How much of the fondness for Damane is genuine?

[EmperorAllspice]

No. I'm not. I'm merely saying that by THEIR standards. The standards their society has lived with for years, they consider chanelers too dangerous to be allowed to roam free. By their standards the emotions they feel as a result of actions taken because of that belief are genuine and real.

[Hagazussa]

The difference, of course, being that your feelings for your cat are entirely appropriate to that kind of entity, where the sul'dam's similar feelings for damane are not appropriate to the kind of life a damane is, but in fact demean them.

 

I did not say their feelings where appropriate, I said their feelings where real. I mean there is allot of feelings that are not appropriate, that do not make them less really felt.

 

The whole "is a slave a slave if he doesn't know that he's enslaved?" thing except in this case it's more "is a slave being demeaned if the slave is both willing and totally agrees that being demeaned is how they should be treated?"

 

I think that if a person is completely willing to be a slave then that is not demeaning no, and perhaps there is like you say some damane who start of as willing, being afraid of what they are and they might have happy lives in the a'dam and good for them, but for most they do not start out willing. I mean even one of the sul'dam in the books comment how it is more difficult to train mainland damane yes, but that even if the Empire there was usually crying and tears and shock at having failed those tests. Like Suttree say, damane is taken from their families, their name is taken from them, their histories and they are brainwashed and conditioned to behave and think more like children, they are not just seen as slaves, they are seen as sub human. Now since I am strange I do think that for some living as a sub human pet might be a good life, but that do not mean it is a good life for most.

 

Also let us say a young girl in Seanchan discover she can move things with her mind so she realize she must be a channeler, this girl then having been told that her kind is evil and can not be trusted with their power her entire life go and give herself up to the nearest sul'dam, could you really be saying she is willing when everything she know about the situation is based on fear and propaganda? Also most female sparkers awaken to their ability in their teens, some are as old as their early twenties but some are as young as twelve, can a young, scared teenager really be said to be able to make such a choice for themselves, to be slaves and treated as an child or an animal for the rest of their lives, to be used by others at will and will they disobey in the slightest to be beaten or even tortured by a magickal device that can give them any pain their controller desires? Even if a scared young girl do surrender to a sul'dam, can she really be said to understand the situation well enough to truly be willing?

 

Also let us look at one of the damane in the books, let us look at Mylen. Now when Sheraine Caminelle was first captured by the Seanchan she refused to cooperate electing instead to try to starve herself to death, you can only imagine what kind of beatings and other punishments she endured as well for not cooperating, that she is eventually then broken by Tuon and made into an obedient damane who even refuse to escape when she have the chance, who act like a child and appear to be the happiest thing in the world do not mean she is willing to be in that situation, she have been broken and brainwashed and yes that is as demeaning as if she had been miserable, in fact it is more. You have this proud, strong woman who fought back against her captors, who refused to cooperate despite beatings and punishments and wanted to starve herself to death rather than be a slave, that this woman is then made into a docile damane who want nothing more than to serve is worse than if she had been horrified at it, for it means she had lost everything she fought for.

 

Yes, that's why slavery is a violation of basic human rights in the first place.

 

There are no human rights in WoT. I am not saying that slavery is good here, but I am saying that the human rights is not some sort of natural law like gravity, it is a document signet by a bunch of nations in our time and our world and would not be applicable other places, or in a fantasy universe.

 

Not only do people not have the right to treat other people as property, people don't have the right to treat themselves as property.  Damane who voluntarily subjugate themselves demean themselves.

 

Respectfully I could not disagree with you more. I think that any human being have the right to make decisions for their lives, even when those decisions are something that others might see as harmful. Now like I said above I do not think most damane, even those who come to their captivity willingly have the ability to make an informed decision about it and then yes it is horrible. However if someone, in this situation in the WoT world or any other setting or even in real life wanted slavery, and yes some do, and make an informed decision about it I do not think anyone have the right to say no you do not have the right to make that decision about your own body, mind and well being as it is wrong in my eyes. I feel that everyone should have total freedom to do with their own lives as they please as long as it do not harm anyone else, meaning that if someone truly want to be a slave then there is nothing wrong with being one, just like if someone truly want to play Russian rullet and they make an informed decision about it no one have the right to sit and judge what is good and what is bad for another person. The one thing I do agree with you on however is that no one should have the right to keep another as a slave unless the enslaved person is willing and in the case of damane, the wast majority is not as they have been brainwashed.

 

No. I'm not. I'm merely saying that by THEIR standards. The standards their society has lived with for years, they consider chanelers too dangerous to be allowed to roam free. By their standards the emotions they feel as a result of actions taken because of that belief are genuine and real.

 

Good point.

[Mr Ares]

 

Yes, that's why slavery is a violation of basic human rights in the first place.

There are no human rights in WoT. I am not saying that slavery is good here, but I am saying that the human rights is not some sort of natural law like gravity, it is a document signet by a bunch of nations in our time and our world and would not be applicable other places, or in a fantasy universe.

Actually, human rights are commonly understood as natural rights. Yes, they can also exist as legal rights, but them being one sort of right does not preclude them being the other sort as well.

[Hagazussa]

Actually, human rights are commonly understood as natural rights. Yes, they can also exist as legal rights, but them being one sort of right does not preclude them being the other sort as well.

 

The problem with this is that I do not think one group of people can sit and decide this is the rights of all human beings past, future and present and then judge let us say ancient Romans on principles they where never a part of forming. Now I agree with the human rights, I think they are a good concept and that every nation in the world should adhere to them, but at the same time I do not think they are a universal concept that apply to all places and times including fictional universes where they have never been formulated or agreed to.

[Thrasymachus]

Respectfully I could not disagree with you more. I think that any human being have the right to make decisions for their lives

That's precisely the reason they cannot choose to be slaves without demeaning themselves.  They are using their capacity to decide to deny their capacity to decide, and transfer that responsibility to someone else.  Choosing to be a slave also harms others, not just one's self.  Specifically, it harms the person who would own you.  It makes him into the kind of person who owns people.  It foists your responsibility for your personal decisions off on him.  And it gives incentives to him to make immoral decisions on your behalf as a practical response to alleviate that burden.

 

And actually, human beings have been investigating and discovering some things about universal morality for a long time now.  A bit more than 200 years ago, a guy proved that universal morality was possible based on the existence of free will.  He also proved that we each have no choice but to consider ourselves the kinds of free wills he was talking about, regardless of what we think about physical determinism or cultural norms.  He failed to prove that we should choose to be moral, but then, that's no surprise as it would have involved circular reasoning.  But then, intentionally choosing to be immoral amounts to intentionally being nonsensical, and that, well, doesn't make any sense.  And he built most all of his demonstration out of ideas that were circulating for centuries before that.

[Hagazussa]

That's precisely the reason they cannot choose to be slaves without demeaning themselves.  They are using their capacity to decide to deny their capacity to decide, and transfer that responsibility to someone else.

 

If one is going to have true freedom, one have to have the freedom to do anything with one's life, including giving it up or giving up freedom. If someone truly want to be a slave, then it would demean a person's individual rights to choose for themselves far more to deny them to give up their freedom than for them to do it. Is it freedom if rights you do not want is forced on you?

 

Choosing to be a slave also harms others, not just one's self.  Specifically, it harms the person who would own you.  It makes him into the kind of person who owns people.  It foists your responsibility for your personal decisions off on him.  And it gives incentives to him to make immoral decisions on your behalf as a practical response to alleviate that burden.

 

I disagree with this strongly. It is not slavery in an off itself which is immoral, thee is nothing immortal in owning a willing slave, it is taking someone against their will which is wrong. If a person truly want to be a slave and give their individual rights up to another, that demean no one, it is making a choice, it do not demean the one that would then own said willing slave as he or she do nothing against anyone who have not consented to it. If one is going to have freedom one have to have the right to give that freedom up, or it is not freedom, just as if one is going to have full ownership of one's life one have to have the right to set oneself in danger or even die. I discussed with someone on another forum a little while ago whatever or not I think Russian rullet should be legal and I say yes it should, personally I think it is absolutely stupid to play with one's life like that, but as long as no one is forced into anything I do not think anyone have the right to say what another person can or can not do with their lives.

 

I do not mean to be rude here but your comment above seam a bit like protecting people from themselves which is something I am completely against, also I do not think it is right to sit and say what would demean others. It is like with prostitution, yes for those who do not want to be in that situation it is horrible and they definitely should be helped out of it, but there are also many who like working as prostitutes and who are proud of their jobs and they also tend to get it thrown at them from well meaning people that poor you, you demean yourself, we should have laws preventing you from doing what we feel is wrong for you. I instead think that as long as everyone involved are willing and consenting and have been given the chance to make an informed decision then no one have a right to judge that decision no matter what it is as long as it do not harm others.

 

And actually, human beings have been investigating and discovering some things about universal morality for a long time now.  A bit more than 200 years ago, a guy proved that universal morality was possible based on the existence of free will.  He also proved that we each have no choice but to consider ourselves the kinds of free wills he was talking about, regardless of what we think about physical determinism or cultural norms.

 

So we should have free will, but only be free to choose what the norm consider to be good life choices? There is nothing proven about a universal morality, yes many have written about it and there are quite a few theories out there, but the fact remain that other than a very few points various cultures have had various views on what is moral and what is not. You know I get this allot since me and my hubby is a part of the poly culture, as in we are open for having more than one partner in our relationship. Constantly we are told about how demeaning and horribly immoral it would be if I or my hubby found another partner and we all had a relationship together, and I reply to those that say so, who do we hurt? I do not believe in a universal morality, but if there is one it is about harming others, doing things that the wast majority consider to be bad for you do not harm anyone but possibly yourself and as such is not immoral.

 

He failed to prove that we should choose to be moral, but then, that's no surprise as it would have involved circular reasoning.  But then, intentionally choosing to be immoral amounts to intentionally being nonsensical, and that, well, doesn't make any sense.  And he built most all of his demonstration out of ideas that were circulating for centuries before that.

 

What would be immoral about saying I want to be a slave, I have taken an informed decision that I as an individual want this for myself, such a decision do not harm anyone as as such is not immoral.

 

Now perhaps we should move this debate into the off topic section as we have sort of moved away from discussing the relationship between sul'dam and damane and into a debate about personal freedom, morality and what that means which is a bit of a derailing of the thread. It is an interesting topic though.

[Mr Ares]

 

Actually, human rights are commonly understood as natural rights. Yes, they can also exist as legal rights, but them being one sort of right does not preclude them being the other sort as well.

 

The problem with this is that I do not think one group of people can sit and decide this is the rights of all human beings past, future and present and then judge let us say ancient Romans on principles they where never a part of forming. Now I agree with the human rights, I think they are a good concept and that every nation in the world should adhere to them, but at the same time I do not think they are a universal concept that apply to all places and times including fictional universes where they have never been formulated or agreed to.

A group does not have to be a part of forming natural rights for them to apply. It's like saying that 1+1=2 doesn't apply to some cultures. If right and wrong do not exist outside the minds of individuals then nothing I ever do is wrong.

[Thrasymachus]

You're basically arguing that nothing anybody does to themselves for any reason can be wrong, as long as it's not "hurting" anybody else.  That teenager that cuts himself as an expression of his angst, that's not bad or wrong.  The rape victim who turns to promiscuity and meaningless sex in a vague subconscious attempt to desensitize herself to her trauma, that's not the wrong choice for her to make.  And that slavery can be not just an acceptable condition, but in certain circumstances, the best possible choice.  I don't think you really understand what it means for a will to be free.  It doesn't mean they can act with fewer restrictions on their possible actions, it means they have more restrictions.  The lion is not morally troubled by his treatment of the gazelle.  But we impose on ourselves the requirement to minimize as much as practicable the pain and suffering of the cattle we eat.  The lion is not free.  We are.  Do you see the difference?

[Hagazussa]

A group does not have to be a part of forming natural rights for them to apply. It's like saying that 1+1=2 doesn't apply to some cultures. If right and wrong do not exist outside the minds of individuals then nothing I ever do is wrong.

 

I do not think right and wrong exist outside of individuals and individual societies, right and wrong, good and evil are concepts of the mind, they are not universal truths, we as human beings created these concepts, they exist only as long as we believe in them, and as such in a society that do not believe in them they do not apply. Now off course things you do can be wrong, it can be wrong to your personal morality, and the morality of your society, but I do not think that anything is universally wrong.

 

You're basically arguing that nothing anybody does to themselves for any reason can be wrong, as long as it's not "hurting" anybody else.

 

I am saying that nothing someone do to themselves as long as it do not harm anybody else is morally wrong, that do not make harming oneself for example a good thing in my eyes, but it is not something morality wrong that society have a right to condemn.

 

That teenager that cuts himself as an expression of his angst, that's not bad or wrong.  The rape victim who turns to promiscuity and meaningless sex in a vague subconscious attempt to desensitize herself to her trauma, that's not the wrong choice for her to make.

 

What I separate between is a bad choice, and a morally wrong choice. Yes I do not think a teenager should cut themselves, I think it would be better for any who have such desires to seek psychiatric help, the same for a rape victim that do things that harm herself to deal with what she have been through, but that do not mean I think these things are morally wrong. I think that everyone have a right to do with their lives as they want, and no once have the right to judge what another person do with themselves as long as it do not harm others, now one can advice, think some choices are stupid or wish they did not make choices that is bad for them, but ultimately as long as a person is of a sane mind and adult enough to choose for themselves, then their choices, even when harmful ones is not morally wrong.

 

And that slavery can be not just an acceptable condition, but in certain circumstances, the best possible choice.

 

I think that if a person want slavery, I am not saying that anyone would, but if they do want it off their own free will then it is nothing wrong with it, I am however saying that to make someone a slave against their will is wrong in a million different ways according to my personal morality.

 

I don't think you really understand what it means for a will to be free.  It doesn't mean they can act with fewer restrictions on their possible actions, it means they have more restrictions.

 

So being free in your mind is being restricted? I respectfully think you misunderstand the difference between restriction and responsibility. To have free will mean to be completely free to act according to one's will and choices but at the same time accept fully the consequences of said choices. Free will is not to follow the pre set assumptions of others as to what is right or wrong and what one should do or should not do, but to form one's own opinion on the matter and act in accordance with those opinions, and then accept the consequences for those choices good or bad.

 

The lion is not morally troubled by his treatment of the gazelle.  But we impose on ourselves the requirement to minimize as much as practicable the pain and suffering of the cattle we eat.  The lion is not free.  We are.  Do you see the difference?

 

The treatment of what we eat have nothing to do with freedom, it have to do with kindness. How we treat others, animals or other human beings are not a factor in whatever or not we are free, freedom is about the ability to think and act for ourselves and be responsible for our actions. Now don't get me wrong, I think kindness is a wonderful quality that I applaud, but it's presence or absence have nothing to do with freedom. I think again that you misunderstand the difference between moral awareness and freedom. To be one self and live in accordance to one's nature and in accordance with one's own will that is freedom, and as such a lion is usually far more free then most human beings.

 

Now when it comes to the treatment of cattle, most Western nations have standards for how food animals is to be killed, but often the laws concerning how they are kept are rather lacking so how kind humans are with our food animals, that vary allot. Also if I had to choose I would rather be a gazelle free to run with my pack and live a life of freedom on the great plains and then meet my ends at the jaws of a lion then to be a cow that spend my life in a tiny space before I am shipped on in a trailer where I stand like fish in a barrel with other cows and then be shot in the head, even if that death might be a little less painful, I would rather have a painful death after a full life than a painless death after a life in captivity.

[Thrasymachus]

I'll simply repeat that you are demonstrating very well here that you don't understand what free will or morality really means.  When you do understand it, you'll understand why writing down "3" as a response to the question "What's 1 plus 1?" is actually the same kind of error as murdering your spouse when you catch them sleeping around on you.  They're both normative errors.  Freedom is what makes the recognition of norms possible.  It doesn't do anything at all to the capacities to act.  Those are still limited by physics, chemistry and biology.

[Hagazussa]

I'll simply repeat that you are demonstrating very well here that you don't understand what free will or morality really means.

 

And I would say the same about you. You mix morality and free will into a mess that really say nothing. Free will and morality have nothing to do with one another, they are two different concepts.

 

When you do understand it, you'll understand why writing down "3" as a response to the question "What's 1 plus 1?" is actually the same kind of error as murdering your spouse when you catch them sleeping around on you.

 

Actually no it is not the same kind of error, making a logical and mathematical error is not the same as going against one's morality and committing murder. Morality is not a simple thing that can be quantified as easily as you seam to think. Also again this have nothing to do with free will, it have to do with the concept of morality and the two are different concepts, one can be the most immoral bastard in the world and have free will, the only link between free will and morality is that one can use one's free will to choose what morality one want to follow.

 

They're both normative errors.  Freedom is what makes the recognition of norms possible.

 

No intelligence is.

 

It doesn't do anything at all to the capacities to act.  Those are still limited by physics, chemistry and biology.

 

True, one can be prevented from acting on one's own free will that do not prevent one from having that freedom. Free will is the ability to think for one self and make decisions for oneself regardless of the influence of others, including concepts such as morality, unless one choose to let these concepts affect one's decisions.

[Thrasymachus]

Are you kidding me?  Free will and morality are intimately linked.  Things without free will cannot be moral or immoral.  Free will is the source of morality.  There's no such thing as "choosing to do good."  Every choice you make that you freely decide to do you believe to be the right choice when you make it.  Every time.  If you didn't, you wouldn't freely decide to do it.  But what you believe and what is true are two different things.  Even when they're about what you believe to be right.

 

Tell me, what makes logical norms, "A implies B, A, therefore B" any different from moral norms?  They're both taught to you by other people.  They both guide your behavior.  If you violate either of them, you're wrong.  People regularly get both of them wrong, often in predictable ways.  When we get them wrong, and we acknowledge they're are wrong, we look for factors that hinder our abilities to freely choose.  We point to overriding passion, temporary irritation, or unfamiliarity with the rules to explain our inability in that case to make the right choice.  And unless I'm mistaken, you are perfectly free to say "3" in response to someone asking you what 1 + 1 is.  You just don't because you believe that to be wrong.

 

And you'll have to explain to me what you mean by intelligence.  Computers are much more intelligent than human beings in some ways.  They can certainly calculate and do logic much faster than we can.  And we're now able to put together enough memory to dwarf the memory capacity of the human brain, bit for bit.  But they don't recognize norms.  They follow them because they're programmed to.  They're not free.

[Hagazussa]

Are you kidding me?  Free will and morality are intimately linked.  Things without free will cannot be moral or immoral.  Free will is the source of morality.

 

Off course things without free will can not be moral or immoral, the problem here is that you think it work the other way as well, that one can not have free will unless one is moral which is wrong. Free will allow us to choose morality, but morality is not needed to have free will. It is like this, you need intellect to make tools, but you do not need tools to have intellect. Also the moral system someone chooses with their free will, might not be the same as the one you choose with yours, there is no universal morality, good and evil, right and wrong is made up concepts that beings with free will can choose to adhere to or not, and one do not have any less free will if one choses another set of morals than the ones you have decided are right for you.

 

There's no such thing as "choosing to do good."  Every choice you make that you freely decide to do you believe to be the right choice when you make it.  Every time.  If you didn't, you wouldn't freely decide to do it.

 

So you are seriously claiming that a person can not choose to go against their morals, if they do then it is not free will, so if I choose to visit my old family friend in the nursing home and bring her flowers that is free will, but if I choose to hit someone in the face it is not? Then tell me, if only in you opinion good choices are driven by free will, how do a person decide to do evil? I have made many choices in my life that I have known to be the wrong choices when I make them, but I have still done those things as I either wanted to or because I felt they where the best possible choice at the time. Free will include the option to choose to do bad.

 

But what you believe and what is true are two different things.  Even when they're about what you believe to be right.

 

Yes that is correct, however to be correct is not needed in order to have free will. Also in many cases there is no direct right or wrong. I mean look at the question about gay marriage, many Christians feel it is immoral, as someone who is bisexual I feel that they are wrong, however in moral discussions like that it is not so easy to sit and say I am right and you are wrong, for it really all boil down to opinion. The world is not black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, it is a million shades of gray in between those extremes.

 

Tell me, what makes logical norms, "A implies B, A, therefore B" any different from moral norms?  They're both taught to you by other people.  They both guide your behavior.  If you violate either of them, you're wrong.

 

And here is the fundamental part where we disagree. I think that you should not accept morality given to you by others, you should use your free will and shape and form your own. You assume that there is an ultimate right and and ultimate wrong, I say there is no such thing, only opinion and the concepts our intellect forms. I say we as individuals decide what is right and wrong for ourselves, not others around us, or ultimately right and wrong are just concepts, and they are concepts we have to choose to adhere to or not.

 

People regularly get both of them wrong, often in predictable ways.  When we get them wrong, and we acknowledge they're are wrong, we look for factors that hinder our abilities to freely choose.  We point to overriding passion, temporary irritation, or unfamiliarity with the rules to explain our inability in that case to make the right choice.  And unless I'm mistaken, you are perfectly free to say "3" in response to someone asking you what 1 + 1 is.  You just don't because you believe that to be wrong.

 

Oh I say 3 in response to the question of what is one plus one quite often when I discuss the more esoteric concepts of the nature of reality with other occultists, doing so in this debate however serves no purpose therefore I choose not to do so, whatever or not it is wrong have nothing to do it it, it would not serve my purpose to do such a thing. I am sitting in the sofa and eating a bag of popcorn, should I do that`No I am overweight I should eat something healthy that would be best for me, but I choose to eat the popcorn since it is my will to do so. Now yes sometimes passion, ignorance strong desires and so on influence or actions for good or ill, and part of our jobs as human beings is to identify these factors that influence us but also to accept them, for they are part of being human, and even if one react in passion one do still act with will, one do not however usually act with to much consideration and intellect.

 

And you'll have to explain to me what you mean by intelligence.  Computers are much more intelligent than human beings in some ways.  They can certainly calculate and do logic much faster than we can.  And we're now able to put together enough memory to dwarf the memory capacity of the human brain, bit for bit.  But they don't recognize norms.  They follow them because they're programmed to.  They're not free.

 

You have your own answer, computers have intellect but no will since they only do what they are programmed to do, they can not deviate from this so they do not have free will, we as human beings can deviate from what we are told, what we have learned and what outside stimuli tell us, we can use our intellect to guide our decisions, but we have free will to decide for ourselves, human beings have intellect with will, a computer have intellect, or at least some kinds of intellect, but not consciousness and not will.

[Mr Ares]

 

A group does not have to be a part of forming natural rights for them to apply. It's like saying that 1+1=2 doesn't apply to some cultures. If right and wrong do not exist outside the minds of individuals then nothing I ever do is wrong.

 

I do not think right and wrong exist outside of individuals and individual societies, right and wrong, good and evil are concepts of the mind, they are not universal truths, we as human beings created these concepts, they exist only as long as we believe in them, and as such in a society that do not believe in them they do not apply. Now off course things you do can be wrong, it can be wrong to your personal morality, and the morality of your society, but I do not think that anything is universally wrong.

What society chooses to accept as "right" or "wrong" is meaningless. It's arbitrary, often vaguely defined, and is frequently nonsensical. My own feelings are that I cannot be wrong, and therefore no course of action that I take can be the wrong one. If my actions have no inherent wrongness, then they are not wrong. If no morality exists outside my own mind, then my actions can contain no inherent wrongness. Therefore, anything I choose to do is justified.

[Hagazussa]

What society chooses to accept as "right" or "wrong" is meaningless. It's arbitrary, often vaguely defined, and is frequently nonsensical. My own feelings are that I cannot be wrong, and therefore no course of action that I take can be the wrong one. If my actions have no inherent wrongness, then they are not wrong. If no morality exists outside my own mind, then my actions can contain no inherent wrongness. Therefore, anything I choose to do is justified.

 

This is not the personal morality I would have chosen but if it is right for you I see no problem with it as long as the things you choose to do is not wrong according to my own morality and affect me or others, then we might have a problem, not because your actions are evil or wrong according to some universal concept of good and evil, but because your will have imposed itself on my will and I personally have a problem with that, if that do not happen however do enjoy.

[Thrasymachus]

This is not the personal morality I would have chosen but if it is right for you I see no problem with it as long as the things you choose to do is not wrong according to my own morality and affect me or others, then we might have a problem, not because your actions are evil or wrong according to some universal concept of good and evil, but because your will have imposed itself on my will and I personally have a problem with that, if that do not happen however do enjoy.

Boom.  Right there, you defeat your own moral relativism.  Our free wills are massively limited already, just by being stuck in these fleshy shells.  The highest crime, the objective wrong, is the imposition of one will upon another, the free choosing to further limit the free, beyond what we're stuck with of necessity.  The idea of it is a contradiction, and the consequences of it are always harm.

 

 

So you are seriously claiming that a person can not choose to go against their morals, if they do then it is not free will, so if I choose to visit my old family friend in the nursing home and bring her flowers that is free will, but if I choose to hit someone in the face it is not? Then tell me, if only in you opinion good choices are driven by free will, how do a person decide to do evil? I have made many choices in my life that I have known to be the wrong choices when I make them, but I have still done those things as I either wanted to or because I felt they where the best possible choice at the time. Free will include the option to choose to do bad.

I am seriously claiming that a person cannot freely choose to do what they believe to be wrong if they really believe it to be wrong at the time they do it.  If you hit someone in the face, and you recognize later that it was wrong, don't you try to explain why you mistakenly believed it to be right in the moment you hit him?  Don't you say something like, "I was just so mad, I couldn't think straight."  Doesn't that pretty strongly imply that if you could "think straight," you wouldn't have chosen to hit the guy?  Isn't "thinking straight" an important per-requisite to being able to act freely, that is, without being coerced, befuddled or constrained?

 

Nobody decides to do what they believe to be evil.  Evil happens because what people believe is wrong, especially what they believe about what's right and wrong.  When you did what you now acknowledge to be wrong, you justified it to yourself at the time as really, secretly being the right thing to do, in this special case.  You explained away the things that made it wrong and over accentuated the good aspects in order to justify yourself to do it.  And you may not have had much confidence in your beliefs when you were acting, you may have recognized the risk at the time that what you were doing would turn out to be wrong, but you still held out a hope that you'd really turn out to be right.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have done it.  And when you make what you believe is the "best possible choice at the time," that's exactly what the right thing to do is.  It has to be possible to be right, if it's possible to be moral.

[Hagazussa]

Boom.  Right there, you defeat your own moral relativism.  Our free wills are massively limited already, just by being stuck in these fleshy shells.

 

Really and how are my moral relativism defeated by my above statement? Now having limitations on body and physical condition do not limit free will, it can limit our ability to act on said will, but it do not limit the will itself.

 

The highest crime, the objective wrong, is the imposition of one will upon another, the free choosing to further limit the free, beyond what we're stuck with of necessity.  The idea of it is a contradiction, and the consequences of it are always harm.

 

First of all here you are wrong according to your own moral system, you say the highest crime is to force one's will upon another, but that is what you do when you say someone can not be allowed to choose to be a slave if they want to simply because against your moral system. That being said, no the highest wrong is not to impose one's will on another, there is no universal highest wrong, it is wrong in my moral system, but it might not be in yours, there is no contradiction, only a limit in either your ability to understand or my ability to explain.

 

I am seriously claiming that a person cannot freely choose to do what they believe to be wrong if they really believe it to be wrong at the time they do it.  If you hit someone in the face, and you recognize later that it was wrong, don't you try to explain why you mistakenly believed it to be right in the moment you hit him?

 

First off all people do wrong that they know is wrong according to their own morals all the times, the husband who cheats on his wife just because he want to, falling for the temptation to download a movie you want to see on pirate bay even if you are against piracy and so on. Yes many justify immoral actions to themselves, but there is no universal law that say all do. Very many do not. Also no, if I hit someone in the face and I did so by a mistake then I would not try to explain it past it being a mistake based on wrong information or other factors, and if I did it knowing it was wrong then certainly there would be no need for explanations. You seam to mix together the tendency for human beings to justify their actions with it being some sort of universal rule that we all do, and are incapable of going against our morals unless some justification is present, which is a just plain a wrong assumption.

 

Don't you say something like, "I was just so mad, I couldn't think straight."  Doesn't that pretty strongly imply that if you could "think straight," you wouldn't have chosen to hit the guy?  Isn't "thinking straight" an important per-requisite to being able to act freely, that is, without being coerced, befuddled or constrained?

 

If I hit someone because I could not think straight then that would be the reason for my action, that do not mean someone can not just decide to do wrong. Now thinking straight is not needed to make an action based on will, your will is always there, you will to hit the other person, what you lack when you make such a decision in anger or confusion is good judgment and the calm to make an informed decision, but it still your will to hit the man, though Aleister Crowley might argue you are not using your true will if influenced by emotion, but off course that is another debate entirely.

 

Nobody decides to do what they believe to be evil.

 

First of all to answer this we need to clarify what the term evil is to mean for this debate for it is a rather fuzzy concept, but as a base comment I do not agree with you here, many choose to do what go against their moral system, knowing full well that it go against said morals.

 

Evil happens because what people believe is wrong, especially what they believe about what's right and wrong.

 

So you are saying no one ever cheat on their spouse, ever take a life or ever steal knowing it is wrong according to their moral system? I think there is plenty of evidence in all from interviews with criminals one can read to the impulses we all deal with every day to prove that statement to be false.

 

When you did what you now acknowledge to be wrong, you justified it to yourself at the time as really, secretly being the right thing to do, in this special case.

 

Very often people justify their actions to themselves, but very often do not make it a universal, unbreakable law. I know I have done things knowing they where wrong according to my morals and doing it anyway with no justification and many people do this, you have taken something that is often done and made it into a universal law and that just do not work.

 

You explained away the things that made it wrong and over accentuated the good aspects in order to justify yourself to do it.  And you may not have had much confidence in your beliefs when you were acting, you may have recognized the risk at the time that what you were doing would turn out to be wrong, but you still held out a hope that you'd really turn out to be right.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have done it.  And when you make what you believe is the "best possible choice at the time," that's exactly what the right thing to do is.  It has to be possible to be right, if it's possible to be moral.

 

No this is just plain incorrect, yes this is a common reaction, but not a universal one. Many people act on things they know is wrong for the simple reason that they will it. I am a honest person but when I was a little girl I stole a toy from a toy shop for example, knowing full well it was wrong and with no justification, I wanted the toy and I took it. Later I regretted my action and went back to the shop and paid for the toy, but that is beside the point, I acted wrong, knowing it was wrong as people often do.

[Thrasymachus]

One of the things people often believe incorrectly about right and wrong is that if they don't get caught, or if there are no bad consequences for their actions, then they aren't wrong.  That's what the cheating spouse, and the repentant thief, or even the cold-blooded murderer, usually think about their actions when they do them.  They think that their personal satisfaction trumps other considerations, and knowing that other people aren't going to agree with that.

 

When you hit that guy in passionate rage, you certainly willed to hit him, but you didn't freely will it.  Your freedom to recognize and make the right choice was hindered by your passion.

 

Willing is more than just wanting, it involves positive steps undertaken to bring what you will into being.  Willing is not a feature of planning, it is a feature of enacting plans.  Willing is choosing, and choosing is behaving in the way of what is chosen.  Wanting and wishing isn't choosing.  Acting is choosing.

 

If you believe that we can freely choose, the the possibility of objective morality is a demonstrable truth.  And if you believe that objective morality is possible, then it is literally nonsensical to freely, fully intentionally choose in contravention to it.  You contradict yourself if you try.  If you believe that objective morality is not possible, then you cannot believe that we can freely choose.  And that makes everything pointless.

[Barid Bel Medar]

While it has been facinating to read this discourse, it has gotten well off topic. Let's get back to the topic at hand, feel free to create a thread about morality and freedom in the General Discussion forums. 

[Hagazussa]

Sorry for going off topic Barid.

 

Thrasymachus, would you like to continue the debate in the off topic section, if so could you make a thread and just send me a PM about it? And if not then I thank you for the debate, it have been interesting.