Discussion related to 'De Kinder' in the Experienced section

[thoke]

There is a modern compulsion to effectively absolve everyone from personal blame because of experiences with parents, teachers, relationships, economics, whatever, which thoke's comment is an example of; but I also believe that we are made in certain ways, and that our genes predispose us to certain behaviours.

If we aren't responsible for our genes, how can we be responsible for what they make us do?

This isn't "a modern compulsion to effectively absolve everyone from personal blame". It's a modern tendency to believe in determinism (which is a very old theory). Once you stop believing in free will, it becomes very difficult to believe in moral responsibility. With determinism, every action is preceded by a chain of causes stretching back to the beginning of time. It seems arbitrary to blame just one link in the chain.

Ben

[bobvincent]

Our behaviour is influenced by our genes AND by our experiences. Nature and nature.

[Sharra]

Bob -by agreeing its Nature AND nurture, surely you completely contradict your previous comment about the final couplet of your poem? ...

So do I; the intended tone of the final couplet is ironic, representing the annoying modern trend to attempt to exonerate any offender on the grounds of his/ her upbringing, parents, addiction, predicament, society etc.

[stuartryder]

Taken from thread on "Experienced"...

"Well, I wonder what we really achieve by blaming Fritzl (or anybody). He's obviously a dangerous man, so we want him locked up so that people are safe from him. But you can imprison somebody without holding them responsible for anything. What purpose does the additional blame really serve? It seems to be a distraction. It's not enough for Austrians to feel collectively angry towards a single man. They need to get off their arses and work out how the hell their society (or their gene pool, whatever) produced such a dangerous person, and see what they can do to prevent this happening again. Blame is a waste of time and energy."

You speak of Austrian society or gene pool, but don't forget that England has just reeled backwards with the blow of something similar. The Austrians I met seemed a surly bunch, but no more than most Brits... have you read Montaigne's views on NIMBYism?

Stuart

[David]

Montaigne has views on NIMBYism? I mean, I know Montaigne has views on pretty much everything, but really ...

I stand to be corrected. (As Max Mosley said.)

[thoke]

I never claimed that England doesn't have similar problems to Austria.

I don't know what NIMBYism is, but I'd hazard a guess that it doesn't have anything to do with what we've been talking about.

Ben

[stuartryder]

I never claimed that England doesn't have similar problems to Austria.

I don't know what NIMBYism is, but I'd hazard a guess that it doesn't have anything to do with what we've been talking about.

Ben

I better explain what I mean.

NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. They usually apply it to "Little Englanders" who have an attitude towards eg immigration safehouses, waste management activities, prison locations, of "do what you want, as long as it's not in my backyard". In other words, a tendency towards the insular and individualistic over the wider and more altrustic. Their priority is self-preservation.

No doubt Montaigne would not have approved of my paragraph above, not least for the bad writing, but also because it perpetuates (inversely) the superiority myth that peoples have of themselves. As I recall he had a frustration with jingoism and travelled extensively so to prove to himself that the customs of any one country are neither better nor worse than any other, but have assumed the status of local bestness over time.

In this debate I use NIMBYism in a slightly different way but the principle is the same. Sir Thokeybones, you may not have meant it this way but the passage of yours I quoted suggests that the problem here is peculiarly Austrian (and not for example an English disease). All I was saying is that it is not so much a problem with their society or gene pool as with the wider human race's society or gene pool - and here you weren't specific on which was at fault, so I can't be either.

Cheers

Stuart

[thoke]

NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. They usually apply it to "Little Englanders" who have an attitude towards eg immigration safehouses, waste management activities, prison locations, of "do what you want, as long as it's not in my backyard". In other words, a tendency towards the insular and individualistic over the wider and more altrustic. Their priority is self-preservation.

Right, well I agree that NIMBYism is stupid then.

No doubt Montaigne would not have approved of my paragraph above, not least for the bad writing, but also because it perpetuates (inversely) the superiority myth that peoples have of themselves. As I recall he had a frustration with jingoism and travelled extensively so to prove to himself that the customs of any one country are neither better nor worse than any other, but have assumed the status of local bestness over time.

Cultural relativism? Highly implausible. Honour killing is a cultural custom, but it is still an unacceptable thing to do. The customs of anyone country may well be better or worse than others.

Sir Thokeybones, you may not have meant it this way but the passage of yours I quoted suggests that the problem here is peculiarly Austrian (and not for example an English disease).

If I didn't mean it to then it doesn't suggest that.

All I was saying is that it is not so much a problem with their society or gene pool as with the wider human race's society or gene pool

Yes, I accept that.

[barrie]

Ben, for a staunch atheist you sound exactly like a member of the clergy. Ask one of them a difficult question and they'll answer, "Because God wills it". In other words, it's pre-ordained and there's not a damn thing that eternity can do about it. The only difference is something that cannot be known.
Newton's 'clockwork universe' was a boon to determinism. They figured that once we have measured all things (which Newtonian science did with a frenzy), we can determine how it all started by working backwards, and also calculate (not prophecy) where it will all go. Newton's Universe was pre-determined, but Newton was missing one thing in his mathematical equations - the random mathematics and indeterminism of a very real (unreal) quantum world, which would seem to contain the finer components of the big, lumbering world that we live in.
New discoveries are forever changing the way we look at the universe and our position in it, I would say that the quantum world has pulled the mat from under determinism - then again, you can always write that it was meant to be, maybe even, "God wills it", and sign it QED.

Barrie

Still, I got a poem (of a sort) out it.

[thoke]

Ben, for a staunch atheist you sound exactly like a member of the clergy. Ask one of them a difficult question and they'll answer, "Because God wills it". In other words, it's pre-ordained and there's not a damn thing that eternity can do about it. The only difference is something that cannot be known.

I'm not too worried about who or what I sound like.

I'm not sure what a "staunch" atheist is... maybe you mean somebody who believes that there is no God, as opposed to somebody who merely lacks the belief that there is a God (an atheist of the latter sort may also lack the belief that there is no God; in fact, an atheist may have no beliefs about God at all).

If so, I don't see a problem here. Nothing I have said about determinism is inconsistent with the belief that there is no God.

Furthermore, Christians are not determinists, so if anything my defence of determinism indicates a departure from Christianity (and possibly other religions). You might think I sound like a member of the clergy, but if I was one I would argue that God gave humans free will so that they could choose whether or not to obey God's will. I'm afraid determinism is not a Christian idea, so despite appearances I am not compromising my atheism.

I would say that the quantum world has pulled the mat from under determinism...

Yes, that's fair enough. You could be right. I'm clueless when it comes to quantum theory, but I'm aware of the possibility that the universe is somewhat indeterministic. But notice that indeterminism is not free will. This discussion was originally about whether determinism pulls the mat from under moral responsibility. To establish moral responsibility, I think you need something like free will. Chance won't do the trick. If the rape and abuse suffered by the Fritzls was the result either of a deterministic chain of causes or of some sort of indeterminism or chance, then I still don't see why should we blame Mr Fritzl (or anybody) for it. I don't think that quantum theory is going to justify ascriptions of blame or praise.

Ben

[stuartryder]

Ben, for a staunch atheist you sound exactly like a member of the clergy. Ask one of them a difficult question and they'll answer, "Because God wills it". In other words, it's pre-ordained and there's not a damn thing that eternity can do about it. The only difference is something that cannot be known.

I'm not too worried about who or what I sound like.

I'm not sure what a "staunch" atheist is... maybe you mean somebody who believes that there is no God, as opposed to somebody who merely lacks the belief that there is a God (an atheist of the latter sort may also lack the belief that there is no God; in fact, an atheist may have no beliefs about God at all).

If so, I don't see a problem here. Nothing I have said about determinism is inconsistent with the belief that there is no God.

Furthermore, Christians are not determinists, so if anything my defence of determinism indicates a departure from Christianity (and possibly other religions). You might think I sound like a member of the clergy, but if I was one I would argue that God gave humans free will so that they could choose whether or not to obey God's will. I'm afraid determinism is not a Christian idea, so despite appearances I am not compromising my atheism.

I would say that the quantum world has pulled the mat from under determinism...

Yes, that's fair enough. You could be right. I'm clueless when it comes to quantum theory, but I'm aware of the possibility that the universe is somewhat indeterministic. But notice that indeterminism is not free will. This discussion was originally about whether determinism pulls the mat from under moral responsibility. To establish moral responsibility, I think you need something like free will. Chance won't do the trick. If the rape and abuse suffered by the Fritzls was the result either of a deterministic chain of causes or of some sort of indeterminism or chance, then I still don't see why should we blame Mr Fritzl (or anybody) for it. I don't think that quantum theory is going to justify ascriptions of blame or praise.

Ben

Hopefully, then, his daughter will see it the same way and then it will be fine for her still to love her father despite what happened?

Stuart

[barrie]

I'm not sure what a "staunch" atheist is...

- I think you are as aware of the meaning of staunch atheist as you are as to the meaning of semantics.

Nothing I have said about determinism is inconsistent with the belief that there is no God.

- I never disputed that, I said you sounded like a cleric, not that you shared the same beliefs.

Furthermore, Christians are not determinists,

- Really? Why do Christians hold firm to the belief that God is omniscient - If they believe that, then it follows that as well as knowing the past and present, God also knows the future - what will happen, how things will turn out. Is that not a teeny bit like determinism?

You might think I sound like a member of the clergy, but if I was one I would argue that God gave humans free will so that they could choose whether or not to obey God's will

- Clerics have been arguing that point for hundreds of years, the apparent conflict between free will and preordainment. Just because God is supposed to know how things unfurl, it doesn't have to conflict with free will. Free will means having free choice, not being coerced into decisions, so it can be argued that just because knows the future, God can also know our decisions without affecting our free will. If things happen as they do, then our decisions will have shaped them. That's why clerics can always say, whenever there's a war or some other tragedy, "It's the will of God" - The will of God not to interfere they can say. When God does 'interfere', then that's called a miracle - They have everything covered.

Now, no-one can prove or disprove determinism, I could argue for or against if I had to. To my mind, Christianity deals with determinism better than your presentation of it - at least there's free will involved and the acknowledgement of human responsibility. You say that we can't hold people responsible for their actions, I think that's inconsistent with living in a society. Everyone needs to have some responsibilty - that's what holds society together (along with the usual lies and empty promises). If everyone suddenly said, "Let's all be determinists, then we can all do what we like and no-one will be to blame!" - I think there would be an outside chance that things might start to break down. Just imagine the first hunter gathers. The woman says, "Are you going hunting tody dear?" He says, "Well, I've just hit upon this truth called determinism, it means the future's all set out before us and whatever we do won't alter Jack Shit, so there's not much point in going hunting. If we're meant to starve, then starve we must - but if a deer should chance to walk into the camp and drop dead, then we'll be OK."
And what about the advancement of science and technology - Do we give no credit as well as no blame? Did Newton not come up with calculus, or Napier with logarithms? Was it all pre-written?
Of course we have to hold people responsible for their actions - That's why every single society has some for of justice system, we need it. And yes, we do need to try and understand why people like Fritzl do what they do, but until we find out and find some sort of 'cure', then he and others like him are to blame and must take the consequences of their actions.
If you believe in determinism then you must accept that Fritzl had to be blamed and that whatever you choose to argue about will not change the way things are meant to be. But yet it's in your nature to argue, to try and change minds, to try and change things - and that's what we all do, because we're human.
Isn't it easier to say things are as they are because, obviously, that's how they are. How they got that way is a mystery - to say that the future's all nicely laid out is all well and good, but everyone alive will be making his or her free choices that will help to shape it into whatever it's meant to be. Just as Fritzl did.

Barrie

[thoke]

Hopefully, then, his daughter will see it the same way and then it will be fine for her still to love her father despite what happened?

You're trying to put words into my mouth.

I am claiming that Fritzl is not to blame for his actions,
because nobody is ever to blame for anything,
because there is no moral responsibility,
only deterministic chains of causes,
or maybe some sort of indeterminism (which has something to do with quantum theory and is therefore way beyond my understanding).

It does not follow from this that,
instead of blaming rapists for their actions,
we should love them.

She can (and probably should) hate her father, and stay the fuck away from him, without believing that he is morally responsible for his actions. Just because there is no moral responsibility, this does not mean that Fritzl isn't a dangerous freak.

Ben

[thoke]

I'm not sure what a "staunch" atheist is...

- I think you are as aware of the meaning of staunch atheist as you are as to the meaning of semantics.

I'm honestly not quite sure what you meant by the phrase. Will you confirm whether I interpreted you correctly?

Nothing I have said about determinism is inconsistent with the belief that there is no God.

- I never disputed that, I said you sounded like a cleric, not that you shared the same beliefs.

Okay, fine, yes you did. But why do you care what I sound like if it doesn't correspond to what I am like?

Furthermore, Christians are not determinists,

- Really? Why do Christians hold firm to the belief that God is omniscient - If they believe that, then it follows that as well as knowing the past and present, God also knows the future - what will happen, how things will turn out. Is that not a teeny bit like determinism?

It is a teeny bit like determinism, but it isn't determinism; it's something like eternalism about time (if you google "eternalism", wikipedia has a half-decent definition of it). Determinism probably follows from eternalism, but Christians might not know this, and therefore don't necessarily believe in both. On the other hand, they state explicitly that God gave man free will.

Just because God is supposed to know how things unfurl, it doesn't have to conflict with free will. Free will means having free choice, not being coerced into decisions, so it can be argued that just because knows the future, God can also know our decisions without affecting our free will. If things happen as they do, then our decisions will have shaped them. That's why clerics can always say, whenever there's a war or some other tragedy, "It's the will of God" - The will of God not to interfere they can say. When God does 'interfere', then that's called a miracle - They have everything covered.

Yeah, that all sounds about right.

Now, no-one can prove or disprove determinism, I could argue for or against if I had to. To my mind, Christianity deals with determinism better than your presentation of it - at least there's free will involved and the acknowledgement of human responsibility.

You're begging the question by calling it an "acknowledgement". I call it an invention.

You say that we can't hold people responsible for their actions, I think that's inconsistent with living in a society. Everyone needs to have some responsibilty - that's what holds society together (along with the usual lies and empty promises). If everyone suddenly said, "Let's all be determinists, then we can all do what we like and no-one will be to blame!" - I think there would be an outside chance that things might start to break down. Just imagine the first hunter gathers. The woman says, "Are you going hunting tody dear?" He says, "Well, I've just hit upon this truth called determinism, it means the future's all set out before us and whatever we do won't alter Jack Shit, so there's not much point in going hunting. If we're meant to starve, then starve we must - but if a deer should chance to walk into the camp and drop dead, then we'll be OK."

You're confusing determinism with fatalism. Determinism doesn't deny that human actions have causal efficacy.

And what about the advancement of science and technology - Do we give no credit as well as no blame? Did Newton not come up with calculus, or Napier with logarithms? Was it all pre-written?

That's a really interesting question. I reckon scientific theories are probably discoveries rather than creations, but that's just my initial thought.

Of course we have to hold people responsible for their actions - That's why every single society has some for of justice system, we need it.

Every single society has some form of child abuse. Do we need that? Just because the concept of moral responsibility keeps cropping up, that doesn't mean it's good for us, and it certainly doesn't mean that it refers to anything real.

And yes, we do need to try and understand why people like Fritzl do what they do, but until we find out and find some sort of 'cure', then he and others like him are to blame and must take the consequences of their actions.

So, while we're waiting to fix the real problems in society that indirectly lead to the sort of suffering experienced by Fritzl's family, we should punish Fritzl and thereby create even more suffering? What on earth for?

(That's not to say that I don't think Fritzl should be locked up. I think he should, but only because he's dangerous. Not because he "deserves" it. I don't believe in desert.)

If you believe in determinism then you must accept that Fritzl had to be blamed and that whatever you choose to argue about will not change the way things are meant to be.
But yet it's in your nature to argue, to try and change minds, to try and change things - and that's what we all do, because we're human.
Isn't it easier to say things are as they are because, obviously, that's how they are. How they got that way is a mystery - to say that the future's all nicely laid out is all well and good, but everyone alive will be making his or her free choices that will help to shape it into whatever it's meant to be. Just as Fritzl did.

I don't entirely follow this, but I think you're still mixing up determinism and fatalism. I believe that we make choices, but I don't believe that they are free. I also believe that our choices have consequences and shape the world, as you say. But they're just links in chains of causes. Choices are no more responsible for their outcomes than the links which precede them or follow them.

For example, blaming an axe-murderer for a death seems as arbitrary as blaming the victim for being disposed to die when axed to bits, or blaming the axe-murderer's mother for giving birth to an axe-murderer. I can't see any reason to lay blame on any particular link in the chain of causes.

Ben