read a couple things about quantum physics and chaos theory and such, so this is just my interpretation of it, but I think I understand the basic premises.)

 

[Kid Fish]

Interesting but silly premise, wrought with pitfalls if taken as general belief. No one is responsible, therefore laws are irrelevant and only act to punish lawbreakers who act without premeditation.

 

[levi501]

Nothing we do is done for no reason. Something is always the cause of our actions. Our will, free as it may seem, is actually determined by antecedents. If it wasn't its operation would be utterly random. One can't really do anything more than what the accumulative prior events lead one to do. So, if all our actions have an unavoidable cause can we really be held responsible for what we do?

Ethics and morals are simply convenient means of evaluating actions that cannot be otherwise.

I agree.

In regards to being held responsible in a spiritual sense, absolutely not.
If there is a fair and loving god then we all go to the same place when we die. From gandhi to hitler we're all a product of our environments. However in a real word practical sense we must hold people responsible in order to curb behavior that's detrimental to society.

 

[levi501]

Except....

There's this thing called quantum physics, which says that even if you could replicate your beaker mixtures perfectly, you would NOT get the same result every time. It says that there is a level of randomness inherent in the very molecules that make the world.

It does not say "randomness". It's indeterminate but probabilistic which suggests we don't fully understand what's happening.

Nothing can be certain, only predicted based on probability. Everything has a probability it will occur, instead of a calculated certainty, including our behaviors. So, if one could calculate the a person has a fifty/fifty chance of going or staying, then whether they do one or the other... that's choice. That's free will. And yeah, people are going to hold you accountable for it.

If QM is your basis then this doesn't logically follow. Either something is wholely caused or it is random. QM doesn't support "randomness."

 

[levi501]

god gave us free will.

no she didnt.
Either an event is caused or random. Either case speaks against free will.
Free will is a kitchy idea to encourage people to take responsibility their actions although whether they do or not is completely out of their control.

 

[Washington]

There's this thing called quantum physics, which says that even if you could replicate your beaker mixtures perfectly, you would NOT get the same result every time. It says that there is a level of randomness inherent in the very molecules that make the world. Nothing can be certain, only predicted based on probability. Everything has a probability it will occur, instead of a calculated certainty, including our behaviors. So, if one could calculate the a person has a fifty/fifty chance of going or staying, then whether they do one or the other... that's choice. That's free will. And yeah, people are going to hold you accountable for it.

Quantum indeterminacy only works at the subatomic level, far below that at which life operates, including your beaker of mixtures.

god gave us free will.

Is this suppose to be an argument?

Interesting but silly premise, wrought with pitfalls if taken as general belief. No one is responsible, therefore laws are irrelevant and only act to punish lawbreakers who act without premeditation.

And, evidently you're at a loss to explain its silliness and pitfalls. I understand where you're coming from: brash ignorance.

 

[b&wpac4]

yes. it seems the more ridiculous the theory is, the more likely atheists will believe it. some of you guys live on another planet i think. its as obvious as the day is blue that free will exists.

Is day your secret code word for sky?

 

[b&wpac4]

next youll be saying monkeys give birth to humans.... oh... wait... youve already done that one!

Have I? Where?

 

[b&wpac4]

i wasnt talking to you specifically. most atheists believe that though lol

No, most atheists believe in the theory of evolution which has to do with species changing over time do to natural selection and adaptation (simplified version, I know). I doubt you'd have one say that they think the chimpanzee at the local zoo is likely to give birth to a human any second now.

 

[Washington]

Is this suppose to be an argument?

yes.

Well then, let me counter with an argument just as powerful: God didn't give us free will. There, I bet that really set your brain awash with doubt.

it seems the more ridiculous the theory is, the more likely atheists will believe it. some of you guys live on another planet i think. its as obvious as the day is blue that free will exists.

And more well grounded, cogent argument. Boy, you're one tough cookie.

 

[levi501]

next youll be saying monkeys give birth to humans.... oh... wait... youve already done that one!

you should be incredibly embarrassed to the point of severe depression.

 

[PassionFruit]

next youll be saying monkeys give birth to humans.... oh... wait... youve already done that one!

Evolution does not work that way!!

 

[Everlasting33]

So when you choose, ask yourself why you made that particular choice. Whatever that reason is functions as a cause of your choice. Then ask yourself why that particular reason made such an impact--there must be a reason (cause) for it. And there must be a reason (cause) why that cause "outranked" all others. And there must be . . . . The point is, your final choice was determined by all the antecedent cause-effects that led up to that choice, determining that IT happen rather than any supposed alternative.

My past has determined that I would be in poverty, become an alcoholic (along with other addictions) but I have broken free of what I have been determined to what I choose to behave and think. All human beings will sometimes choose based on events that have transpired but I still believe we can choose our thoughts and behaviors.

 

[Everlasting33]

you should be incredibly embarrassed to the point of severe depression.

So you disagree with her statement. But to say something like this is inappropriate, rude, and immature.

I feel angered by this post.

 

[Kid Fish]

And, evidently you're at a loss to explain its silliness and pitfalls. I understand where you're coming from: brash ignorance.

I explained the pitfalls- lawlessness. You can't make laws against behavior if all behavior is predetermined with no conscious thought on the part of the actor.

Perhaps you ought to flesh out your ideas before posting them precipitously, and perhaps you ought to learn to understand written English.

Thanks.