h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ethics is dependent on free will. Animals are ethically distinguihed from humans by the fact that they are (apparently) less in a position to act counter to instinct than we are.

But the Calvinist church decided in the 16th century that man has no free will. This was a perfectly logical conclusion, but what are the consequences?

It was logical because an omniscient person knows not only the past and present in full detail, but also the future. Therefore it is all mapped out in advance. You, Edward, argue that there is no such person, but the Calvinist position was also attacked by others who did posit an almighty.

The Dutch theologians Arminius and Grotius argued that if there is no free choice, then (a) God is the author of sin, (b) God really sins, and (c) God is the only sinner. This caused a little frisson in the synod of Dordt in 1618. Out of it grew, among other things, the Anglican church, which was less addicted to predestination than Calvin was.

Calvin...little kid that hung around with a stripey cat, yeah?

Yes...I think that *is* what I'm saying...although I'm darned if I know how you deduced it. I'm fairly convinced that there are no moral absolutes, merely 'working assumptions'.

Or, in the words of the prophet Bokonon:
'We do doodley-do doodley-do doodley-do
What we must muddley-must muddley-must muddley-must.'

That was part 1. Here's part 2:

The freewill debate isn't closed by a long chalk. Atomists (from Democritus through Epicurus and Lucretius to the Present Day) have treated atomism as an antidote to religion. Against superstition (super stare) they argued that all phenomena arise from substance (sub stare).

The problem is not solved thereby, however. Atomists still allow that "if" one could have all the info on the past, one would be able to predict the future: therefore all is predestined.

Watch this space for part 3.

>>The problem is not solved thereby, however. Atomists still allow that "if" one could have all the info on the past, one would be able to predict the future: therefore all is predestined.

However...this all-knowing entity is hypothetical. Complete knowledge of the past is beyond our brainpower. Even if we were to invent an all-knowing machine, the past has already decayed into entropy.

I'm wondering...is this why the universe behaves statistically?


(Jaysus! How the [Irish word for 'See!'] did we leap to here from animal rights?)

(That's not a rhetorical question. There's generally some degree of method in your madness)

Part 3.

You are right on the ball with the question of the possibility of such a hypothetical entity having access to the etire history and therefore fate of the universe. However the uncomfortable fact remains that if atomism follows physical laws, then given the starting state the rest is *in principle* deducible.

Ethically this means starkly, we have no choices. If we appear to make choices, this is an illusion. Maybe a necessary illusion, but an illusion none the less. Calvin was correct: the fate of each one of us is already settled, and there ain't a darn thing we can do about it.

But . . . this is not the way we live. Lucretius wrote his didactic poem 'De Rerum Natura' in the first century BC, to offer an explanation of every phenomenon observable in the universe, and with it the prospect of complete peace of mind and freedom from fear. His agenda was to exclude divine causation, following the atomism of Epicurus.

And yet complete peace of mind has not ensued. He has had 2000 years. What went wrong?

Peace of mind doesn't seem to be a generally available option on this planet. Failing that, we must accept that there are *two alternative* views of reality, neither of which can expect to conquer the other.

On the one hand there is the world of scientific fact, in which propositions are true, false, or meaningless. Ethics has no place in this (unless perhaps in the "meaningless" part) and the whole works is as strictly predetermined as a page of Conway's Game of Life.

On the other hand there is the world of human experience, in which we learn within relationships, in which we have to find our way, and in which we are faced with daily decisions. This is the world of free will and ethics, and we can disprove its reality till the cows come home, but we still have to live with it.

I see where you're going. I shall cogitate and get back to you tomorrow. Right now my burning task is to get a penguin to talk to my iPod. The two seem to have had a serious falling out!

I will leave you with this, though...ethics is a matter of emotion - and that's biology.

Ethics is a matter of emotion? That reminds me of a lecturer http://www.harrywitchel.com/ who gave a talk on music in Dublin a few weeks ago; he said "music is all about emotion" and I didn't find that at all convincing either.

The penguin and the iPod seem to have kissed and made up, following some intensive Couples Therapy.

All though I am tired and somewhat in danger of breaking Jack's Golden Rule...

Yes...in universal terms, Ethics are in the realm of the meaningless. Whether the leopard kills the zebra or the zebra kicks the man to death, the universe gives not a hoot. However...the fact of our biochemistry makes us feel good about some things and bad about others. I keep coming back to my Cicero quote: 'Noone chooses pain for the pain itself.' Thus what we like to call by the grandiose title of 'Ethics' - meaning 'what seems to work best for us in the long run' - is induced by our physical existence. That there is disagreement about what is Ethical - between individuals, and even internally - is down to our limited precognitive abilities.

So...clawing it back to Animal Rights: I'm prepared to accept the validity of Jack's view that it is unethical to cause suffering to animals. In an ideal world, it would be unnecessary and to do so would be to accept barbarism. However - in this world, as far *as I can understand it*, I propose that the gains from medical science outweigh the barbarism.

But the universe doesn't care about bunnies.

In fact...the universe doesn't care about *us* either. There are two ways we can take this:
The Northern European philosophy: Remember! We all must die!
The Southern European philosophy: We'll all be dead one day!

We all must sleep. Me too.

Recumbentman: >Ethics is dependent on free will.

Free will vs determinism is a total red herring and it is a waste of time talking about it.

Erm, fell heavily on my right arm yesterday. I think I'll pass on any sensible discussions today

Oh dear! Get well soon.

I'm inclined to agree re free will vs determinism.

Firstly...how could we possibly tell the difference?

Secondly...what do we mean by determinism? Presumably we don't mean string pulling by an omnipotent deity. That leaves us with 'Things turn out certain ways because...that's the way they were also going to turn out.' Which makes any 'free' choices part of the grand scheme. Do we spot a tautology there?

If you ask me, the whole thing is a non problem. It only comes about because of the casuistry necessary to explain why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god would allow little kiddies to die in tsunamis. The reality of the universe is 'shit happens'.

>I think I'll pass on any sensible discussions today

It's quite librating as it means I'm free to spew out streams of cantankerous gobshite

Ask the right questions, don't get caught up in non-issues, that's what Wittgenstein was on about when he said 'About that which we cannot speak, we should remain silent. I reckon. Those clever Japanese folks even have a word for it: 'mu' - take back the question.

I should say that there's also biological determinism - "I didn't mean to rob the bank, your honour - it's in me genes!" Also hogwash of course.

If that were the whole of biological determinism, you'd have a point.

However...
Biology gives us needs for shelter, food, etc.
We are social animals and have developed complex societies in which (either - depending on which branch of criminology you subscribe to) there are convenient shortcuts in the forms of banks/ there are inequalities in the level of access to resources.
Genes confer on some the brains and/or brawn to pull off a heist.
And (possibly) some people are genetically either less able to judge the risks and consequences or less concerned about them. (There's no evidence for this bit, of course).

Thus, statistically, there will be bank robberies.

No?

Ed: >Biology gives us needs for shelter, food, etc.<

This maybe a shorthand but it's a rather too drastic one I reckon. Sorry, but you're trying to make me think again when I'm determnined not to. Trust me to get a footie injury the day before the World Cup

Oh, I've had a think about it and decided that my major problem with atheists on the MM thread was with two individuals, whose names both begin with A. If it wasn't for their petty bickering and semi-trollsome tactics, I wouldn't have been half as vehement about atheism.

Just like the person on the FFF thread, whose "initals" closely resemble mine. When he wasn't playing silly semantics games, he was pretending to be thick and not understand what people were saying- and unlike one or two of the christians in the MM thread, this guy isn't really thick. That just exasperated me to no end.

I was going to ask a question and I've forgotten what it was... I'll keep reading along until one of you gentlemen says something to refresh my memeory.

OK forget determinism. What do you mean Ed, ethics is a matter of emotion? Do you mean it's something we (just) feel? And does that mean it's an instinct?

Instinct is too simplistic.

But...we have an observable desire to be happy. Or, at least, comfortable. Or, at least, not uncomfortable. So far, so biological.

We are consciuous animals with a self of self. This means that we have a sense of others as selves. So we can deduce that others too want to be happy. A contracual arrangement makes sense - I'll not hit you if you don't hit me, I'll not try and eat your flank of zebra if you don't try and eat mine. Those are the minimum standards.

Being intelligent, social beings, we can even take it further: I'll share my flank of zebra with you if you'll share yours with me next time; I'll trade you a hunk of zebra for a handful of roots and berries; I'll not hit you, ven though I'm stronger and could get away with it, because one day I might not be feeling so well, or you might be stronger than my zebra-sharing pals, or I don't wan't to be constantly watching my back...etc. etc. Thus emerge social contacts of various kinds. There are contractual disagreements all the time, of course, often cented around uneven power relationships (My pals are bigger than yours, so you go hunt all the zebra and we'll take it off you), but by and large we arrive at a consensus.

The complications arise as our social groupings get ever more complex. At some point we have to make all sorts of complex ethical decisions such as freedom vs security, Herceptin vs hip operations. Society is so complex that our brains aren't always up to it, so we often take ethical shortcuts, such as 'Thou shallt not kill' or 'Below the age of 16 is a no-no for sex.'

But no matter how complex it gets, the fundamenta;ls are biological. Surely?

What I'm *not* saying (I don't think) is that we can look at any ethical choice from the viewpoint of 'whatever feels right'. Different things will feel right for different people, and we have to take the long view - to the best of our abilities, given fuzzy inputs about a complicated society.

Are we getting towards the question of altruism? Biological urgings will get us to co-operate if that is in our genetic interest, but altruism appears to go beyond that.

Hmm. I'm not sure whether Dawkins is right on species survival vs individual survival vs gene survival. Probably he is. He knows more about it than me.

It's possible that 'It's good to be good' is hardwired into us - some more than others. But I wouldn't care to speculate on whether this would be as a direct survival mechanism. Possibly it's more a manifestation of general sociability.



Go on - someone mention Utilitarianism.