The standards by which all rules are judged

[Inevitable Droid]

Chris Hitchens has often remarked that religion is morally wrong because it perpetrates a great deal of harm on the world.  To what standard of moral truth values is he appealing to make this claim?  Similar to the above reference to Dawkins's recent outraged memo.  When he apologized for it, he was recognizing that his outburst carried with it some sort of moral "meaning" that transcended any individual's emotions.  Why?  What sense of right/wrong did he use to believe this?

We'd have to ask the individuals named, assuming they didn't explain themselves.  Hitchens was at least implying that harm is wrong; and Dawkins, that hurting people's feelings, presumably a form of harm, is wrong.  At least in their own minds, apparently, both failed the test of benevolence.  As noted previously, benevolence is one of the four values that continually pop up as lynchpins for moral systems.  

I'm guessing you think this leads us somewhere.  Where does it lead?

[bandit4god]

I'm guessing you think this leads us somewhere.  Where does it lead?

I must say, thanks very much ID for being so evenhanded with this and other discussions.  I'm very impressed!

When seminal figures in the atheist conversation start to assign moral truth values to events/actions, it gives me pause because it is inconsistent with natural determinism.  The moment we concede that human beings have a choice to take 2 or more possible paths, we've left the realm of natural determinism.  According to all that Hitchens and Dawkins have written or said, the processes in the brain are as deterministic as a ball falling at ~9.8 m/s^2.  So why should he ever apologize for anything?  Why would any choice ever be "wrong"?  He did only what the universe programmed him to do through trillions of microcausal events.  How could moral truth values exist without choice, and how could true choice exist under natural determinism?

[elliebean]

So why should he ever apologize for anything?

It seems to me you answered your own question:

He did only what the universe programmed him to do through trillions of microcausal events.

[Sophus]

I'm guessing you think this leads us somewhere.  Where does it lead?

I must say, thanks very much ID for being so evenhanded with this and other discussions.  I'm very impressed!

When seminal figures in the atheist conversation start to assign moral truth values to events/actions, it gives me pause because it is inconsistent with natural determinism.  The moment we concede that human beings have a choice to take 2 or more possible paths, we've left the realm of natural determinism.  According to all that Hitchens and Dawkins have written or said, the processes in the brain are as deterministic as a ball falling at ~9.8 m/s^2.  So why should he ever apologize for anything?  Why would any choice ever be "wrong"?  He did only what the universe programmed him to do through trillions of microcausal events.  How could moral truth values exist without choice, and how could true choice exist under natural determinism?

Who says anything has to be objectively "wrong" for morality to exist? Why can't something be detrimental to society and its people, therefore that's why we seek to prevent/eliminate it? Why do we need the "wrong" label?

[Inevitable Droid]

According to all that Hitchens and Dawkins have written or said, the processes in the brain are as deterministic as a ball falling at ~9.8 m/s^2.  So why should he ever apologize for anything?  Why would any choice ever be "wrong"?

Three part answer.

1. People often apologize to other people to defuse hostilities.  I bump into someone on the street, and I apologize.  I don't do that because I think I was morally wrong.  I do it so we don't have to start punching each other.  (I'm also learning martial arts so that if we do start punching each other, I'll win.)

2. Sophus was absolutely correct in his response.  Behaviors don't have to be morally wrong to be regrettable.  They can be contrary to one's long term goals, or to one's general desire for peace and harmony, or to the image one strives to project, or to the social environment one wishes to perpetuate or encourage, or to the ideal future one dreams of, or to the happiness of friend or family or a stranger with whom one empathizes, or to the will of someone powerful enough to pose a threat.

3. Determinists can call a life good or bad as readily as they would call the weather good or bad.  The question of free will only matters if we fixate on passing moral judgment.  Set morality aside and the free will question becomes a tedious bore.  Weather has no free will but it can still be delightful or wretched.

[bandit4god]

Who says anything has to be objectively "wrong" for morality to exist? Why can't something be detrimental to society and its people, therefore that's why we seek to prevent/eliminate it? Why do we need the "wrong" label?

You haven't addressed my question about determinism and choice.  Morality can only exist if choice exists.  How can determinism and choice both exist?

To your quote above, how can anything be actively "sought" under determinism?

[Croaker]

Just a few thoughts -

The rules in games can also promote creativity, which is beneficial for societies - it can lead to new advances. Sometimes the creativity within one game can only apply within said game, but I think there are plenty of situations where you could transfer the new ideas from one game to another, or to life itself.

I don't know where your final definition of 'game' fell, but I think it needs to include some form of 'winner.' Even open-world type games have sections within which a winner can be defined. Games that don't have such sections at all I feel are more like toys than actual games, since you are (in effect) just playing with them. Which leads to the interesting question - does this promotion of a 'victor' always lead to a society with some on top (winners) and some on bottom (losers)?

I can't think of unwinnable games off the top of my head - I think if it was defined as such, no one would bother playing them. Who's going to bother trying to play the game 'stuff the elephant in a shoe box' ? There are plenty of games with very difficult solutions - ones that may seem to the player as unwinnable, such as 'stuff the elephant in a house' - and people are drawn to those to feel the satisfaction of beating them. I don't think I would play, though, I'm not a big elephant fan.

I've always been more of a fan of cooperative or team based games, mostly because you can blame your potential failure on everyone else.  

[Inevitable Droid]

You haven't addressed my question about determinism and choice.  Morality can only exist if choice exists.  How can determinism and choice both exist?

I'm home from work today so what the heck, while we wait for Sophus to respond, I'll jump in.

First, I'll stipulate that determinism and decisions can co-exist.  We know this because computers are automotons and computers make decisions.  They're coded with if/then logic, which causes them to query variables and decide which path to take on the basis of their findings.  That's decision-making.  We don't like to view that as having a choice because we know they're automotons.  So I'll apply the same logic to humans, since humans also are automotons, as are all animals.  Humans make decisions but don't have a choice.  Such is the logical conclusion from a premise of determinism, and determinism is the logical conclusion from a premise of absolute causality; I.e., every event, and every element of every event, being traceable to some logical antecedent.

Morality typically tries to judge the actor on the basis of the act, and for that reason, morality short-circuits when the actor's absence of choice is acknowledged.  So I'll take it as a given that morality flounders on the shoals of determinism.  This doesn't bother me because morality has no objective source of being in any case, so when we talk of it floundering, we're talking about something that only matters if I say it does, which means I can make it stop mattering by simply saying it doesn't matter.  So I'll say that.  It doesn't matter.

We're left with two concerns.  First, other people's behavior can be a serious problem for me, in that my life, body, dignity, reputation, freedom, or property can be threatened.  The solution to that problem is legislation and enforcement, or, failing that, either vigilantism, or socio-economic pressure, or emigration.  Secondly, the behaviors of another person add up to a way of life, and that way of life can be such that I want no part of it.  The solution to that problem is the breaking of social ties, without emigration if feasible in a graceful manner; otherwise, via emigration.

From the above paragraph we see that morality, like God, is an unnecessary premise.  We honestly don't need it.  We can empty our heads of all that clutter.  Open the windows and air the place out.

To your quote above, how can anything be actively "sought" under determinism?

Robots actively seek things.  Robots are automotons.  Determinism doesn't stop them from actively seeking things.  They just need to be programmed accordingly.  So too with any other automoton, for example, me or you.

[bandit4god]

Morality typically tries to judge the actor on the basis of the act, and for that reason, morality short-circuits when the actor's absence of choice is acknowledged.  So I'll take it as a given that morality flounders on the shoals of determinism.  This doesn't bother me because morality has no objective source of being in any case, so when we talk of it floundering, we're talking about something that only matters if I say it does, which means I can make it stop mattering by simply saying it doesn't matter.  So I'll say that.  It doesn't matter.

Um, sounds like you're arguing the following...
- Choice doesn't exist
- Morality flounders on the shoals of determinism
- Morality floundering doesn't matter if I choose to say it doesn't matter
- By the way, choice doesn't exist

We're better than this, guys, c'mon.  Really think about whether or not you think choice exists.  And then consider the fact that, at the end of your reflection time, you chose one way or another!

[Inevitable Droid]

Um, sounds like you're arguing the following...
- Choice doesn't exist
- Morality flounders on the shoals of determinism
- Morality floundering doesn't matter if I choose to say it doesn't matter
- By the way, choice doesn't exist

Yes, although I don't know why you repeated the first point as your fourth point.  Here's a fuller expression of my contention, taking some short cuts:

Premise A1. Absolute causality implies determinism.
Premise A2. Determinism implies no real choice.
Premise A3. Real choice is necessary for there to be moral culpability.
Conclusion A. There is no moral culpability.

Premise B1. The existence of objective morality is necessary for there to be objective moral culpability.
Premise B2. Objective moral facts are necessary for objective morality to exist.
Premise B3. The only kinds of objective facts are empirical, mathematical, and logical.
Premise B4. Empirical, mathematical, and logical facts are not moral facts.
Conclusion B1. There are no objective moral facts.
Conclusion B2. Objective morality does not exist.
Conclusion B3. There is no objective moral culpability.

Premise C1. The existence of subjective morality is necessary for there to be subjective moral culpability.
Premise C2. My commitment is necessary for subjective morality to exist in my case.
Premise C3. I have withdrawn my commitment.
Conclusion C1. Subjective morality does not exist in my case.
Conclusion C2. There is no subjective moral culpability in my case.

Premise D1. Moral culpability must either be objective or subjective.
Premise D2. There is no objective moral culpability.
Premise D3. There is no subjective moral culpability in my case.
Conclusion D. There is no moral culpability in my case.

We're better than this, guys, c'mon.  Really think about whether or not you think choice exists.

See above or see my prior post.

And then consider the fact that, at the end of your reflection time, you chose one way or another!

We conclude.  We decide.  We can say the words, "we choose," but by that we cannot mean we have real choice, unless we dispute determinism, which means we dispute absolute causality, which means we contend that some events, or some elements of some events, have no logical antecedents.

This would all be important if morality were necessary.  It isn't.  We have legislation and enforcement to deter severely problematic behaviors and we have geographic and social mobility to avoid anything else.  Morality is an outmoded meme.  Time to kick it to the curb.  Let's be good to one another because being good to one another makes sense.  Let's grow up.

[bandit4god]

We conclude.  We decide.  We can say the words, "we choose," but by that we cannot mean we have real choice, unless we dispute determinism, which means we dispute absolute causality, which means we contend that some events, or some elements of some events, have no logical antecedents

Have you ever played sports?

[Inevitable Droid]

We conclude.  We decide.  We can say the words, "we choose," but by that we cannot mean we have real choice, unless we dispute determinism, which means we dispute absolute causality, which means we contend that some events, or some elements of some events, have no logical antecedents

Have you ever played sports?

Yes.  Relevance?