Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!nsc!pyramid!decwrl!spar!baba
From: baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy vs Rosenism (Materialist Moral Philosophy)
Message-ID: <572@spar.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 22:23:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.572
Posted: Mon Oct  7 22:23:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Oct-85 08:28:56 EDT
References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> <1510@pyuxd.UUCP>
Lines: 53

s of one's physical
3>make-up:  choosing not to sin despite the physical desire to do so.  Can you
3>act contrary to your physical make-up without an external agent to do so for
3>you INDEPENDENT of your make-up? [Rich Rosen]
> 
>> The concept of "free will" in moral philosophy can still be accommodated in 
>> a materialist universe.  For instance, one can view it as an assumption of
>> the primacy of internal state relative to external stimuli in determining 
>> behavior.  "Sin" can be attached to an individual whose internal state leads 
>> to "wrong" actions, while an individual performing the same actions
>> unknowingly and unthinkingly (i.e. independently of such internal state)
>> might not be "sinning". [Baba]
> 
> Oh, great, so now a person's internal state, which comes from the wide variety
> of things many of which are beyond his/her control, if it leads them to
> do "wrong", makes them a sinner!  I cannot express in words my revulsion to
> such a philosophy, that people who do "wrong" because of what their brains
> have come to be are "sinners" (and thus, I assume, "worthy" of some form
> of punishment either from a deity or from human beings in power).  I know
> certain people hold this philosophy near and dear to their hearts, but I think
> this just goes to show that this is an example of building a system of
> thought where you can take credit for whatever good happens to you while
> blaming others for their "evil".  Work backwards from the goal of blaming
> people and being able to punish them for being "bad", and you get this.
> [Rosen]

First of all, it was Rich who introduced the term "sin" to the debate.
Since his reaction was rather predictably based on emotion rather than
on reason, I suppose I should have used a nice, irreligious word like
"responsibility".  It ought not to matter, but I forget who I'm dealing
with sometimes.  

I probably also have to make it explicit that I am talking about *possible* 
moral systems based on hypothetical axioms, not my own convictions.  Anyone 
incapable of arguing positions outside his own belief system has no business 
in net.philosophy anyway.

In this materialist universe, we have no ghosts in our machines, but the
human machines continue to program themselves and one another nonetheless.
Nothing too paradoxical about that, though it leads through a mire of
self-reference jokes.  This programming takes many forms, including
reward, advice, admonition, and punishment.  Unacceptable (to parent, 
social unit, or other programming entity) behavior requires reprogramming
only if the behavior arose from the programming (internal mental state)
of the individual automaton.  Unnecessary reprogramming, as most usenetters
know, is itself a source of error.  The notion of *volition*, the isolation 
of the effects of the self/program on the actions of an individual from
the effects of the environment/data, is thus critical to the programming
process.  The boundary between the two might well be the limit of program
self-awareness, even though that presents a moving target.  But then,
I never said materialist moral philosophy was going to be easy.

					Baba