How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:28 pm It relates in the sense that it's complex behaviour ingrained by evolution; in anticipation of an event the individual bird could not consciously anticipate, i.e. laying eggs - and so demonstrates how evolution can give rise to complex behaviours, with an appearance of cognition that isn't there.
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:06 pmIs anyone doubting that evolution can give rise to complex behavior, though?
Are you really asking me to speculate on what other people believe? You seem to be kicking up a fuss - so, maybe you do doubt that evolution can give rise to complex behaviours... with the appearance of cognition!.
But I told you! Am I to take it you found the explanation unconvincing? If so, how so?
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:06 pmYou told me (and us in general) how? Not via the bird example. You said that's not an example of moral behavior (and I agree with that).
Yes, I told you. Then I told you again, and again, and still you are apparently unable to understand - what I assumed would be a welcome, reciprocal contribution to someone else's thread. I feel guilty that I only tend my own garden, in my thread Solving Climate Change - and wanted to give a little back, and so I'm at a loss to understand your hostility. Tell me, is your hostility directed toward me personally, or toward the ideas I expressed? And why?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 4:43 pm Are you really asking me to speculate on what other people believe?
No. It's a way of asking you if anyone expressed that they don't believe that evolution can produce complex behaviors, or if you have any good reason to believe that anyone would say this (based on other things they've said, etc.)
Yes, I told you. Then I told you again, and again, and still you are apparently unable to understand - what I assumed would be a welcome, reciprocal contribution to someone else's thread. I feel guilty that I only tend my own garden, in my thread Solving Climate Change - and wanted to give a little back, and so I'm at a loss to understand your hostility. Tell me, is your hostility directed toward me personally, or toward the ideas I expressed? And why?
Instead of acting like an easily offended snowflake, how about just attempting to have a philosophical discussion? What did you propose as an example?
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Belinda »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:17 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:59 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:14 pm

Per Virtuvius, the nest-building example he gave isn't an example or moral behavior, though. Claiming that it would be an example of moral behavior would be another issue.

What would you give as an example of instinctive behavior, behavior that doesn't involve consciousness/conscious decision/making, that you'd say is moral behavior?

I think moral behaviour is part of cultural behaviour and insofar as nest building among birds is cultural(i.e. learned) it is not instinctive. I'm not a zoologist.However I do know that among dogs the mother dog teaches her puppies stuff that they learn from her learned i.e. it's not instinctive.This is why responsible breeders don't separate mother and pups too soon. I got my puppy at 12 weeks as I was really keen the mother had socialised it.

I don't include 'instinctive' behaviour with moral behaviour at all. Instinctive, to me, means e.g. spinal reflexes, sexual orgasms, changing position to a more comfortable position,voiding faeces and urine when the urge happens, drinking when thirsty, flinching from pain or fear, and eating when hungry. Moral behaviour is learned from others.
Would you say that moral behavior can occur even though consciousness and/or conscious decisions do not?
No I'd not say so , because conscious intention is a requisite for a behavior to be morally correct. This however is the ethic of my own culture which is broadly Judeo-Christian.

I think the OT God in His early form went through a stage of its not mattering whether or not a behaviour was intended for it to be morally correct. What mattered to the earlier version of God was that a behaviour was done or not done, as in The Ten Commandments. Jahweh was a bit like a modern behaviourist. I also understand that the OT Prophets changed the idea of morally correct to include intentions, and this tradition carried on into the ethics of Jesus of Nazareth.

N.B. for God please read personification and mythologising of the moral code that is embedded in the culture in question.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 4:43 pm Are you really asking me to speculate on what other people believe?
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:45 pmNo. It's a way of asking you if anyone expressed that they don't believe that evolution can produce complex behaviors, or if you have any good reason to believe that anyone would say this (based on other things they've said, etc.)
Then are you saying you accept that evolution can produce complex behaviors- with the appearance of cognition; because if so, why do you think morality is not - what I would describe as behaviourally intelligent in origin?

The only argument I've been offered is that morality requires choices and therefore consciousness, but I do not think that accounts for the facts, for moral behaviour of sorts is exhibited by our cousins 5 million years removed, and must necessarily have pertained for our ancestors to survive that 5 million years, and raise young generation after generation. It was a moral creature that then developed abstract human intelligence, and sought to articulate the moral sense ingrained into them by evolution. That's what I think, and I can speak to that view. I responded to the OP - so I'm not really up to date with what anyone else thinks. (You can't mean anyone... ever, can you?)

Yes, I told you. Then I told you again, and again, and still you are apparently unable to understand - what I assumed would be a welcome, reciprocal contribution to someone else's thread. I feel guilty that I only tend my own garden, in my thread Solving Climate Change - and wanted to give a little back, and so I'm at a loss to understand your hostility. Tell me, is your hostility directed toward me personally, or toward the ideas I expressed? And why?
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:45 pmInstead of acting like an easily offended snowflake, how about just attempting to have a philosophical discussion? What did you propose as an example?
You have made that offer before, and yet here we are.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:56 pm
Then are you saying you accept that evolution can produce complex behaviors- with the appearance of cognition;
Yes, of course.
because if so, why do you think morality is not - what I would describe as behaviourally intelligent in origin?
Maybe you mean something by "behaviorally intelligent" that I wouldn't mean, but I'm not saying anything in the vein of "morality isn't behavior that indicates intelligence."
The only argument I've been offered is that morality requires choices and therefore consciousness, but I do not think that accounts for the facts, for moral behaviour of sorts is exhibited by our cousins 5 million years removed, and must necessarily have pertained for our ancestors to survive that 5 million years, and raise young generation after generation.
So you're arguing that (a) our ancestral "cousins" 5 million years ago engaged in moral beavior, but (b) those ancestral cousins were not conscious, or at least weren't capable of making conscious decisions about behavioral options?
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:56 pm
Then are you saying you accept that evolution can produce complex behaviors- with the appearance of cognition;
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:38 pm Yes, of course.
because if so, why do you think morality is not - what I would describe as behaviourally intelligent in origin?
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:38 pmMaybe you mean something by "behaviorally intelligent" that I wouldn't mean, but I'm not saying anything in the vein of "morality isn't behavior that indicates intelligence."

Briefly, in my view, there are three kinds of "intelligence" that arise from the relation between the organism and causal reality in evolution. Physiological, behavioural and intellectual intelligence. Only human beings have intellectual intelligence. From the structure of DNA - the organism must necessarily evolve physiologically, to be correct to causal reality - or die out. Then, when animals became capable of behaviours, their behaviours were tested by evolution, function or die - and had to be correct to reality, or die out. This is why birds build nests before they lay eggs. And the same is true of intellectual intelligence; we must be correct to reality or will surely perish.

Morality is behaviourally intelligent; it is present long before intellectual intelligence occurs in humans.
The only argument I've been offered is that morality requires choices and therefore consciousness, but I do not think that accounts for the facts, for moral behaviour of sorts is exhibited by our cousins 5 million years removed, and must necessarily have pertained for our ancestors to survive that 5 million years, and raise young generation after generation.
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:38 pmSo you're arguing that (a) our ancestral "cousins" 5 million years ago engaged in moral beavior, but (b) those ancestral cousins were not conscious, or at least weren't capable of making conscious decisions about behavioral options?
It devolves to the question of what you mean by conscious; so I'll tell you what I mean. I don't doubt that chimpanzees are conscious in some regard. But if the characteristic relevant to morality is the conscious deliberation of choices, chimpanzees are not capable of that. The unique characteristic of human thought is the ability to think in highly abstract terms, such as to see a tool, rather than simply a branch. Conscious deliberation of choices cannot occur except in human beings - who can envisage, in abstract terms, imagine and compare the likely outcome of different choices. Yet moral behaviours are exhibited by animals who's ability to think in abstract terms, we know - is severely limited. So conscious deliberation cannot be the source or nature of morality.

The occurrence of human intellectual awareness can be seen in the archaeological record, and is related to a creative explosion; a point in time when the archaeological record shows, our ancestors suddenly began burying their dead, improving their tools, painting cave art, making jewellery and so on - indicating an entirely different psychological state to the same basic stone hand axe produced in much the same way for a million years previously. This is when moral behaviour takes on a conscious (intellectually intelligent) dimension.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Sculptor »

RogerSH wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:41 pm I am puzzled that so many writers assume – usually with no attempt at justification – that moral responsibility has something to do with determinism, or more specifically with being an “ultimate cause”. What makes this puzzling is that it seems to be almost universally accepted in common usage that the possibility of being morally responsible is confined to conscious beings. An earthquake, for example, may be “responsible” (in another sense) for much suffering, but (aside from animism) the earth is never held responsible in a moral sense. So a sound theory of moral responsibility has to be founded on the role of consciousness.
A similar objection can be rendered from your method too.
You statement is just question begging. Responsibility does not arise from consciousness, since consciousness is not an end point or starting point. Consciosusness is just a conduit to a muliplicity of causality. A single isolated consciousness could not possibly have any thoughts about moral responsibility. QED it does not arise from consciousness in any meaningful way.
I saw a documentary about Pompeii last night in which the narrator told of people who had returned to Pompeii between eruptions erroneously thnking that it was all over, subsequently dying. She described this as a "deception" imparting Vesuvius with a consciousness. What it was, in fact was a delusion on the part of the people. Here we have an example of a consciousness- Margaret Mede the narrator attributing morality where none should exist.
It is highly likely that the Pompeians thought that Vesuvius was in fact deceiving them, another case of consciousness attributing morality where none exists.
So whilst it is clear that morality or a sense of it is a attribute of consicousness I have to say that our entire conception of all aspects of reality are also consciousness based. And so this seems to leave your assertion as an empty platitude.

Like everything else humans do morality requires consciousness. I might also like to add that it requires conscience too. It might be better to start from that point?
But conscience is also just another conduit in a long and complex chain of causality for which there are not simple "ultimate" termini.
It is also worth pointing out that possession of consciousness does not necessarily provide a conscience. There is a clear body of evidence that a significant percentage of people have psychopathic tendancies and can only understand moral ideas intellecually and fail to grasp their emotional significance.
Consciousness is a necessary but not sufficient cause of morality, and is derived from the interacions of humans living with other humans.


How would that work? Firstly, let us clear up an obvious source of confusion here, because “responsibility” is used in two different senses, a binary (yes/no) sense and a sense that is a matter of degree. For convenience I will confine the term “responsibility” to the former sense, and refer to the “how much?” sense as "culpability" (or “praiseworthiness” as the case may be). The courts have long distinguished between the verdict and the sentence, so philosophers should have no problem distinguishing the fact of responsibility for a bad act, from the degree of culpability for it. A person may be clearly responsible for an act but with such strong mitigating circumstances that they can hardly be regarded as culpable.

Initially, the fact of responsibility has to be defined in the first person, since that is where consciousness is first identified. If I am conscious of choosing an act, from among other acts that would be possible given that I chose them, then I have a relationship to that act, and that is the relationship that we call “responsibility”. So networks of causes do not have to be traced back any further than the point at which consciousness of this relationship entered into the process by which the act was chosen.

Once we have a concept of moral responsibility in the first-person, the third-person meaning can be derived from it, by virtue of our ability to recognize and thus to identify with consciousness in others. I hold another person responsible for an act if I believe that he chose it while conscious that he was making a choice.

So now let us briefly look at “culpability”: the fact of responsibility but with mitigation taken into account. Without going into further detail, we can acknowledge that mitigation typically stems from any of three things: lack of competence to make the choice, psychological pressures of many kinds, and genuine repentance. What is relevant here is that all of these involve consciousness. If we could read a perpetrator’s mind perfectly, there would be no need to enquire further. However, psychological identification is not the same as being psychologically identical: I can mentally step into another’s shoes, but not see life through her eyes, so to speak. Hence we have to use proxies to provide pointers to the relevant features of another person’s mind, namely the objective circumstances which gave rise to her conscious experience. Nothing in this, however, provides any grounds for metaphysical enquiries into original causation or the like.

This is necessarily an extremely compressed account of the theory I am advocating: for example, the social construction of responsibility has to be added to the picture. (Chapter 8 of my e-book “New Thoughts on Free Will” provides a more comprehensive account.)
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:52 am Briefly, in my view, there are three kinds of "intelligence" that arise from the relation between the organism and causal reality in evolution. Physiological, behavioural and intellectual intelligence. Only human beings have intellectual intelligence. From the structure of DNA - the organism must necessarily evolve physiologically, to be correct to causal reality - or die out. Then, when animals became capable of behaviours, their behaviours were tested by evolution, function or die - and had to be correct to reality, or die out. This is why birds build nests before they lay eggs. And the same is true of intellectual intelligence; we must be correct to reality or will surely perish.

Morality is behaviourally intelligent; it is present long before intellectual intelligence occurs in humans . . .

It devolves to the question of what you mean by conscious; so I'll tell you what I mean. I don't doubt that chimpanzees are conscious in some regard. But if the characteristic relevant to morality is the conscious deliberation of choices, chimpanzees are not capable of that. The unique characteristic of human thought is the ability to think in highly abstract terms, such as to see a tool, rather than simply a branch. Conscious deliberation of choices cannot occur except in human beings - who can envisage, in abstract terms, imagine and compare the likely outcome of different choices. Yet moral behaviours are exhibited by animals who's ability to think in abstract terms, we know - is severely limited. So conscious deliberation cannot be the source or nature of morality.

The occurrence of human intellectual awareness can be seen in the archaeological record, and is related to a creative explosion; a point in time when the archaeological record shows, our ancestors suddenly began burying their dead, improving their tools, painting cave art, making jewellery and so on - indicating an entirely different psychological state to the same basic stone hand axe produced in much the same way for a million years previously. This is when moral behaviour takes on a conscious (intellectually intelligent) dimension.
Are you a follower of Julian Jaynes, by the way? I haven't run into one of those for a long time (well, at least not where someone said they were a follower of Jaynes).

At any rate, rather than getting into a debate at the moment about whether (or rather whether we can know whether) chimps are capable of choices and so on, could you give me an example of a behavior that you take to be moral but that doesn't involve conscious decision-making in your view?
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:52 am Briefly, in my view, there are three kinds of "intelligence" that arise from the relation between the organism and causal reality in evolution. Physiological, behavioural and intellectual intelligence. Only human beings have intellectual intelligence. From the structure of DNA - the organism must necessarily evolve physiologically, to be correct to causal reality - or die out. Then, when animals became capable of behaviours, their behaviours were tested by evolution, function or die - and had to be correct to reality, or die out. This is why birds build nests before they lay eggs. And the same is true of intellectual intelligence; we must be correct to reality or will surely perish.

Morality is behaviourally intelligent; it is present long before intellectual intelligence occurs in humans . . .

It devolves to the question of what you mean by conscious; so I'll tell you what I mean. I don't doubt that chimpanzees are conscious in some regard. But if the characteristic relevant to morality is the conscious deliberation of choices, chimpanzees are not capable of that. The unique characteristic of human thought is the ability to think in highly abstract terms, such as to see a tool, rather than simply a branch. Conscious deliberation of choices cannot occur except in human beings - who can envisage, in abstract terms, imagine and compare the likely outcome of different choices. Yet moral behaviours are exhibited by animals who's ability to think in abstract terms, we know - is severely limited. So conscious deliberation cannot be the source or nature of morality.

The occurrence of human intellectual awareness can be seen in the archaeological record, and is related to a creative explosion; a point in time when the archaeological record shows, our ancestors suddenly began burying their dead, improving their tools, painting cave art, making jewellery and so on - indicating an entirely different psychological state to the same basic stone hand axe produced in much the same way for a million years previously. This is when moral behaviour takes on a conscious (intellectually intelligent) dimension.
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 1:06 pmAre you a follower of Julian Jaynes, by the way? I haven't run into one of those for a long time (well, at least not where someone said they were a follower of Jaynes).
Not really, no. I've encountered the idea of the bicameral mind, but names tend to escape me. And I don't have the particular fascination with the problem of consciousness Jaynes has. Indeed, I point to levels of intelligence - physiological, behavioural and intellectual intelligence, rather than conceive of organisms as either conscious, or an automaton.
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 1:06 pmAt any rate, rather than getting into a debate at the moment about whether (or rather whether we can know whether) chimps are capable of choices and so on, could you give me an example of a behavior that you take to be moral but that doesn't involve conscious decision-making in your view?
If you could provide a definition of what you mean by conscious, maybe. I don't deny that chimps are "conscious" - whatever that means, but they do not have the abstract intellectual intelligence necessary to contemplate moral choices - neither in an idealist way, nor consequentialist way. Just as a bird could not reasonably be thought to consciously anticipate egg laying; yet build's a nest in apparent anticipation - so too can moral behaviour occur without conscious knowledge of why it occurs. You ask that I provide "an example of a behaviour" but thus miss the point that a moral dimension is implied by the structural relations of the kinship tribe in the struggle to survive; food sharing, grooming, mutual defence, the hunter/gatherer division of labour, childcare responsibilities etc, are the behaviourally intelligent substance of morality.

Thus 'conscious decision making' is the wrong question, or an unanswerable one. We can know what degree of abstract deliberation various animals are, in theory - capable of giving moral questions, and only human intelligence has that highly abstract conceptual manipulation thing going on, that makes us capable of moral deliberation. Yet behaviours with a moral dimension occur long before. So it follows, as night follows day that morality is the intellectual articulation of what occurs at the behaviourally intelligent level, as a psychological pre-disposition, a sensitivity to moral implication we then struggle intellectually, to understand and define.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:31 pm If you could provide a definition of what you mean by conscious, maybe. I don't deny that chimps are "conscious" - whatever that means, but they do not have the abstract intellectual intelligence necessary to contemplate moral choices - neither in an idealist way, nor consequentialist way. Just as a bird could not reasonably be thought to consciously anticipate egg laying; yet build's a nest in apparent anticipation - so too can moral behaviour occur without conscious knowledge of why it occurs. You ask that I provide "an example of a behaviour" but thus miss the point that a moral dimension is implied by the structural relations of the kinship tribe in the struggle to survive; food sharing, grooming, mutual defence, the hunter/gatherer division of labour, childcare responsibilities etc, are the behaviourally intelligent substance of morality.

Thus 'conscious decision making' is the wrong question, or an unanswerable one. We can know what degree of abstract deliberation various animals are, in theory - capable of giving moral questions, and only human intelligence has that highly abstract conceptual manipulation thing going on, that makes us capable of moral deliberation. Yet behaviours with a moral dimension occur long before. So it follows, as night follows day that morality is the intellectual articulation of what occurs at the behaviourally intelligent level, as a psychological pre-disposition, a sensitivity to moral implication we then struggle intellectually, to understand and define.
I don't want you to give me an example under how I define consciousness. I want you to give me an example under how you define consciousness. You're making a claim that moral behavior is possible sans conscious decision-making. If you're making that claim, surely you have some way that you define all of those terms, and you have some examples in mind, no?
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:31 pm If you could provide a definition of what you mean by conscious, maybe. I don't deny that chimps are "conscious" - whatever that means, but they do not have the abstract intellectual intelligence necessary to contemplate moral choices - neither in an idealist way, nor consequentialist way. Just as a bird could not reasonably be thought to consciously anticipate egg laying; yet build's a nest in apparent anticipation - so too can moral behaviour occur without conscious knowledge of why it occurs. You ask that I provide "an example of a behaviour" but thus miss the point that a moral dimension is implied by the structural relations of the kinship tribe in the struggle to survive; food sharing, grooming, mutual defence, the hunter/gatherer division of labour, childcare responsibilities etc, are the behaviourally intelligent substance of morality.

Thus 'conscious decision making' is the wrong question, or an unanswerable one. We can know what degree of abstract deliberation various animals are, in theory - capable of giving moral questions, and only human intelligence has that highly abstract conceptual manipulation thing going on, that makes us capable of moral deliberation. Yet behaviours with a moral dimension occur long before. So it follows, as night follows day that morality is the intellectual articulation of what occurs at the behaviourally intelligent level, as a psychological pre-disposition, a sensitivity to moral implication we then struggle intellectually, to understand and define.
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:29 pmI don't want you to give me an example under how I define consciousness. I want you to give me an example under how you define consciousness. You're making a claim that moral behavior is possible sans conscious decision-making. If you're making that claim, surely you have some way that you define all of those terms, and you have some examples in mind, no?
I've answered that question. That's literally what my post was about. I don't centralise consciousness, however defined. I see organisms evolving, tested at every level by evolution, and those able to survive to breed then pass on their characteristics to subsequent generations. Characteristics that prove a survival advantage are promoted, and a sensitivity to moral implication was one such characteristic. Then intellectual intelligence occurred, and reflected upon the pre-existing moral dimension. The problem with centralising "consciousness" is that many would argue all sorts of animals are conscious in some regard, and I'm inclined to agree. The qualitative difference is human intellectual intelligence.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:03 pm I've answered that question.
You didn't, though. You gave an example of birds building nests. I asked if you considered that moral behavior and you said "No."

I want an example of something that you do consider moral behavior.

And it shouldn't be this ridiculously difficult to try to get you to give a simple, single example of something you're claiming can obtain, by the way. That makes it seem like you're not being entirely honest here, or like you're making this up on the fly or something. We shouldn't have to go back and forth 30 times where I need to keep trying to make explicit exactly what I'm requesting.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:03 pm I've answered that question.
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:23 pmYou didn't, though. You gave an example of birds building nests. I asked if you considered that moral behavior and you said "No."

I want an example of something that you do consider moral behavior.

And it shouldn't be this ridiculously difficult to try to get you to give a simple, single example of something you're claiming can obtain, by the way. That makes it seem like you're not being entirely honest here, or like you're making this up on the fly or something. We shouldn't have to go back and forth 30 times where I need to keep trying to make explicit exactly what I'm requesting.
No, it shouldn't but it is - and all the difficulty is being had by you, and catered to by me. So, where's this debate you offered? You said there would be debate - there's no debate.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:03 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:03 pm I've answered that question.
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:23 pmYou didn't, though. You gave an example of birds building nests. I asked if you considered that moral behavior and you said "No."

I want an example of something that you do consider moral behavior.

And it shouldn't be this ridiculously difficult to try to get you to give a simple, single example of something you're claiming can obtain, by the way. That makes it seem like you're not being entirely honest here, or like you're making this up on the fly or something. We shouldn't have to go back and forth 30 times where I need to keep trying to make explicit exactly what I'm requesting.
No, it shouldn't but it is - and all the difficulty is being had by you, and catered to by me. So, where's this debate you offered? You said there would be debate - there's no debate.
Right, so if you're not ever going to give an example, I'm putting you on ignore. You're wasting my time and proving yourself to have that stereotypical personality where you'll never pony up (but you'll continue to respond indefinitely anyway).
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Advocate »

[quote=RogerSH post_id=524056 time=1629312084 user_id=21734]
[/quote]

We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. The concept of responsibility is only meaningful to the extent we can foresee the outcome as causally related to an act.
Post Reply