Can Morality Be Objective Without God?

Author: MagicAintReal

Posts

Total: 438
#421
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't know if dogs have free will. If they do it's a rudimentary version.
Dogs and apes and many other creatures can apparently "choose alternative courses of action".

Does your personal conception of free-will exclude them somehow, and if so, how does it do this?

Do you personally believe that all humans have an equal measure of free-will?

I mean, do infant humans have free-will, toddlers, and or ninety-year-olds with dementia?

How can you determine who has free-will and who doesn't or how much each one has or if some people have more or less of it?
#422
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
What they all have in common is diminished or increased ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Animals may be purely instinctual - there's no way to know without first person knowledge 
#423
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
What they all have in common is diminished or increased ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Animals may be purely instinctual - there's no way to know without first person knowledge
Animals can learn from experience (Pavlov), many of their actions are not purely instinctual.

If, as you say "there's no way to know" if another person or animal or robot has free-will or not, it would seem to have extremely limited utility as a concept.

Is your concept of "morality" in any way contingent on your concept of free-will?
#424
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Free will has lots of utility. We just cant be knowably certain whether animals have it. Yes, free will allows moral culpability
#425
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Free will has lots of utility. We just cant be knowably certain whether animals have it. Yes, free will allows moral culpability
So conceivably, at least some animals have free-will and therefore have the same moral culpability as humans?

Do you think it is possible for a (sufficiently complex/sophisticated/quantum computer/neural network) robot to have free-will (make decisions based on rules, like a courtroom judge)?

Would such a robot also have moral culpability?
#426
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Morality requires higher level cognition. If you don't have the ability to know how your actions affect others beforehand then it's hard to be blameworthy. So while free will is a prerequisite for moral culpability, rudimentary free will is less advanced than rudimentary morality. 

I don't believe computers will ever be morally culpable. They can't be conscious and harbor intent.

#427
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Morality requires higher level cognition. If you don't have the ability to know how your actions affect others beforehand then it's hard to be blameworthy.
Apes can intentionally lie.  Even in the wild, they can scream a "danger" signal in order to send their troop-mates scattering while they snatch a prized piece of fruit.  They sometimes are able to do this undetected and reap the reward, however, if they are caught by their troop-mates, they are severely beaten.  Would this example be enough to convince you that apes "know how their actions affect others"?

So while free will is a prerequisite for moral culpability, rudimentary free will is less advanced than rudimentary morality. 
That sounds good, but I just want to be able to clearly distinguish between "rudimentary free-will" and "fully-fledged free-will".

Would you say that "rudimentary free-will" entails "rudimentary moral culpability"?

I don't believe computers will ever be morally culpable. They can't be conscious and harbor intent.
You seem to be moving the goal-posts with "conscious" and "intent".  I'm talking about your original "able to choose between options" definition of free-will.

Don't get me wrong, you are welcome to modify or rephrase your definition at any point you wish, but I'm not sure "conscious" or "intent" is any more detectable or measurable or independently or scientifically verifiable than "free-will" or "morality", so adding those stipulations might not help much (unless you wish to simply muddy the waters).


#428
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
You seem to be moving the goal-posts with "conscious" and "intent". 
Spirit-1, spirit-of-intent via metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts, as derived from conscious experience { dynamic occupied space phenomena }

* * = Consciousness

* i * = Spirit-of-intent via ego as associated with metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts

/\/\/ = sine-wave ^v^v association of  Observed-Time-Reality { frequency } aka energy as fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof

Need I say more.  I could go on for a while :--D
#429
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
@3RU7AL
How do we apply the concepts of free will and morality in cases like this?

#430
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Animals are a long, long way off. 

#431
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
A long way off what?

#432
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Mirroring the human moral conscience 
#433
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
If you don't have the ability to know how your actions affect others beforehand then it's hard to be blameworthy.
What are your thoughts on cases like, if someone uses your backyard swimming pool unauthorized, while you are on vacation for example, and they are injured or killed, you are still liable for damages.  What is your "moral instinct" in this type of case?

Or even cases of felony murder, where someone may be incidentally (tripped and fell down a flight of stairs for example) killed while you were committing a robbery.  What is your "moral instinct" in this type of case?
#434
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
If you don't have the ability to know how your actions affect others beforehand then it's hard to be blameworthy.
It would seem, that "if you don't have the ability to know how your actions affect others beforehand" then dumb = good (less free-will and proportionally less moral culpability) and smart = bad (more free-will and proportionally more moral culpability).

#435
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Less moral culpability isn't necessarily a good thing since it also limits your ability to do good things. 

#436
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Less moral culpability isn't necessarily a good thing since it also limits your ability to do good things. 
Here's the thing.

The majority of people in prisons are less educated and studies show they have lower IQ results compared to the average law abiding citizen.

If you accept this premise, would you say they should be given (some) leniency based on their lower IQ/education and presumed lower (free-will and proportional) moral culpability?

As well as the inverse, should people with higher IQ/education (higher free-will and proportional moral culpability) be held to a higher moral (and legal) standard and given harsher sentences?
#437
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
A high or low IQ doesn't necessarily translate into how well you understand how your actions affect others. This also isn't a legal matter - it's a moral one. Your motives play a large part in determining whether you acted immorally or not. Taking something from someone while not knowing it belonged to anyone is not the same as deliberately stealing from someone.
#438
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
A high or low IQ doesn't necessarily translate into how well you understand how your actions affect others.
A low IQ individual is more likely to lack impulse control and act based on extremely short-sighted motives, like an animal.

This also isn't a legal matter - it's a moral one.
The legal system is an attempt to codify our (consensus) moral intuition.  Why does the legal system attempt to weigh "motive" and "free-will" unless those concepts inform "morality"?  Why are you hair-splitting?  Do you believe the law should also be moral?

Your motives play a large part in determining whether you acted immorally or not.
That seems ok for crimes that are directed acts of violence, (like a dog attack) but what about crimes of negligence?

[The clip shows a dog getting shot with a bb gun and immediately attacking its owner, wrongfully jumping to the conclusion that the owner was the cause of the pain the dog felt as a result of the shot, completely oblivious to the sniper fifty yards away.]

Taking something from someone while not knowing it belonged to anyone is not the same as deliberately stealing from someone.
But wouldn't you have to have the mind of a child (or an animal) to believe that something of value had no (likely) owner?

(IFF) free-will is proportional to intelligence (animals have less, humans have more)

(AND) free-will is proportional to moral culpability (without free-will there is no moral culpability)

(THEN) intelligence is proportional to moral culpability.

Please feel free to modify any of the above statements to better fit your "moral intuition".