are good and evil human constructs?
Good isn't, evil is.
>>946150
Perhaps.
We can't really ask animals, can we?
>>946150
Such constructs don't exist. You can sum it up with the adage: one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
why did they have to lump other humanities with us when they made this place, for fuck's sake
>>946150
Yes, because determinism is true. All people fulfill only their inherent purpose, it follows that no being is good or evil and all men deserve redemption.
>>946222
>all men deserve redemption
Redemption from their true purpose? So someone who does something really good deserves redemption from positively impacting several lives?
Also which part of determinism includes this sentimental shit you've piqued my curiosity
>>946150
If humans disappeared from the planet tomorrow do you think good and evil would still exist? If so explain how.
Would you be able to point to the bears and dolphins and say "there is good" and "there is evil"
>>946150
Why does it even fucking matter if it's spelled with a "c" at the end. When they call out his name they won't say "order for Marc with a 'c'" fuck that guy
>>946150
I take it that by "good and evil" you really mean right and wrong; in which case no, it is not just a human construct. There is; objectively, such a thing as a right and a wrong in the universe.
>>946222
Determinism is only half the equation; free will is the random component in our reality. There is always a choice.
Good and evil are religious constructs.
This looks like the start of an interesting thread.
>>946150
Isn't everything?
>>947170
Free will? Choice? I believe not. Not implying that fate exists
>>947118
In case there are two Mark/cs, there is a way to distinguish them when they pick up their order. Since Mark is a common name, this isn't too unlikely and may have happened to the person before.
>>946150
Good and Evil are really just over extensions of that which helps me is good, that which hurts me is bad. This was later applied to whatever helped/hurt 'society', or the interests of whoever was in a position to dictate moral prescripts. Good and bad require a subject, they need to be good or bad FOR something/one.
>>947170
Nobody's choices are random, they are based on impulses that are reactions to the environment. If all of someone's decisions were made using some sort of mental random number generator, would you consider that choosing? We only need the concept of free will to justify holding people responsible for their actions, it doesn't actually correspond to a deterministic or probabilistic universe.
>>947207
Free will is self evident, I don't get why so many have such a hard time accepting it as a fact. Sure; we are bound by immutable laws in the universe (aka the deterministic aspect of our reality) but we always have the choice in how we react to the events occurring around us (free will). There is no such thing as choices without consequences, but there is choice.
>>947244
>but we always have the choice in how we react to the events occurring around us (free will).
This depends entirely on your definition of "we" and "choice."
If I inject morphine into you, do "you" "choose" to be happy?
>>947263
If you chose to inject morphine into me instead of not doing so you just made a free will choice.
>>947263
>if I force you to do something do you have a choice
restricting choices=/=there was never a choice in the first place
That's like asking if I shut you in head do you have a choice to live?
Guess you don't choose whether you live or die =D
>>947298
We're not asking about me, we're asking about you. When the morphine is in your head, are you choosing to be happy or not?
>>947309
When the bullet is in your head are you choosing to be dead or not?
>>947324
So your answer is "no?"
>>947327
Think about it this way.
Let's say you are sitting down with the morphine at a table. At this point you have the free will to inject it or not and to be happy.
Now let's say I restrain you and inject it forfially. In this case I am using my free will to do this. You have lost the ability to choose whether to be happy. It's not that you never had the choice. You had the choice taken away be me!
Than let's say I unrestrain you and give you an anti-morphine vial that will cancel it out. Now you have a choice again.
Choices can be removed or taken away. This doesn't mean they don't exist.
>>947336
That's not what I asked you. I dodn't ask if it was your choice to be injected or not. I asked you if, after it was already injected, you had the choice of whether or not to be happy. Yes or no?
>>946150
Good and evil are [spoiler]spooks[/spoiler]
>>947309
I'm gonna cut to the chase of the little game you're playing. When you think free will you equate it to being able to choose and do whatever you want; which as I said earlier is just not possible. As I said, it is only half the equation. Determinism also plays a role in the universe. If I trip and eat shit was it because I chose to? Hell no, it's because gravity exists and I have no say in the matter, it is what it is.
>>947346
You already got the answer in the post above.
>You have lost the ability to choose whether to be happy. It's not that you never had the choice. You had the choice taken away be me!
The problem with your anology is that the person injecting the morphine is exerting their will on the other person. They were never free to decide to take the morphine or not. Just like a person who has a bullet shot at his face was never free to decide whether to live or die.
You see to have the idea that if a choice is taken away it means the choice never existed in the first place.
>>947346
That's like saying if after eating a bunch of habaneros I had the choice whether to not find it spicy or not find it spicy. I ate some spicy peppers, therefore I'm feeling the effects. I CHOSE to eat the peppers, now nature is running its course in my mouth.
>>947366
Typo, I meant to say whether to find it spicy or not find it spicy.*
>>947353
If you want to actually cut to the chase, then no, that wasn't it. You said it was self evident that we choose how we react, but many reactions are actually fairly automatic. For example, "you" as in the ego reading this, do not actually have control of whether or not you feel happy when forcibly injected with morphone, but parts of your brain not assocoated with your ego are essentially injecting you with similar chemicals in specific situations, outside of "your" control. Of course, of you redefine free will to include the entire brain/body and not just the I, and redefine choice to mean action A was taken instead of potential action B, the problem goes away, but these are very different definitions than the intuitive, self evident one we started with.
>>947380
I feel it was pretty concise. The truth is simple, lies are complex. Quit trying to make it more complex than it really is. I get it, you're an edgy intellectual with a vendetta on the existence of free will; why? Beats me, but whatever the reason; you're wrong. And there's nothing you can say to change that.
>>947380
So the only definition of free will you think is adequate is when were you can do literally everything? It sounds like you are intentionally setting up the definition to be shitty.
As someone said before there are certain laws of nature. You make a choice and the laws of nature decide what the consequences of the choices are.
Free will is obvious because you can look at something like rocks on the ocean and see it's actions are completly determined by outside factors. If your definition of things honestly can't seperate the actions of rocks from people than your definition is no good to anyone.
And kid. You've got two choices for how self is going to work. Either self is MATERIAL and PHYSICAL and that includes the bio-logical function. Or self is IMMATERIAL, in which case it either exists in an idealism form like Stirner thinks or it's some sort of soul like Plato thinks.
>>947396
How is it edgy to admit we aren't always exactly as perfectly in control of ourselves and our choices as we think we are? If anything, it should make you more humble.
>>947396
>I get it, you're an edgy intellectual with a vendetta on the existence of free will; why?
My theory is that free-will is a concept that allows for spirituality and that can't happen in the glorious atheism-positivist utopia. That's just superstition!
>>947298
The initial injection? What about the following injections after your brain has been wired to crave more morphine?
>>947412
Have you ever met a person that could drink beer without becoming an alcoholic?
>>946150
if animals could talk....
>>947409
Dude, you literally just made my point. I've BEEN saying you don't have choice in everything. Hence Determinism and Free Will going hand in hand in the universe. I don't really get what you're arguing..
>>947405
>So the only definition of free will you think is adequate is when were you can do literally everything?
No, but the adequate definition of free will is not necessarily the self-evident, obvious one.
>If your definition of things honestly can't seperate the actions of rocks from people than your definition is no good to anyone.
Again, once the morphine is inside you, are you choosing to be happy or not? Understanding this, and the implication it has on, for example, adrenaline and criminality is actually pretty useful in trying to diffuse violent situations.
>Either self is MATERIAL and PHYSICAL and that includes the bio-logical function.
Yes, which is why I said such a definition solves the problem. However, the brain is not a uniform mass, and what was traditionally referred to as the ego is a component of the overall. Metacognition, subvocalization, the self-report and so on are all biological realities.
>>947409
Did you choose to be born human? Did you choose your eye color, skin complexion, Etc, no. Those were determined by your DNA, you had no control over that. Just like you have no control over the fact that you shit and piss and need oxygen to survive. That's all been determined by nature. Did you choose to get on 4chan today? Yeah, that was all you.
>>947436
>Again, once the morphine is inside you, are you choosing to be happy or not?
The morphine is changing my body's chemistry and a reaction is occurring, I have no choice in how it expresses itself. That's common sense, I think it's time to let go of the morphine analogy. It's getting old. Obviously there are things we have no control over. A little kid understands that, what I'm wondering is what your actual argument is? I've been saying that not everything is up to choice, or determinism would go out the window.
>>947466
>The morphine is changing my body's chemistry and a reaction is occurring, I have no choice in how it expresses itself.
So what about when you get into a tense situation that shoots a bunch of adrenaline into you? Is it your choice because a neuron of your brain is doing it rather than an external agent doing it? Could you choose to not receive the adrenaline?
>>947477
What's your next question? "If I start a fire will it be hot? Or do I have a choice to make fire cold?" Inb4 "duh put it out"
Quit with the anecdotal questions and present your argument or we're done talking. If you have a point, state it.
>>947477
Actually that's the R-complex of the brain taking care of it for me.
I've been in several arguments over the years about this topic and those who's argument is against free will always crumbles. Some things just are.
>>947501
My next question is actually "consider two otherwise identical twins where one has for whatever reason less adrenaline released for the same situation than the other does, is one choosing to be less angry than the other?".
The argument is really simple in that the self-evident/intuitive idea is not accurate, where "we" are perfectly in control of possible outcomes and not influenced by internal factors.
>>946150
>good and evil
>>946222
>purpose
>>947170
>>947207
>fate vs free will
I haven't been this spooked since halloween.
>>947520
And if I say I agree with you and you are not really saying anything that is actually threatening much less opposing my stance on free will and determinism then what the fuck are you really saying?
You need to quit assuming I said we are perfectly in control of possible outcomes. I never said that, go read all my posts. You literally are saying jack shit.
>>947533
Then I guess just we have different readings of what the "self evident" and intuitive idea of free will has been historically, especially with how popular dualism was (continues to be under different names).
>>947436
>the brain is not a uniform mass,
Nothing in the universe is, everything is flux. Asking for definition like this is just stupid.
>Again, once the morphine is inside you, are you choosing to be happy or not
You arn't getting this idea that cause and effect exist right? Nature takes care of the effect, we make the cause. If you inject the morphine yourself you have chosen to be happy. If someone else does it they choose to make you happy but you did not get the choice.
>>947555
>If you inject the morphine yourself you have chosen to be happy.
So what if a neuron "you" are unaware of releases endorphins? Are "you" now choosing to be happy because it is your own brain doing it, even though "you" cannot do so on command?
>>947587
There are conscious and unconscious parts to the mind. This is fucking basic psychology, even going back to Freud this was established.
The study of necrology has just confirmed what has already been known for a very long time.
It sounds like you are making a straw-man arguement where everyone must either follow Cartesian dualism or say free will doesn't exist.
>>947627
You didn't answer the question. Are you choosing to be happy when the endorphin is released?
>>947634
How many different ways do you want it answered?
You've had me and several other people give it at least 5 times. It looks like you are just going to keep playing stupid until you hear an answer you happen to like.
>>946194
Well we nearly had historically informed philosophy, and philosophically informed history. Now we just have /pol/ and shit tier religion posts.
>>947672
>How many different ways do you want it answered?
Directly, instead of evasively.
>>947682
You have a loaded question which presumes "if you do not choose to become happy at all times than free will does not exist".
The only way anyone can fucking answer your question is to also address your presumption. This not only answers your question but defeats the premise that you are holding onto with a DEATHGRIP.
Than when people expose the loaded elements of your question you refuse to accept the answer because you have been exposed. Than you accuse people that expose your weasel words of being evasive. The responds you got are clear and address critical problems with everything you are saying and you ignore them. This is is evasive.
I'm sure your next response will address be just as evasive. Rather than hiding behind your "innocent" questions why don't you address the critical flaws people have pointed out with your reasoning?
>>947737
>"if you do not choose to become happy at all times than free will does not exist".
No, actually, what I am saying is that the standard definition or impression of free will is flawed. It's you who are equating that one specific definition being flawed means that it in general does not exist. Of you look at my original objection, it was just that the "self evidence" of free will depended on defining choice and the actor in specific ways, not that free will in general did not exist. Actually, I said pretty explicitly that once you amend the definitions the problem disappears. It just seems like you are very attached to those original definitions, thus the argument.
>>947754
>No, actually, what I am saying is that the standard definition or impression of free will is flawed
And what the hell is that. Free will is a nuisanced topic with many interpretations. I have no clue what you mean by "standard"
You do realize you have been arguing with several different anons other than myself who have used the word to mean slightly different things?
This is an anonymous board so neither of us can be sure we are even replying to the same person.
>>947673
Honestly I think a lot of the problems can be traced to people being unable to discuss religion in an academic way, ie to not argue about the truth value of the Gods involved and to discuss the ideas of the religion.
A ton of philophical concepts: the relativity of morals, materialism (as in the opposite of idealism), anything to do with Nietzsche, the questionably of absolute truth, are always shit discussions because many religious people feel threatened by them
A ton of historical concepts: crusades, anything to do with Muslims or Jews, the historical take on the formation of holy books and men, the Reformation, cannot be discussed well either because people want history to be a religious narrative.
The atheists contribute to it too by taking bait and provoking the Christians.
>are good and evil human constructs?
Yes, and anybody who says otherwise is a hack fraud. They're simply labels we put on things we like and dislike on a social level, and any bold proclamation about what sky daddy thinks is good or evil is objectively inane given that there are about as many sky daddies as there are people on this planet.
>>948166
This. Morals change in time. The things we perceive as good or bad today could be reversed in the next centuries.
>>947207
>>947170
>>947244
>>947336
>>947353
>>947396
Got tired of quoting you morans. Free will, as most people believe, is an incoherent concept at most and inapplicable to reality at least.
What every one of us feels is "us" is dictated completely by subconscious processes completely out of our control. The conscious "you" doesn't have the free will do anything your subconscious doesn't decide moments/seconds you're even aware that such a decision was made.
Any coherent definition of free will ultimately boils down to literally everything having free will, making it a useless concept.
No.
Good and bad are nothing but a unit of measure for a social agreement. What we perceive as beneficial for the general good is good and vice versa. By definition, good and bad are unscientific because we all have our own ideas of it.
Pro-tip: the problem with free-will is that it is an incoherent concept and has nothing to do with determinism. Both your 'will' and your will's 'freedom' to manifest itself are either the result of cause-and-effect (regardless of physicality) or spontaneity. If the former, then it will always be traced back to external forces, if the latter then nothing was 'chosen' by anyone or anything, much less 'you'.
Another way of wording this: your 'will' is that which you want. If you can't choose what you want, then fee-will is meaningless. If you can choose what you want, then it begs the question (you must already want something to 'choose what you want', so where does this 'want' come from?) and free will because a non-sensical circle or regress.
>>946150
Obviously, there is no such thing as evil or good outside our human interpretation of things.
>>946150
Yes. But they are monumentally useful constructs.
>>946150
When i see "marc" is pronounce itiin my head "march" am i autistic?
>>946150
Yes
>>947353
If you were given the option to eat shit, would you?
Regardless of whether you choose to eat it, the decision will be determined by factors that transcend your conscious thought.
so what if they are
>>946150
Yes, but "human construct" is no reason to dismiss something, unless you're a plebeian.
>>948183
What books is this?
yes. In animal world what we call cruel is survival. survival is living itself therefore is living a monstrosity to life itself? That would make it a paradox if we callled it evil. Therefore evil is a human construct. Additionally all over the world cultures have different ideas of evil. Some placed pedophilism is a sin, in one tribe in the pacific, you have to give blowjobs to the elder everyday for years to become a man. Tribes next to them abhor that though. For them it has to be through the ass. But we all agree that people who do evil things need to be punished, right? Well some people also think people who do bad things need to be helped and forgiven because they're "insane" or "had it rough growing up".
TLDR: >>949517 bump
