Sense and Goodness without Carrier

[ignorantianescia]

Since there is often interest on this board in topics that combine ethics, science and free will, I thought some might enjoy this link.

It is a response by the atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci to Carrier's scientistic argument that rational, universal and cogent ethics exist in this allegedly physically determinist world. He disagrees with Carrier on several points, but I expect most would find this the most interesting part (beside his low esteem of Carrier):

Moreover — and this is a point that provides me with constant amusement — if one really thinks that human actions are rigidly determined from the conditions that obtained at the Big Bang (which, unless I seriously misread him, is what Carrier is implying) then there is no coherent sense in which it is worth having any discussion at all about what is right or wrong: we will do whatever we are destined to do (I guess including the writing of pretentious philosophical posts and sarcastic responses!) and that’s the end of the matter. That, of course, is why I prefer to entirely sidestep the so-called free will debate and assume that human beings have a capacity of volition — we can make autonomous (which of course doesn’t mean a-causal) decisions. Otherwise, any talk of morality is empty gibberish.

I suppose the caveat in the first can be safely expanded, not only including rigid determination, but also not fully determinable probabilistic causes.

Anyway, it seems like Pigliucci has exposed several flaws in Carrier's syllogism.

[unkleE]

Nevertheless, I wonder how Pigliucci believes the ability to make autonomous decisions arises in a naturalistic world? Or is he simply a compatibilist who re-defines free will to make determinism seem like it is autonomous? I read his discussion with interest, but I don't think he dealt with this - but that may be because i don't understand all the terms used in moral philosophy.

[ignorantianescia]

Dec 15, 2013 1:57:28 GMT unkleE said:

Nevertheless, I wonder how Pigliucci believes the ability to make autonomous decisions arises in a naturalistic world? Or is he simply a compatibilist who re-defines free will to make determinism seem like it is autonomous? I read his discussion with interest, but I don't think he dealt with this - but that may be because i don't understand all the terms used in moral philosophy.

He mentions that he doesn't want to address the free-will debate, but believes that humans are capable of volition as a result of emergence at some point in evolution. So he doesn't really delve into the "how". He thinks a rejection of determinism is crucial for ethics to be possible (and that seems on the mark).

[evangelion]

Dec 15, 2013 13:03:52 GMT ignorantianescia said:

He thinks a rejection of determinism is crucial for ethics to be possible

I totally agree with that. Morality is meaningless in the absence of autonomy.

[ignorantianescia]

Yup, it is hard to see how anybody could be culpable of any misdeed without free will. We might as well try automata then.

Richard Carrier obviously thinks differently, as he resumes, after spelling out his syllogism, in the following manner:

It might not be immediately obvious how the conclusion (item 5) follows necessarily from those premises (items 1-4), but it does. I think it should be evident to any observer of just this list of propositions, who thinks about it carefully enough. But I formally prove it (by deductive logical syllogism) in a chapter on this topic that was peer reviewed by four professors of philosophy: Richard Carrier, “Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could Find Them),” in The End of Christianity (ed. John Loftus; Prometheus Books 2011), pp. 333-64, 420-29. That should be required reading for anyone who wants to challenge this conclusion (for even more of my discussion of this thesis, in print and online, see the links provided in my article on Shermer vs. Pigliucci).

freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4498

One of his premises includes physical determinism. So I am afraid we have no choice but plodding through his book.

[unkleE]

Dec 15, 2013 19:02:07 GMT ignorantianescia said:

One of his premises includes physical determinism. So I am afraid we have no choice but plodding through his book.

Thanks for the link. I looked it up, and immediately it came on screen, a new window appeared over the top saying: "Please consider keeping your Mac free of rubbish." It then advertised some "MacCleaner" product. Does it know something I don't know?