Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

the issue of free will and moral choice in a clockwork orang

Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

11 Dec 2006, 12:15 am

peebo wrote:
ah, i see your point. that would be a very reductivist point of view. you would see no distinction whatsoever between sentient, self aware creatures, and water pipes? an interesting, but in my opinion deeply flawed, point of view. how then would you explain such things as art and music, for example?


Yes my theories have been called reductivist before. I have an extreme reductionist
theory on art, music, etc. My opinion is evolution's (life's) only goal(mindless) is reproduction. Everything you think about is merely a means to that end or something
that is not(random noise to evolution).



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

11 Dec 2006, 7:09 am

TheMachine1 wrote:
My opinion is evolution's (life's) only goal(mindless) is reproduction. Everything you think about is merely a means to that end or something
that is not(random noise to evolution).


i understand your viewpoint. however, i would ask, if we are simply machines, then what is the reason that we indulge in that which is not simply a means to the end of reproduction? surely this would be redundant activity, and from a purely logical and reductivist standpoint such as yours, there would be absolutely no reason for it. i hold that this urge to create and express is a consequence of consciousness, that which separates sentient life forms from machines.

to go back to your point about morality vs. practicality, you stated:

Quote:
No reason to make a moral judgement about a person actions.

But clearily be it a leaking water pipe , burning building or person commiting non-victimless crimes they all need to be put back in control.


and then:
Quote:
The same basis as fixing a water pipe that is leaking flooding ones home and wasting water. A person trying to rob, rape and kill you is a water pipe leaking on your home.


i would suggest that what you aqre saying here does rest on morality to some extent. i would agree that a person trying to kill you in particular could be seen as a practical problem, but surely the fact that you endorse punishment for perpetrators of crimes that do not involve you in any way means that the situation becomes one of morality.

or you could say, tht the water pipe leaking on your house is impractical for you, however, a water pipe leaking on the house of a person 2 streets away has no pracitcal impact on you whatsoever.

please correct me if i am making an incorrect assumption.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

11 Dec 2006, 8:48 am

peebo wrote:
i understand your viewpoint. however, i would ask, if we are simply machines, then what is the reason that we indulge in that which is not simply a means to the end of reproduction? surely this would be redundant activity, and from a purely logical and reductivist standpoint such as yours, there would be absolutely no reason for it. i hold that this urge to create and express is a consequence of consciousness, that which separates sentient life forms from machines.


Much of that thinking is infact related to increasing reproduction. Like a man striving to
be the worlds best nuclear physicist is the same as a male bird building a nice nest to impress a female bird. Its all at a level we have no real control over. What you want to do with you life and thoughts is to increase reproduction or evolution will weed you out.


Quote:
i would suggest that what you aqre saying here does rest on morality to some extent. i would agree that a person trying to kill you in particular could be seen as a practical problem, but surely the fact that you endorse punishment for perpetrators of crimes that do not involve you in any way means that the situation becomes one of morality.

or you could say, tht the water pipe leaking on your house is impractical for you, however, a water pipe leaking on the house of a person 2 streets away has no pracitcal impact on you whatsoever.

please correct me if i am making an incorrect assumption.


Well its collective practicalness. Nobody wants a leaking water pipe. Maybe a better
anology would be something that can move to other locations like termites.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

11 Dec 2006, 10:44 am

TheMachine1 wrote:
Much of that thinking is infact related to increasing reproduction. Like a man striving to
be the worlds best nuclear physicist is the same as a male bird building a nice nest to impress a female bird. Its all at a level we have no real control over. What you want to do with you life and thoughts is to increase reproduction or evolution will weed you out.


again, i can see your point, however bearing in mind that i was thinking specifically about the creative arts, or the humanities as they might be termed, your viewpoint then would be that individuals producing creative work would be comparable to a bird building an attractive nest? to impress the opposite sex? to a certain degree i might agree with this, but what of the artists, writers, scientists even, who live largely reclusive lives? there are quite a few of them. would you propose that they are merely entertaining themselves in the subconscious knowledge that "evolution" is weeding them out? and what about sexuality? where would non heterosexual individuals fit in to your scheme of things?

Quote:
Well its collective practicalness. Nobody wants a leaking water pipe. Maybe a better
anology would be something that can move to other locations like termites.


obviously we can look at extremes such as serial rapists and murderers, but where is the line drawn? again, i would suggest that it is not practicality we are discussing, but morality. you can call it practicality if you like, but i do not see where there is any huge difference between your idea of practicality and what is generally known as morality. perhaps you could outline what you see as the major differences between the two concepts.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

11 Dec 2006, 11:25 am

peebo wrote:
to a certain degree i might agree with this, but what of the artists, writers, scientists even, who live largely reclusive lives? there are quite a few of them. would you propose that they are merely entertaining themselves in the subconscious knowledge that "evolution" is weeding them out? and what about sexuality? where would non heterosexual individuals fit in to your scheme of things?


Yeah sounds like me I'm never having kids. A homosexual has the same drive a
heterosexual has to reproduce. Infact I'm sure a very high percent of homosexual
will have their own biological children. A loner male going to a hooker is following
the simple reptilian reproduction program. Just because an action is unlikely to result
in reproduction does not change the fact that the drive to do such an act is routed in the primary motivater(reproduction (replication of DNA)). In the case of us AS loner
males many of us are not really choosing not to reproduce its mostily been choosen for us in our DNA. Its diabled the social cognition centers that make reproduction more likley. Though AS has done nothing to disable the primary motivator(reproduction) in most the people I have seen here.

Quote:

obviously we can look at extremes such as serial rapists and murderers, but where is the line drawn? again, i would suggest that it is not practicality we are discussing, but morality. you can call it practicality if you like, but i do not see where there is any huge difference between your idea of practicality and what is generally known as morality. perhaps you could outline what you see as the major differences between the two concepts.


I really can't explain. I mean if I follow reductionist logic you might be correct.
Practically really means morality. I guess I'm using non-reductionist thinking saying
their is no good or evil only practical or unpractical. When if proper thought out the
simpliest defintion of "evil" is "unpractical" and "good" is "practical"



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 Dec 2006, 4:39 pm

peebo wrote:
again, i can see your point, however bearing in mind that i was thinking specifically about the creative arts, or the humanities as they might be termed, your viewpoint then would be that individuals producing creative work would be comparable to a bird building an attractive nest? to impress the opposite sex? to a certain degree i might agree with this, but what of the artists, writers, scientists even, who live largely reclusive lives? there are quite a few of them. would you propose that they are merely entertaining themselves in the subconscious knowledge that "evolution" is weeding them out? and what about sexuality? where would non heterosexual individuals fit in to your scheme of things?

The arts were created as an aspect to impress the opposite sex, however, that fact does not mean that individuals will respond correctly to such cues. Essentially speaking the human urge is satisfaction, sexuality can provide a significant amount of that which is why we tend to reproduce however, given the multitude of other desires that we end up having out of the necessity of having a being that can live and that will grow and adapt. The purpose of a human being is to have sex but his urges are many as they must be to allow for the best specimens to be created. His adaptivity and flaws in his design can work to cause him to not have sex, but the urges that make human beings so broad still exist.

Quote:
obviously we can look at extremes such as serial rapists and murderers, but where is the line drawn? again, i would suggest that it is not practicality we are discussing, but morality. you can call it practicality if you like, but i do not see where there is any huge difference between your idea of practicality and what is generally known as morality. perhaps you could outline what you see as the major differences between the two concepts.

The big difference is that practicality is really a form of consequentialist ethics. There is no good and no evil like there are in traditional ethics, there are only human desires, goals, and the pragmatics of a working society. Murder is only wrong because it gets in the way of our working society so therefore in order to keep this from happening it must be stopped. In consequentialism, there is no objective line between rapists and other criminals except for the harm done by them to goals and what is done to stop these individuals is only decided by what is likely to work to end the threat and the cost of such a plan.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

11 Dec 2006, 6:06 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The arts were created as an aspect to impress the opposite sex, however, that fact does not mean that individuals will respond correctly to such cues. Essentially speaking the human urge is satisfaction, sexuality can provide a significant amount of that which is why we tend to reproduce however, given the multitude of other desires that we end up having out of the necessity of having a being that can live and that will grow and adapt. The purpose of a human being is to have sex but his urges are many as they must be to allow for the best specimens to be created. His adaptivity and flaws in his design can work to cause him to not have sex, but the urges that make human beings so broad still exist.


perhaps at one time, this may have been the case, but what about modern and post-modern art? there is a lot more to it than impressing the senses. jouissance, and all that, which again ties into the whole sex urge thing. but not in terms of reproduction...

Quote:
The big difference is that practicality is really a form of consequentialist ethics. There is no good and no evil like there are in traditional ethics, there are only human desires, goals, and the pragmatics of a working society. Murder is only wrong because it gets in the way of our working society so therefore in order to keep this from happening it must be stopped. In consequentialism, there is no objective line between rapists and other criminals except for the harm done by them to goals and what is done to stop these individuals is only decided by what is likely to work to end the threat and the cost of such a plan.


what you say does make sense in some ways, but to play devil's advocate for a spell, would not, say, murder for example, serve as quite a useful tool in these modern times of overpopulation and suchlike? not that i condone murder, but from a purely logical point of view, perhaps?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

11 Dec 2006, 6:06 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The arts were created as an aspect to impress the opposite sex, however, that fact does not mean that individuals will respond correctly to such cues. Essentially speaking the human urge is satisfaction, sexuality can provide a significant amount of that which is why we tend to reproduce however, given the multitude of other desires that we end up having out of the necessity of having a being that can live and that will grow and adapt. The purpose of a human being is to have sex but his urges are many as they must be to allow for the best specimens to be created. His adaptivity and flaws in his design can work to cause him to not have sex, but the urges that make human beings so broad still exist.


perhaps at one time, this may have been the case, but what about modern and post-modern art? there is a lot more to it than impressing the senses of the opposite sex. jouissance, and all that, which again ties into the whole sex urge thing. but not in terms of reproduction...

Quote:
The big difference is that practicality is really a form of consequentialist ethics. There is no good and no evil like there are in traditional ethics, there are only human desires, goals, and the pragmatics of a working society. Murder is only wrong because it gets in the way of our working society so therefore in order to keep this from happening it must be stopped. In consequentialism, there is no objective line between rapists and other criminals except for the harm done by them to goals and what is done to stop these individuals is only decided by what is likely to work to end the threat and the cost of such a plan.


what you say does make sense in some ways, but to play devil's advocate for a spell, would not, say, murder for example, serve as quite a useful tool in these modern times of overpopulation and suchlike? not that i condone murder, but from a purely logical point of view, perhaps?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 Dec 2006, 6:53 pm

peebo wrote:
perhaps at one time, this may have been the case, but what about modern and post-modern art? there is a lot more to it than impressing the senses of the opposite sex. jouissance, and all that, which again ties into the whole sex urge thing. but not in terms of reproduction...
What about it? Reproduction has tended to be sex for past species and art is a way to show females of the species a level of intellectual capability and emotional depth, which can be important for mating. The point I make is that the artistic desire arose from a need to display some aspects about ourselves for differentiation with mating, and that the odd behaviors we have ultimately come from complexity. Our purpose is to mate and we were designed for that task, we may reject it due to imperfections but we cannot deny that it was our purpose in the first place.

Quote:
what you say does make sense in some ways, but to play devil's advocate for a spell, would not, say, murder for example, serve as quite a useful tool in these modern times of overpopulation and suchlike? not that i condone murder, but from a purely logical point of view, perhaps?

Death could, if controlled that is, there are only a few issues with this though, most human caused death is not controlled and poses a threat to societal order and happiness, which is why we came up with laws deeming such killings as murder, as well, human beings don't like being culled from the herd so therefore a human society will tend towards other means than killing people to maintain itself because individuals can see that using execution as population control could lead to their deaths. However, let me ask you this though, if there were an emergency where the food supply has diminished greatly and we have a population that cannot support itself, would killing be justified to save the lives and futures of the greater whole? We would still be acting immorally from a deontological standpoint as we still kill the innocent and violate the rights of others but given the greater good of saving more lives wouldn't killing in this case be justified?



BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

11 Dec 2006, 7:52 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
.... Our purpose is to mate and we were designed for that task, we may reject it due to imperfections but we cannot deny that it was our purpose in the first place.

I reject your premise. The "meaning of life" is more than mating and reproduction, although I don't know what. :?

TM1, I think a better analogy that a leaking pipe, is a burning house. A leaking pipe is generally an annoyance only. A burning house may spark other spot fires and be a greater danger to a wider community. Therefore others have some self interest in helping to put it out as they feel less safe.

Uncontrolled criminals make society feel less safe, and so they want to do something about it.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
....Death could, if controlled that is, there are only a few issues with this though, most human caused death is not controlled and poses a threat to societal order and happiness, ....... let me ask you this though, if there were an emergency where the food supply has diminished greatly and we have a population that cannot support itself, would killing be justified to save the lives and futures of the greater whole? We would still be acting immorally from a deontological standpoint as we still kill the innocent and violate the rights of others but given the greater good of saving more lives wouldn't killing in this case be justified?


If you wanted to sustain a healthy population, you would, just as game/wildlife management requires culling (whether hunting or other methods) to limit populations. However your question is not entirely hypothetical. Have a look at parts of Africa. I think the killing is generally not for the purpose of the greater good, but one wanting power over another.

Thinking also of gang leaders, has anyone read "Run Baby Run"?


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 Dec 2006, 8:16 pm

BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
I reject your premise. The "meaning of life" is more than mating and reproduction, although I don't know what. :?
My premise is based upon evolution, as beings were created to reproduce. You may find this argument uncomfortable but a rejection of a premise needs to be done so through logically invalidating said premise, not through feelings of discomfort. I will admit that individuals reject reproduction as their goal but that does not change what human beings were designed to do, it only reflects our necessary malleability to display the full range of our health. Frankly, I have no care what metaphysical reason you give for your life, but we were designed to reproduce.

Quote:
If you wanted to sustain a healthy population, you would, just as game/wildlife management requires culling (whether hunting or other methods) to limit populations. However your question is not entirely hypothetical. Have a look at parts of Africa. I think the killing is generally not for the purpose of the greater good, but one wanting power over another.

Thinking also of gang leaders, has anyone read "Run Baby Run"?

If our ONLY goal was to do that then you'd be right, however, usually it isn't and everyone recognizes it isn't. Consequentialism includes all consequences, the culling of individuals would be extremely unpopular as I mentioned earlier this would lead to opposition and it would likely reduce the quality of life for that reason, not only that but the apparatus that could cull would be a thing that every dictator and corrupt politician would love in order to bend society to his/her will, and because this corruption would likely go against our aims it is undesirable to aim at culling, especially when other options are available such as birth control laws, increased use of the death penalty, increasing the quality of sex ed, increasing the use of abortion, etc. My question is hypothetical to a great extent, I will admit that Africa's rulers use consequentialist ethics to solidify power but the big difference is the goal, and perhaps the circumstance as well.

I have never read "Run Baby Run".



BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

11 Dec 2006, 8:40 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
... let me ask you this though, if there were an emergency where the food supply has diminished greatly and we have a population that cannot support itself, would killing be justified to save the lives and futures of the greater whole? ...

I was thinking along the lines of there being an immediate imperative to reduce numbers in an isolated community. Birth control, sex ed, etc is a long term response.

I think the world already has an unsustainable population. A lower fertility rate is needed.

You say "as beings were created to reproduce" - do you imply mankind was created for a purpose? Or did we evolve out of the slime, against all odds?

PS - Run Baby Run is a biography of a NYC gang leader who found religion.


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 Dec 2006, 9:50 pm

BazzaMcKenzie wrote:
I was thinking along the lines of there being an immediate imperative to reduce numbers in an isolated community. Birth control, sex ed, etc is a long term response.

I think the world already has an unsustainable population. A lower fertility rate is needed.

You say "as beings were created to reproduce" - do you imply mankind was created for a purpose? Or did we evolve out of the slime, against all odds?

PS - Run Baby Run is a biography of a NYC gang leader who found religion.

Ah, in that case, yes, it would be necessary to thin people, perhaps even find ways to process them so that they can be eaten without causing disease in the rest of the population.

I think that the biggest population problems come from developing areas because of the fact that they have the highest growth rates. However, I cannot say whether or not the world has an unsustainable population, it really has more to do with how well we adapt our agriculture.

I imply that we have a biological purpose being to reproduce, I don't make any abstract highly philosophical claims. The point I make is that evolution pushes beings to become the most fit reproducers that they can be, and we are endowed with the goal of spreading our genes. Unlike a fly we can reject this biological imperative but like a fly we still were meant to continue the species.



TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

12 Dec 2006, 6:01 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Unlike a fly we can reject this biological imperative but like a fly we still were meant to continue the species.


Yeah we can reject it in that we can choose not to reproduce but its very hard to reject it in the sense we can not stop doing those things that are preparing us for it(sexual thoughts and activity, "nest building").

Its just a chemical molecule that "wants"(mindlessly) to keep "living"(exsisting).
Evolution only comes into it because changes in that molecule (DNA) can keep it
"living" longer(more generations). People live their lives in the executed form of DNA
(our bodies), but evolution is just about keeping a molecule exsisting till the end of time. My theory is the most important question in the universe is "does the universe end or keep going forever?" I think thats the most important thing evolution would like
to know if it had a mind and in a sense it does though us. Is Nasa something not
related to the reproduction imperative? Seems like its very related.



BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

12 Dec 2006, 5:19 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
... it would be necessary to thin people, perhaps even find ways to process them so that they can be eaten without causing disease in the rest of the population.....

I'm developing plans for a Soylent Green factory as we speak :lol:

I don't know whether to steer this back to Clockwork Orange or stay on evelotion.
I will check this thread tomorrow.


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


Xuincherguixe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: Victoria, BC

19 Dec 2006, 7:42 am

What I saw from a Clockwork Orange, wasn't that the guy was getting 'what was coming to him'.

I took it that violence is always violence, and it's always horrible.


When he was in prison, and he started going through the bible it seemed like he was starting to reform kind of. (Kind of lame, but whatever. It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, but I'm thinking he probably wasn't really finding religion, but he was adjusting to be a descent person) This, wasn't 'the easy way out' (though I think it was what the character's original line of thinking was, but hey, everyone needs to start somewhere)


When they do all the weird stuff that made it impossible to commit violence, what it also meant was that he wasn't able to defend himself. It was a quick fix. Not thought out well at all. And, in a way was itself a form of violence.

Not only that, but there were his 'buddies' who were there committing the same awful deeds. But because they're in police uniforms, now it's officially sanctioned violence! And that somehow makes it "okay".

So what are we left with when it wears out? A guy who's still probably going to go out their and commit crimes. And likely is going to be able to get away with them because he's famous.


In order to stop abuse, we need to change attitudes and stop thinking that abuse is okay. My own personal feelings are definitely colouring things, but then I'm sure the same can be said for everyone. Still, that's what I take from this. (Well, that last bit I'm not to sure of. That's just my opinion)