I've decided that since this arguement relies heavily on science (and since there are other philosophical topics on this board) to move this discussion from the General board to here.
> Well give me an example of an intellectual rationalization for certain moral behaviors.
You've opened a book on the philosophy of morals, have you not?
> Because that's what we're talking about here. Sure you can overcome feeling guilty about some things that it's irrational to get upset over (for example, guilt over skipping a class, or calling in sick to work,) but to overcome feeling guilt about everything (or at least the "big" things) is what we've been talking about.
No, we are not. That would be silly. Whereever did you get that idea? And how do you differentiate a "big" thing from a non-"big" thing?
>You've opened a book on the philosophy of morals, have you not?
If I have, I am unaware of it. A brief search reveals an essay by Immanuel Kant in which he states "Instruction in the laws of morality is not drawn from observation of oneself or of our animal nature, nor from perception of the course of the world in regard to what happens, or how men act."
In this regard, I disagree, the laws of morality are wholly derived from our animal nature.
I still invite you to give me an intellectual rationalization for certain moral behaviors. I belive that any such rationalization will ultimately boil down to instinctual behavior as a product of evolution.
>No, we are not. That would be silly. Whereever did you get that idea? And how do you differentiate a "big" thing from a non-"big" thing?
All along you have been telling me that if I act purely to increase my happiness, that by abolishing my capacity for guilt, I can be even happier, and that since I claim to act intellectually, it would be illogical for me to not do so. This seems to me to encompass guilt over all things (especially since you did not specify which things it is okay to feel guilty about, and which things it is not.)
As for what a "big" thing is, that would be anything that is considered to be absolutely immoral by society as a whole (rape, murder, that sort of thing) as opposed to things that are opposed by a few or a minority, or opposed only some of the time (such as lying, shirking ones' professional duties, etc.)
In Free Willy the killer whale was actually kept in captivity so long during filming that they needed to keep it on antidepressants.
>>103 don't fuck up the discussion of the other 2 posters here.
Other people are welcome to chime in, as long as it's relevant.
The very question of free will inherently implies dualism. By rejecting religion, the soul and other spiritual nonsense, the question simply goes away.
Or to phrase this in the form of a question...what can the will be free from?
All freedom can be defined in two ways, as a freedom to or a freedom from. The idea of free will concerns itself with the freedom to choose. This sounds interesting at first, but when turned around it becomes freedom from the flesh. This shows the question fully dependent upon us accepting that our minds can exist independent of the rest of us.
What I claim is that there can be no freedom from the body, the brain or our many nerve endings, nor does there have to be, because it's the only entity. When the entity making the choices is the same thing as the one constraining the choices, the will goes unchained.
Since no one answered when I posted it before, I'll try again.
Who's that who says "who's that" when I say "who's that?"
Heh, "the will goes unchained" is just a phrase I took from a series of old text files from the early 90s. It doesn't mean much, it was just used all the time, even when it had no apparent relation to the rest of the text.
A failed attempt at humour through obscurity, I suppose.
Is it bad?
Let's say you play a video game - why do you play it?
The game follows a predetermined route, you are constrained by its rules, your "will" is subject to the programmer's will, you have limited choices... Shouldn't you refuse to play any and all games because your "free will" is restricted in those?
Ha, I see someone posted the same logic as mine in the second post of the original thread at http://4-ch.net/general/kareha.pl/1171775011/
Then I don't get this thread. What's the question?