Not one, but *two* juicy topics!

42 posts / 0 new
Last post
Not one, but *two* juicy topics!

I've cadged these both from books I was musing over in Blackwells yesterday, both edited by the same person. One was called something like 'What's Your Dangerous Idea?' and was about notions people have that might fundamentally alter society, while t'other was called something like 'What Unproveable Thing Do You Believe In?" - title says it all.

I'm sure they're both things that have come up before elsewhere, but nevertheless...

From the first book, free will. This is a concept, the author argued, that must be radically adjusted in order to make sense in the context of what we now know. It is far too simplistic to say people are either responsible, or not responsible, for their actions. Advertising, for instance, plays on the fact that the flaws in our decision-making processes can be exploited to a desired end. In other words, we can be 'tricked' into doing things, without being directly lied to. If we continue to insist that all responsibility ultimately comes down to the individual, do we give people a license to manipulate us?

From the second book, the interesting notion that one develops a moral rationality in the same way one develops a mathematical rationality - as opposed to simply being 'fed' a system of values which are then adhered to, you develop a way of dealing with a whole dimension of thought, in which there are fundamental truths that have only to be discovered.

This is a powerful notion, because if you don't believe in it, then you admit your own code of ethics no jurisdiction outside the society you were brought up in, or similar societies. In a multicultural society, this has particular impact - again, if we don't believe in a moral rationality that pertains to a truth as steadfast as mathematics, how can we believe that our system of values is any better than that of our neighbours, who may have been brought up very differently?

free will versus determinism is a debate that is central to much of psychological enquiry. Our behaviour can to some degree be determined by genetics (gender, health, brain circuitry) and/or our environment/political/historical contexts. For example a famous study conducted in the US in the 1930's concerning black children's racial preferences, found that given the choice of a white doll or black doll they chose the white one, whereas in 1970 when the study was replicated, the majority of children chose the black doll (Hrabra and Grant), Suggesting that racial preference was determined by the historical and political climate. But within the deterministic construct there is an element of freewill depending on how as an individual we interact with the set of circumstances available to us, e.g. not all children in 1930's chose white doll, why? what made them different? But i believe that if we acknowledge the constraints of our situations then we can to some degree to fight them or choose to not be defined by them, or infact embrace them. It is the notion, particular to Western society that we a free thinking individuals, unconstrained by external or internal factors, that blinds us to the fact that our behaviour by and large is a product of our birth and environment, and makes us great fodder for advertisers. Juliet

Juliet

in terms of moral development it was Kholberg that suggested our moral rationality develops in stages alongside our intellectual/perceptual development (Piaget) in Kholbergs theory one only reaches full morality when we have the intellectaul capabilities to evaluate 'moral' codes and apply only those that pertain to the sanctity of life above all else. He used a a moral dilemma about a man called Heinz who broke into a pharmacist to steal medicine for his dying wife (after failing to convince the druggist to sell it to him for £1000 as opposed to £2000). Kohlberg then rated peoples responses as to a level of moral development, with those who felt Heinz was fully justified and should not be punished at the highest level. But then Kholberg himself was the moral judge, and he also believed that woman were less moral than men, a theory that has now been debunked. Yet to some degree i do beleive there is a set of moral principles (sanctity of life) that transcend social and political codes. But then again is not the value i hold on individual life a product of the society in which i am brought up in? Juliet

Juliet

'It is far too simplistic to say people are either responsible, or not responsible, for their actions.' Absolutely. I get a bit miffed with alcoholics who say 'no-one poured the drink down my throat.' I admire their taking responsibility but I also believe that in a certain sense addicts have no choice but to drink because the compulsion is so powerful. I always liken it to a small child with chicken pox! Whilst he has some understanding why his mum is telling him 'not to scratch' - the itch is so maddening, he really has no choice - he lacks the maturity to control the impulse. The percentage of alcoholics who come from abusive or dysfuntional homes indicate that these certainly play some part in the development of addiction. So does an addict have free will? Yes...and no... jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

We have free will and we don't have free will. Morality is absolute and yet totally relative. We know nothing. We know everything. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Can you get any more vague Peps?! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

The essence is malleable. When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~

The essence is malleable. When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~

new research into addiction is also pin pointing certain gene combinations that are more likely to appear in alcoholics and those with tourettes, suggesting addiction is partly determined by our genes. I guess the environment then shapes this into a drug of choice e.g. alcohol being the most prevalent. But this research is also quite scary - genetic engineering etc. And with most behaviours it is the interaction of genes and environment that acutally determines how we act. Juliet

Juliet

absolutely - the nature + nurture factors are evident and are becoming more so. Jack's paraphrasing of the book, 'It is far too simplistic to say people are either responsible, or not responsible, for their actions.' is I think quite obvious. What needs more probing perhaps is the question 'If we continue to insist that all responsibility ultimately comes down to the individual, do we give people a license to manipulate us?' Yes, I think so. When taking that questionnaire that puts you on the political compass one question is something like ' Do you think it is a sad state of affairs that the most basic commodities such as drinking water has been bottled, branded and sold as a product? My answer was 'no' because (and I am only talking about this country) of the freedom of the individual to buy it or not. In the UK tap water is cheap and drinkable so buying bottled water is optional. Yes, the marketeers are manipulating us into thinking Evian or Perrier is so very different and better than, but if one is dumb enough to fall for this and has cash to throw away as far as I am concerned you deserve everything you get. Fools and their money... jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

'If we continue to insist that all responsibility ultimately comes down to the individual, do we give people a license to manipulate us?' yes, but we won't know it, because we don't believe we can be manipulated. Therefore if we accept that much of our behaviour is determined, by biology and environment (advertisers) then we are more able to see behind the message, and less likely to be manipulated. When i introduce the concept of determinisn versus freewill to year 12's they're initially very sceptical, yet when i ask all those in the class wearing jeans and trainers to stand up, they begin to see that even their individual choice about what to wear to school is determined by fashion, peers, advertisers, money etc What percentage of your behaviour is free will? 10% or 90% Juliet

Juliet

Surely it's something that can't be quantified. I do have the free will to commit murder and steal but the consequences of that action makes it feel like I have no free will. Even with something quite simple like fashion. You make life easier for yourself if you dress within the bounderies of what is 'normal'. Of course I have free will to go to work tomorrow (and we have no dress code) wearing a shirt made from tin foil with flourescent hotpants but the chances are I'm going to wear my usual jeans and a low-key shirt because wearing 'odd' clothes would get stares and comments I can't be bothered with. I believe I choose to conform, that doesn't remove my freewill. I could be radically different if I could be bothered! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

Can you get any more vague Peps?! Maybe I can... maybe I cannot... ;) The truly wise transcend such notions as "Free Will" Vs "Non Free Will"... why not dispense with the "Vs"...?? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

within boundaries we have freewill, I agree. So it's both? Juliet

Juliet

Is all truth paradox? Well, yes and no. But yes, it is both! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

Why should I listen to you when it comes to truth? You believe in God! :-))) http://naptime500.blogspot.com
Fortunately for you and indeed for the rest of humanity, listening to me (and reading this thread) is optional. jude

 

or is it? Juliet

Juliet

I think you'd look rather smashing in a tin foil top and fluorescent hotpants. Are they a part of the new Kate Moss line?
Free will? Moral rationality: Truths: Determinisms: Genetic dispositions: Social emotive conditioning? Words that allow us to consider such ideas as 'Free will', within the limitations of our own three dimensional perceptions? They are useful concepts, in that they facilitate any consideration of the sum total of our own, and of all existential reality. It Would seem to me that the notion of Moral rationality requires absolute free will? Or perhaps we do not have absolute free will? And so we can argue this in the opposite direction and still conclude that there are no truths, just limited three dimensional concepts. We could argue, 'for instance', that we are carriers of our genes', and so at some level deterministic? Or we may argue that we have been "Constructed" by our genes, "To Carry". (The Old specificity to Environment argument). Choose a perspective.
ah tis so nice to have a fellow scientist around. Good to see you John. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

You can see me Jude! :-)
Sorry Jude. That seemed a bit short. 'Was juggling files at the time' :~ What I meant to say was thanks. Its nice to feel welcome. :-)
'He used a a moral dilemma about a man called Heinz who broke into a pharmacist to steal medicine for his dying wife (after failing to convince the druggist to sell it to him for £1000 as opposed to £2000). Kohlberg then rated peoples responses as to a level of moral development, with those who felt Heinz was fully justified and should not be punished at the highest level.' No Juliet, you have misunderstood the research. Kohlberg posited, if I recall correctly, seven levels of moral development. Whether a person felt Heinz did the 'right' or 'wrong' thing has no bearing on a person's moral level - it's the process of reasoning that a person uses to reach their conclusion that determines where they get placed.
*Social emotive conditioning.* Mmmmmm. I'm thinking of the Stanford experiments here. Where they got people to do (as they thought) unspeakable things to their fellow man, just because the people giving orders wore white coats. They seemed to have authority. It explained somewhat the 'We were only following orders' syndrome.

 

thanks rokkinite, i was simplifying the research. I am aware of the six stages of moral development, two within each level, preconventional, conventional and post conventional. The reasoning is tied up with the outcome, with young children reasoning that stealing is wrong therefore Heinz must be punished (pre-conventional), older children reaching puberty, reasoning he had no choice, but he should face whatever punishment comes his way, despite the fact he did the only thing he could (conventional). And adults(some) reasoning the druggist was wrong and that Heinz should not face punishment, because human life is of a higher value than the laws of a particular time or place(post conventional). You are right that it is the process of reasoning that determines the level, but that process and the decision reached are (usually) tied up together. It would be unsusual for a person to reason at post conventional level and still feel that Heinz should face jail. Juliet Juliet

Juliet

jrc "Words that allow us to consider such ideas as 'Free will', within the limitations of our own three dimensional perceptions? They are useful concepts, in that they facilitate any consideration of the sum total of our own, and of all existential reality." what does that mean? Moral rationality will always be relative, as none of us live outside the confines of being human? if so i agree. PJ may welcome a fellow scientist, but i need help deciphering your words :) Juliet

Juliet

"Moral rationality will always be relative, as none of us live outside the confines of being human? if so i agree." I am glad you do agree Juliet. :-)
a bit off beam here but in this Morning's Metro (I know, it's chatty and frivolous but free!) There was an inetersting article entitled 'Does Evil Exist?' It was talking about new research based on the original Stanford Prison Experiment , where 'normal' people when put in abnormal circumstances became cruel and sadistic. I often wondered about the Gestapo and so on...how does one find so many 'evil'people and the research suggests they are not evil but the circumstances of war and power and viewing the 'enemy' as less than human enables people to commit acts of violence. Of course people who torture other people surely had free will though. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

 

The point the chap in the book seemed to be making was that, with all these points to consider, 'free will' rapidly becomes an outdated and meaningless concept. Jude says that wearing normal clothes is exercising her free will - she has 'chosen' not to face the consequences of doing otherwise. Similarly, I suppose, a man told to hand over his money at gunpoint is doing so of his own volition. He has simply chosen not to get shot. But if that's the case, free will doesn't really mean anything. Clearly, you can never be forced to do anything against your will and cannot take actions you are not responsible for (except if you are a passive element in a sequence of events, such as if you're killed or carried off). If, on the other hand, free will only applies when you are not guided by circumstance - when no outside force puts any pressue on you by way of promised consequences - then KV was right, and none of us have any free will at all. On the 'evil' front, I've been covering the trials of some terrorists over the last few weeks, and that's been err... interesting. I think evil exists - and I think part of what make something evil is that it can seem, on the one hand, justifiable and righteous, and there is a seductive logic to it. Evil wouldn't be evil if it couldn't be so easily confused with good.
Maybe freewill doesn't mean anything. We are never truly free because every choice has a consequence. Our choices are often based on a projection of the possible outcomes. But the as the significance of the consequence varies so does the degree of free-will I guess. Obviously the consequences of not giving money to an armed robber is more serious than the consequence of me donning tin-foil and lycra. But absolutely nothing is entirely free of consequences beyond our control, so there is no absolute free will. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

this is another good book on the subject 'Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting (1984) is a book by the American philosopher Daniel Dennett, which discusses the philosophical issues of free will and determinism. In 1983, Dennett delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford on the topic of free will. In 1984, these ideas were published in the book Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. In this book Daniel Dennett explored what it means for people to have free will. The title, Elbow Room, is a reference to the question: are we deterministic machines with no real freedom of action or do we in fact have some elbow room, some real choice in our behavior? '

 

Smackdown, Tim.
"We are never truly free because every choice has a consequence." Quite so, Jude. Because we are all driven by self gain at some level. It may be something as simple as smiling at some one as we pass them in the street, but that in its self is conditional and motivated by Social, genetic, biological encoding. If some one holds a knife at me and i decide to hand oner my money, is my decision based on free will, or is it based on a powerful biochemically induced mechanism? Can free will be influenced at a more fundamental level? Out side of the usual Societal context? Dose Evil mean anything out side of that context?
"if some one holds a knife at me and i decide to hand oner my money, is my decision based on free will, or is it based on a powerful biochemically induced mechanism?" Yes survival, but if you were a trained SAS super person then you may feel you have two choices. So within the constraints of the situation you can hand over the money or attempt to disarm the mugger. "Can free will be influenced at a more fundamental level? Out side of the usual Societal context?" "Dose Evil mean anything out side of that context?" Evil is a comparison with good, so you can only be evil if your actions are compared with anothers. But then again is taking someones life for your own gain just plain wrong and therefore evil? Date Rape: if a woman gets drunk goes on a date, flirts all night, takes the man back to hers, has a snog, then says No to sex, or is even too drunk to give consent, can she claim she was raped if the man goes ahead? She is exercising her freewill not to have sex, yet you could argue the situation determines the end result (sex)and therefore she put herself in that situation and has no right to cry rape. Can the man also not argue that alcohol determined his actions? If she is too drunk to give consent, he could also be to drunk to understand her unspoken 'no'? Juliet

Juliet

no. If a man takes advantage of a womans inability to consent or not to consent, regardless of circumstances Juliet, then in my view, he is committing a Socially unacceptable act. The point being, Juliet. It is 'Socially' unacceptable. Is it Evil? Is it an act of free will? In the Social context! Perhaps?
so why is it that girls are brought up to be told, if you go out dressed like that, you are asking for it? Rape reporting is woefully low becuase women on the whole are judged by their clothing, alcohol state and previous sexual behaviour. The suggestion being, you are responsible for being raped, your behaviour determined the outcome. Juliet

Juliet

"Younger Children regard rules as fixed and absolute. They believe that rules are handed down by adults or by Gods and that one cannot change them" "Older Children understand that it is permissible to change rules. Rules are not sacred and absolute, but are 'devices' which humans use to get along cooperatively". Piaget's and Kohkberg's qualitative and Quantitative results are considered within a Social context that by nature must be subject to experimental inaccuracy. It is not a question of right and wrong, Juliet. More a question of interpretation within the appropriate context?
and that is the interesting point about 'rape' does it only become morally wrong if the laws of the land say it is? For example rape in marriage and rape by the victors of war was legal, up until i think the 1970's - 80's. Yet in terms of my moral rationality, any person who has sex with another person when they have not consented is committing rape, regardless of that persons age, sexuality, marital status, profession and alcoholic state. Juries however often make judgements on the victims guilt (prostitutes are less likely to get justice than a married woman). Suggesting they see the victim as partly repsonsible. Juliet

Juliet

Agreed. But then we must also agree that this particular phenomena has substance only within a limited relative framework? :-)
Hmm... It's all relative... ...he said, annoyingly simplistically - ;;;))). Regarding morals, one can only ultimately look to oneself - deeply into one's own conscientious soul. Does even "God" know, in pure and simple and conclusive terms, what is "Good" and what is "Evil"??? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Topic locked