Question for atheists - is there such thing as moral responsibility?

[Willamena]

My question addresses mostly to atheists but anyone is welcomed to respond.

Is there such thing as moral responsibility or we can talk only about a social one?

Why am I raising such a question? Because any given action a person makes is an outcome of complex factors that can not be imputed. For example you can not blame one for his genes, intelligence and the fact that he was beaten by an alcoholic father when he was a child. All these could have contributed to his decisions.
Yeah, I kind of say free will is just an illusion.

In other words, if you were Hitler, you would have done the exact same thing. The fact that you have the same moustache and also speak German does not put you in a position to say you would have done differently because your transpose is incomplete.

I am not talking about actions and their moral values, but about persons and their moral responsibility (being held accountable or blamed).

So, if the factors that lead to a specific decision can not be imputed, can we still talk about one's moral responsibility?

As David Hume demonstrated 400 years ago, fatalism is an illusion that doesn't represent nature. That you do one thing one way one time does not guarantee that you will do the same in the same way another time. There are no true certainties. The need for a moral model is not diminished by nature.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

My question addresses mostly to atheists but anyone is welcomed to respond.

Is there such thing as moral responsibility or we can talk only about a social one?

Perhaps we should talk about ethics?

Why am I raising such a question? Because any given action a person makes is an outcome of complex factors that can not be imputed.

I don't accept that premise. Some factors might certainly be beyond a person's control, but it doesn't follow that all of the factors are beyond a person's control.

For example you can not blame one for his genes, intelligence and the fact that he was beaten by an alcoholic father when he was a child. All these could have contributed to his decisions.

While it is true that one cannot be held accountable for one's genetic makeup, that doesn't absolve someone from systematically planning to invade Poland in an act of open aggression.

Yeah, I kind of say free will is just an illusion.

It certainly doesn't dovetail neatly with theistic claims of divine omnipotence, does it?

In other words, if you were Hitler, you would have done the exact same thing.

No. I'd have opened a modest little bookstore / cafe ("Mein Kaffee") and quietly faded into obscurity.

The fact that you have the same moustache and also speak German does not put you in a position to say you would have done differently because your transpose is incomplete.

That's a rather incoherent statement. Could you rephrase that?

And unless you can demonstrate that facial hair is somehow relevant to outcomes (six million Jews died because Hitler grew a mustache?), there's no need to worry so much about such a non-factor next time.

I am not talking about actions and their moral values, but about persons and their moral responsibility (being held accountable or blamed).

So, if the factors that lead to a specific decision can not be imputed, can we still talk about one's moral responsibility?

I think we can (although I still prefer to frame the discussion in terms of ethics and not morals).

I think that we can expect the vast majority of normal people (irrespective of hypothetical facial hair or their linguistic background) to understand that their actions have consequences. Not being culpable for our genetics or IQ in no way absolves us from having to bear responsibility for our actions.

 

[Sunstone]

If free will is an illusion, then how could anyone be truly responsible for their conduct, moral or otherwise? Theism or atheism would be beside the point.

If free will is an illusion, then it is an illusion regardless of whether or not it upsets us and our moral apple carts that it's an illusion.

 

[LuisDantas]

If free will is an illusion, then how could anyone be truly responsible for their conduct, moral or otherwise? Theism or atheism would be beside the point.

By my perspective, we can never be truly responsible. Not as individual people, at least.

Instead, we have to pay attention to the ebbs and flows of our possibilities of choice and learn to take the best possible advantage of those. Our responsibility exists and it may even be widened by one willing, fortunate and skillful enough to find or create the proper circunstances. But it is ever limited by the degree to which our environment decides to indulge our desires. There is, of course, some degree of reciprocal feedback, although it can be rather frustratingly low.

 

[Parsimony]

If free will is an illusion, then it is an illusion regardless of whether or not it upsets us and our moral apple carts that it's an illusion.

I agree. I never said otherwise.

By my perspective, we can never be truly responsible. Not as individual people, at least.

Instead, we have to pay attention to the ebbs and flows of our possibilities of choice and learn to take the best possible advantage of those. Our responsibility exists and it may even be widened by one willing, fortunate and skillful enough to find or create the proper circunstances. But it is ever limited by the degree to which our environment decides to indulge our desires. There is, of course, some degree of reciprocal feedback, although it can be rather frustratingly low.

I suppose if one wishes to define responsibility in a certain way, that could work. Though it would be a subjective responsibility and not an objective one.

I suppose my main point is that the existence of free will is a question that is not necessarily tied to theism. A deity could create people who have no free will. Alternatively, free will could potentially exist without a deity.

 

[LuisDantas]

How could free will exist? With or without a deity?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, but that fact that you are aware of the wrong and right and the law is not the result of free will. It's only your brain and life experience. It just couldn't have happened otherwise. That doesn't make you neither culpable nor virtuous (not the right word but I hope you get the idea).

Your more recent posts were interesting, and I kinda got a better understanding of the point you are making.
You're right in so far as my lack of ignorance of the law, etc are the result of my life experience, and it doesn't make me either morally superior, nor morally inferior.

For me, unlike some who have posted in here, I am not a determinist. I think from a practical point of view, even if ultimately it's not technically correct, we should allow for the concept of free will in our thoughts, and in our decisions. I can go into that in much more detail, but it would probably be a sidetrack.
In terms of moral responsibility, all people on earth have morals, in my opinion. Their history forms these, although I honestly believe there is an element of self-direction as well. But regardless, they then need to determine their actions in relation to these moral beliefs. There is no single objective morality to measure people against, and taking the appropriate 'moral' action is commonly measuring various moral beliefs against each other.

For example, caring for my child versus not stealing.

So, to your ISIS example. Socially, they're responsible for their actions. Morally...meh...their morals are their own, and buggered if I could make sense of them. It is why, though, I am a firm believer in sharing of ideas freely. The social model they are locked into inhibits learning and development. Their morals are skewed (sure, that's a value judgement, and not objective, I readily admit) and the mechanisms for improving that moral view are retarded. So perhaps they're not morally responsible. At the end of the day that would actually make little difference to the nature of their crimes in my head.

What it might impact is how best to disarm them.

 

[Caligula]

As David Hume demonstrated 400 years ago, fatalism is an illusion that doesn't represent nature. That you do one thing one way one time does not guarantee that you will do the same in the same way another time. There are no true certainties. The need for a moral model is not diminished by nature.

I'm not an adept of fatalism either. Randomness is what easily dismantles it
IMO there are two kinds of randomness, each of them being enough to disprove it:

1) an apparent/illusory randomness: the flip of a coin is an act of apparent randomness as the outcome is dependent of a lot of natural factors. In theory, one would be able to elaborate a function that would describe the event and predict the outcome. It would/should take into account factors such as: density of the coin, dimension, air humidity, velocity of the throw, the exact place where the nail hits the coin, the angle at which the coins falls, the surface on which it falls etc.. The simple fact that the outcome is humanly unknown (yet) is not a sufficient condition for it to be absolutely random. Most of what we consider random has its place here, in the illusory sphere.
I consider this to be against the fatalism proposal because the factors that can alter the outcome are insignificant compared to the potential importance of the outcome. An extremely small crack in the pavement could alter the outcome of a coin flip. This model does not totally eliminate the fatalism proposal but it makes it less probable.
If one shows interest in the matter I could elaborate.

2) absolute randomness: the one that comes to my mind right now is the randomness produced by a computer. If the program/software is correctly made then I fail to think of a factor that could alter the outcome. Doesn't matter who runs the program, what's the temperature etc.. Every time you would run the program, no matter if the context is identical, the outcome could differ. So, imagine if such a program would decide who would win a contest, for example. Of course, there are many other instances where a computer randomly generated event/outcome alters the nature. It's an obvious case of ...hole in the pattern. But I doubt the computer idea was extremely popular in the eighteen century.

The moral responsibility theme, on the other hand is a bit different from fatalism. Deciding to mass murder Jews, for example, is less likely to be the result of insignificant or random factors and is more likely to be influenced by major physical characteristics and social context that can not be blamed on the one put to the moral trial.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not an adept of fatalism either. Randomness is what easily dismantles it
IMO there are two kinds of randomness, each of them being enough to disprove it:

1) an apparent/illusory randomness: the flip of a coin is an act of apparent randomness as the outcome is dependent of a lot of natural factors. In theory, one would be able to elaborate a function that would describe the event and predict the outcome. It would/should take into account factors such as: density of the coin, dimension, air humidity, velocity of the throw, the exact place where the nail hits the coin, the angle at which the coins falls, the surface on which it falls etc.. The simple fact that the outcome is humanly unknown (yet) is not a sufficient condition for it to be absolutely random. Most of what we consider random has its place here, in the illusory sphere.

I consider this to be against the fatalism proposal because the factors that can alter the outcome are insignificant compared to the potential importance of the outcome. An extremely small crack in the pavement could alter the outcome of a coin flip. This model does not totally eliminate the fatalism proposal but it makes it less probable.
If one shows interest in the matter I could elaborate.

2) absolute randomness: the one that comes to my mind right now is the randomness produced by a computer. If the program/software is correctly made then I fail to think of a factor that could alter the outcome. Doesn't matter who runs the program, what's the temperature etc.. Every time you would run the program, no matter if the context is identical, the outcome could differ. So, imagine if such a program would decide who would win a contest, for example. Of course, there are many other instances where a computer randomly generated event/outcome alters the nature. It's an obvious case of ...hole in the pattern. But I doubt the computer idea was extremely popular in the eighteen century.

The moral responsibility theme, on the other hand is a bit different from fatalism. Deciding to mass murder Jews, for example, is less likely to be the result of insignificant or random factors and is more likely to be influenced by major physical characteristics and social context that can not be blamed on the one put to the moral trial.

Fatalism is seen in the idea that there is a set cause for every effect or set of effects.

I believe that the implication that if we only had complete knowledge we could predict all outcomes is unrealisitic, because there is no such complete world to know, just the probabilities and uncertainties of possible outcomes that we already live with daily. The world is the world we know.

 

[Nakosis]

My question addresses mostly to atheists but anyone is welcomed to respond.

Is there such thing as moral responsibility or we can talk only about a social one?


So, if the factors that lead to a specific decision can not be imputed, can we still talk about one's moral responsibility?

I hold myself accountable to my morals. That means I take responsibility for the decisions I make that are based on my morals. If my decisions cause unintentional harm, I'm likely to alter my morals so the unintentional harm is not further caused.

I don't impute anyone else according to my morals. I assume they have their own reasons for their actions. However I respond to their actions according to my morals. That response is still accountable to my morals, not theirs.

 

[Parsimony]

How could free will exist? With or without a deity?

That's a question that confounds me to this day. However, I don't rule it out just because I don't currently understand how it could be.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's a question that confounds me to this day. However, I don't rule it out just because I don't currently understand how it could be.

Is there a reason not to simply discard the concept entirely? It has never had a clear or consistent meaning, after all.

 

[Bunyip]

My question addresses mostly to atheists but anyone is welcomed to respond.

Is there such thing as moral responsibility or we can talk only about a social one?

Why am I raising such a question? Because any given action a person makes is an outcome of complex factors that can not be imputed. For example you can not blame one for his genes, intelligence and the fact that he was beaten by an alcoholic father when he was a child. All these could have contributed to his decisions.
Yeah, I kind of say free will is just an illusion.

In other words, if you were Hitler, you would have done the exact same thing. The fact that you have the same moustache and also speak German does not put you in a position to say you would have done differently because your transpose is incomplete.

I am not talking about actions and their moral values, but about persons and their moral responsibility (being held accountable or blamed).

So, if the factors that lead to a specific decision can not be imputed, can we still talk about one's moral responsibility?

I would think yes. We have a moral responsibility towards our families, our community, our society, our planet etc.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

2) absolute randomness: the one that comes to my mind right now is the randomness produced by a computer. If the program/software is correctly made then I fail to think of a factor that could alter the outcome. Doesn't matter who runs the program, what's the temperature etc.. Every time you would run the program, no matter if the context is identical, the outcome could differ. So, imagine if such a program would decide who would win a contest, for example. Of course, there are many other instances where a computer randomly generated event/outcome alters the nature. It's an obvious case of ...hole in the pattern. But I doubt the computer idea was extremely popular in the eighteen century.

Sorry, not sure what your tech background is, but thought I'd briefly address this particular point. Random numbers generated by computers are not (technically) random. The use calculations which are unpredictable enough to appear random, commonly based on the system clock (down to the microsecond).
Therefore, they would fall more into the illusory category, rather than absolute randomness.

Happy for anyone to tell me I'm wrong, but any sort of truly random number generation from a computer is a holy grail, as far as I know.

 

[Parsimony]

Is there a reason not to simply discard the concept entirely? It has never had a clear or consistent meaning, after all.

An interesting point. Another problem I'm wrestling with when it comes to the idea of reward and punishment in the afterlife.

 

[LuisDantas]

An interesting point. Another problem I'm wrestling with when it comes to the idea of reward and punishment in the afterlife.

I have come to the conclusion that it is best to avoid thinking about afterlives entirely. The concept is often disastrous.

 

[Caligula]

OK, I've been enlighten. I found out the name of my "disease" and a post with which I agree 100%. I am a so called determinist .
Here's where the discussion should continue: A challenge to show me wrong | ReligiousForums.com

Thanks for all the replies!