Moral responsibiliy

Originally posted by Conrau K
Not that catholicism is representative of all christinianity but in recent standard editions of Catholic help books- I guess there not the best words, they are like condensed catechisms commissioned by bishops. Anyway, my book tells me that there are examples of people who have no conscience. The example I was poiting out was in the case of psycopaths but I ...[text shortened]... fail to successfuly argue how the conscience (or intelligence for that mater) implies free will.

I strongly doubt you'll find a Catholic book (especially not one with a nihil obstat) that argues that there are people with an intellect but not a conscience. In Catholic moral teaching, the conscience is a judgment of the intellect, not an emotion. So, even a psychopath has a conscience in as much as he is able to judge that his actions are morally wrong - whether he feels they are wrong or not.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You've missed my point. Sorry I can't re-elaborate in detail but i have fallen ill at the moment.

I am not talking about freedom (you might be free if you avoid sin but that does not imply free will). I am talking about free will. If my actions are determined by the events before I existed and I cannot be responsible for those events (obviously since I didn't exist) then I cannot be responsible for my actions. That is the crux of my arguments.

If I understand you right you are saying that ,in theory, if we had a megacomputer the size of jupiter with enough super chips we would be able to predict every human action with 100% accuracy(provided the computer had enough info and the right mega software). This makes perfect logical sense because everything in the universe (including the universe itself is determined by causes).

The only way we can possibly have free will is if something that is totally free of needing any cause at all (and therefore is 'completely free' from determination) injects us with a little bit of the freedom in order to make our choices really free and not determined by anything. In christian belief this totally free thing is the Uncaused Cause or God. The way he does this is through his spirit with us, making it possible for us to escape the confines of determination. If he had not made his spirit freely available to us then he could not judge us or hold us morally responsible because we could rightly say that we are trapped within a determinated universe and have no real choice. But he didn't just leave us like that he shared a bit of himself with us so we could escape. In response we either accept this available power or refuse to surrender to it (pride , sin etc). In a way free will is actually more like a mini surrender of will and cannot happen without an eternal uncaused God interfering within the universe.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I strongly doubt you'll find a Catholic book (especially not one with a nihil obstat) that argues that there are people with an intellect but not a conscience. In Catholic moral teaching, the conscience is a judgment of the intellect, not an emotion. So, even a psychopath has a conscience in as much as he is able to judge that his actions are morally wrong - whether he feels they are wrong or not.

Psychopaths cannot judge what is morally wrong (that is basically what they are defined as). It is easy then to say that they have no intellect- but many quite obciously do.
I think i'll digress here.
The Vatican's poor understanding of biology often makes it difficult to translate their ideas into a scientific reality. However, my Catholic handbook tells me that, for instance in the case of suicide, many suffer severe mental conditions and cannot be accountable for their actions- they cannot judge what is morally wrong (the catechism doesn't say this, but the catechism is in need of urgent revampents). But they certainly have an intellect (this seems wrong, are we using different definitions of 'intellect'?).

So, even a psychopath has a conscience in as much as he is able to judge that his actions are morally wrong-whether he feels they are wrong or not.

Surely you mean, what he thinks is right or wrong (you just said we judge by our intellect not our emotion).

Originally posted by knightmeister
If I understand you right you are saying that ,in theory, if we had a megacomputer the size of jupiter with enough super chips we would be able to predict every human action with 100% accuracy(provided the computer had enough info and the right mega software). This makes perfect logical sense because everything in the universe (including the universe ...[text shortened]... er of will and cannot happen without an eternal uncaused God interfering within the universe.

Thats half of what i'm saying. The other half is that if we have an Uncaused Cause, this Uncaused Caused will be random (since it has no cause). The rejection of determinism results in random events. Someone posted something about Quantum Mechanics (Which says the world is indeterminate) to prove free will. But the problem is, then the world (i.e. its future) is random.

Originally posted by Conrau K
My question is that if we have no free will, should a society expect us to abide by these moralities?

EDIT: I dont know what you mean by morality as a "social possession".

Well morality per se, does not exist, it is not intrinsic. Morality is a cultural fabrication, a quite necessary one granted, but never the less a fabrication. Therefore it is a social possession rather than an intrinsic one, make sense ?

And in answer to your question:

"My question is that if we have no free will, should a society expect us to abide by these moralities?"

Society does expect, in fact it insists on us abiding by these moralities, or shall we call these moraliies, law? if we don't there are repercussions to pay. Now I agree, we do not have free will in the sense that Christians and existentialists believe we do, but we have 'partial' free will. This partiality allows us to freely choose to obey the moralities of our respective culture/society or not to obey.

To be truthful I think the boundaries of morality are too small to encapsulate 'free will'.

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
Well morality per se, does not exist, it is not intrinsic. Morality is a cultural fabrication, a quite necessary one granted, but never the less a fabrication. Therefore it is a social possession rather than an intrinsic one, make sense ?

And in answer to your question:

"My question is that if we have no free will, should a society expect us to ...[text shortened]... be truthful I think the boundaries of morality are too small to encapsulate 'free will'.

Perhaps it would be better to determine if there is accountability full stop before discussing moral responsibility.

Society does expect, in fact it insists on us abiding by these moralities, or shall we call these moraliies, law? if we don't there are repercussions to pay.

I agree and I am not suggesting otherwise. What I do think should be encouraged is that if there is no moral responisiblity then "punishment" should be less about retribution and more about rehabilitation and deterence.

I think we should also distinguish morality from moral responsibility. We can have morals without moral responsibitiy.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Thats half of what i'm saying. The other half is that if we have an Uncaused Cause, this Uncaused Caused will be random (since it has no cause). The rejection of determinism results in random events. Someone posted something about Quantum Mechanics (Which says the world is indeterminate) to prove free will. But the problem is, then the world (i.e. its future) is random.

I disagree with the assumption that an Uncaused Cause has to be random 'since it has no cause' . On what reasoning do you base this idea? Your argument rests on this claim which you have yet to substantiate. The Uncaused Cause could equally be 'free' or not be random. Do you leave any room for a third possibility other than random or determined? If not , on what basis?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I disagree with the assumption that an Uncaused Cause has to be random 'since it has no cause' . On what reasoning do you base this idea? Your argument rests on this claim which you have yet to substantiate. The Uncaused Cause could equally be 'free' or not be random. Do you leave any room for a third possibility other than random or determined? If not , on what basis?

Random events are defined as events in which there are measurment problems and thus the outsome event cannot be determined OR when the event has no antedents (no causes).

If something causes something else, that something else can never be described as random. However, if nothing causes something, this something must be random since it could equally have gone otherwise.

Do you think that given a state and no causes, that such a state would follow a determined sequence of events?

It cannot. Or otherwise it would be determined and thus have a cause.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Random events are defined as events in which there are measurment problems and thus the outsome event cannot be determined OR when the event has no antedents (no causes).

If something causes something else, that something else can never be described as random. However, if nothing causes something, this something must be random since it could equally hav ...[text shortened]... ed sequence of events?

It cannot. Or otherwise it would be determined and thus have a cause.

You point to 'something causes something else' or 'nothing causing something' but what about if something has autonomy and can act with no cause and not from nothing but from it's own volition? If we accept that our experience of free will is valid then there can no other explanation than autonomy given to us by something else autonomous. I accept your argument and I agree with you about randomness, I just think there is a third option.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You point to 'something causes something else' or 'nothing causing something' but what about if something has autonomy and can act with no cause and not from nothing but from it's own volition? If we accept that our experience of free will is valid then there can no other explanation than autonomy given to us by something else autonomous. I accept your argument and I agree with you about randomness, I just think there is a third option.

First of all our experience of free will is invalid.

Secondly, I gave you another definition of free will. To act with a free will. As in to say, I was free to act according to my will. This is entirely valid. Most people use this definition when they say "he did it of his own free will". This does not entail an "uncaused event" or indeterminacy.

I am wondering if such a free will allows moral responsibility. Any thoughts?

🙂

Originally posted by Conrau K
Perhaps it would be better to determine if there is accountability full stop before discussing moral responsibility.

[b]Society does expect, in fact it insists on us abiding by these moralities, or shall we call these moraliies, law? if we don't there are repercussions to pay.

I agree and I am not suggesting otherwise. What I do think should be e ...[text shortened]... stinguish morality from moral responsibility. We can have morals without moral responsibitiy.[/b]

In answer to the following:

What I do think should be encouraged is that if there is no moral responisiblity then "punishment" should be less about retribution and more about rehabilitation and deterence.


I think Foucault (kind of) covered this....

But you need to explain what you mean by:

I think we should also distinguish morality from moral responsibility. We can have morals without moral responsibitiy.

Originally posted by Conrau K
1) Why shouldn't he be responsible for his actions?
If all our acts can be viewed as a culmination of events before us, then I dont see how we can be responsible for our actions since I can't see how we are responsible for those causal events before us.

Do you have any opinion on the number 2 issue I raised? It still seems to me that a yes answer to the ought-can question leads to some absurd results.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Do you have any opinion on the number 2 issue I raised? It still seems to me that a yes answer to the ought-can question leads to some absurd results.

I have no objections to point 2. I agree with you that it leads to absurdity.

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
In answer to the following:

What I do think should be encouraged is that if there is no moral responisiblity then "punishment" should be less about retribution and more about rehabilitation and deterence.


I think Foucault (kind of) covered this....

But you need to explain what you mean by:

I think we should also distinguish morality from moral responsibility. We can have morals without moral responsibitiy.

But you need to explain what you mean by:

I think we should also distinguish morality from moral responsibility. We can have morals without moral responsibitiy.

If we agree there is no free will and moral responsibility does that mean there is no morality?

I do not believe that a lack of moral responisbility would lead to nihilism. Thus i separate the two.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]But you need to explain what you mean by:

I think we should also distinguish morality from moral responsibility. We can have morals without moral responsibitiy.

If we agree there is no free will and moral responsibility does that mean there is no morality?

I do not believe that a lack of moral responisbility would lead to nihilism. Thus i separate the two.[/b]

Yes but there would be no moral responsibility without social morals that are so ingrained we aren't really fully aware how they embody us.....Or are you implying that a certain morality is intrinsic!?