Let's stretch this thread longer. I like philosophy and I greatly respect anyone who is willing to think that deeply.
I haven't bothered reading every page of the thread, but there was a section on determinism versus moral culpability that I thought I'd leave a comment on.
I'm a firm supporter of determinism (within some unusual parameters though... as, for example, I believe that at some point within our evolution, it may eventually be possible for a meta-reflexive consciousness to access free will). And Deus knows how many times I've heard people trying to counter determinism by stating that if it were true, moral culpability (and by extension, morality) couldn't exist.
There are arguments against this eventuality, but I (rather radically for my High School's Philosophy Club) do not believe in any absolute morality (or even relativism in its usual sense) anyway. So my philosophical stand encapsulates the fact that determinism is currently operating, and morality is no problem here as it actually doesn't exist. But this obviously leaves pointlessly gaping holes in our social structure. After all, what justifies the operations of a legal system if not some fundamental aspect of morality?
I propose 'convenience', whereby a large amount of entities governed by individual egocentrism (personal security in the case of the justice system) manages an equilibrium within a society that ideally tends to resemble utilitarianism (the greatest amount of 'happiness' for the greatest amount of people). Nowhere within this explanation do morals actually apply.
...
You know... for every philosophical statement I propose, a multitude of possible problems arise. To cover them all, I'd have to write an essay. And I'm really not in the mood today. I just wanted to contribute some more food for thought and give this thread a second chance.
Very simply put...
Bump!
I haven't bothered reading every page of the thread, but there was a section on determinism versus moral culpability that I thought I'd leave a comment on.
I'm a firm supporter of determinism (within some unusual parameters though... as, for example, I believe that at some point within our evolution, it may eventually be possible for a meta-reflexive consciousness to access free will). And Deus knows how many times I've heard people trying to counter determinism by stating that if it were true, moral culpability (and by extension, morality) couldn't exist.
There are arguments against this eventuality, but I (rather radically for my High School's Philosophy Club) do not believe in any absolute morality (or even relativism in its usual sense) anyway. So my philosophical stand encapsulates the fact that determinism is currently operating, and morality is no problem here as it actually doesn't exist. But this obviously leaves pointlessly gaping holes in our social structure. After all, what justifies the operations of a legal system if not some fundamental aspect of morality?
I propose 'convenience', whereby a large amount of entities governed by individual egocentrism (personal security in the case of the justice system) manages an equilibrium within a society that ideally tends to resemble utilitarianism (the greatest amount of 'happiness' for the greatest amount of people). Nowhere within this explanation do morals actually apply.
...
You know... for every philosophical statement I propose, a multitude of possible problems arise. To cover them all, I'd have to write an essay. And I'm really not in the mood today. I just wanted to contribute some more food for thought and give this thread a second chance.
Very simply put...
Bump!