Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Right, Wrong, Choice and Blame

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Right, Wrong, Choice and Blame

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Before I start this thread, I would like to make the readers aware of a few things. First of all, this thread is concept and as such is going to be quite difficult to continue if we concern ourselves, too much, with symantics. As such, I am going to state something simple. If you want to understand my words, go to the dictionary and get the literal meaning. Ignore the current social impact or colloquialisms and refrain from adding invisible adjectives and descriptors. These are not needed. I am also going to state right now that I do not care what Descarte or Kant or Pascal or anyone else states about these ideas. I know what they said but I do not like discussios based off of a book written by someone else. If I want a history lesson, I'll read a book. You cannot live out of a book so I want to know what YOU think about this and do not want things cluttered with quotes and paraphrases. If you cannot get a point across without quoting then you need to evaluate your concept to determine if it is truly yours or just a very persuasive idea.

Now that I have laid out the ground rules. Let's get going!

I have, for a long time, determined that every action taken by a human being is a matter of choice. Even events beyond your control required an initial choice to put you in that situation. I also determined that choice and result is the exact same thing as cause and effect. You make a choice with a certain number of criteria (whether consciously or not) and you predict an outcome. This is not always the outcome which occurs. Just like any experiment, every choice we make could produce unexpected results. As such, it would stand to reason that our emotions are also controlled by choice. Not necessarily a choice of action but a choice of perspective. How you understand a situation determines how you feel about it. This is true for all events in life from dealing with the death of a loved one to getting a promotion at your job to getting a flat tire.

As this has been my way of thinking for a very long time, I find it very difficult to make judgments about people seeing as I don't know the full aspect of what choices and results (causes and effects) led them to that action in their life. I will also state that I do not believe in right and wrong. I see these as additives to a simple forumla. You see, right and wrong are all a matter of perspective just as your emotional state. You take an action, you get a result. The result may vary from the predicted outcome but you can learn a lesson from it and that is what matters. Right and wrong clutter things up with emotions that are not necessary. When you remove right and wrong, you get a much clearer picture that is not subject to your view of the situation but provides a more general understanding of the events.

As for blame/fault. Fault and blame are just like right and wrong. It all depends on your perspective. If you make a choice to do something and the resulting action hurts someone this could cause retaliation (assuming they blame you). To blame them for retaliating simply produces a cycle. You felt that you were right and that they were wrong and they feel the same, therefore you blame each other for escalating tension and aggression. In reality, blame exists only in the self and in the mind. If you do not blame someone then there is no need for retaliation. Perspective is everything and you choose how to perceive events so long as you can keep basic control over your own mind. There are always more than 3 ways to look at a situation and always more time than you think to consider options. What I mean by this is that your brain processes information much faster than you allow it to. This is true for everyone. As we try to apply information. classification and a million other attributes to an action or events, we slow our ability to comprehend the entirety of what is gong on and this limits our ability to respond in a rational and truly personal way.

So what happens if we remove these judgments and replace them with broadened understanding of concepts? I have been trying this for awhile now and I am not saying that it is easy to do. I often get frustrated and upset and sad and happy. But I am learning that, while these emotions are completely necessary, they are also completely under my control so long as I have the will to excersize that control over my self.

I want to know what arguments you have and I would like to discuss them keeping in mind the rules above.

@Icon,

What motivates choice?

@Icon,

I don't know for sure but I would assume it is the same thing which motivates thought.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

What motivates choice?

I would say necessity and taste.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

What motivates choice?

Assumption or memory?

@Icon,

Hey Icon,

Icon wrote:

So what happens if we remove these judgments and replace them with broadened understanding of concepts?

Looks like an awesome discussion topic and I'm hoping to understand the quoted question a little better. You mind a quick clarification here?

The judgments you're referring to in your question; are you talking about the judgment one makes towards something being 'right' or 'wrong'? In other words, trying to get past judgments of rightness and wrongness towards this broadened understanding?

THanks

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I would say necessity and taste.

For my argument from here on out these three words must be understood: agency, action, and choice.

Agency is the ability to understand one's environment, make choices based upon this understand, and act to change one's environment or situation. In this sense, choice is the mental process of weighing and selecting potential options, action will be the external extension of choice through purposeful behavior.

Now, that can be disputed, but I take it to be fairly standard.

With that said,

Theaetetus wrote:

I would say necessity and taste.

Not all choices or actions are motivated by necessity, and what do you mean by taste?

Joe wrote:

Assumption or memory?

Explain.

Quote:

I don't know for sure but I would assume it is the same thing which motivates thought.

Let me reword. When one chooses, how does one choose? Why does one choose?

@Mr Fight the Power,

Joe wrote:

Assumption or memory?

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Explain.

I guess we have Biological instinct. I'm wondering how influential memory has on choice. Also the assumption and expectation of a result based on memory of facts,experience, and memory perception. If critical thought is how the mind processes memory and new information to process the choice, I guess I would say that memory is the important driving force in choice.

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

I guess we have Biological instinct. I'm wondering how influential memory has on choice. Also the assumption and expectation of a result based on memory of facts,experience, and memory perception. If critical thought is how the mind processes memory and new information to process the choice, I guess I would say that memory is the important driving force in choice.

Doubtless memory has an effect on how we determine the effects of our actions on the world.

But no matter how we perceive the world and no matter what expectations we have for our possible actions, it gives us no perspective for comparison. If we only had our reason and senses, we would have no motivation, as we would know what we could do, but we would not prefer any of the possibilities.

For us to choose, for us to act, for us to have agency, we must first have passions (sorry Icon, that's Hume, but nobody has their own ideas). We must have those values, that emotional content prior to the choice. Reason does not create our values; it cannot oppose our values.

Icon is wrong. We cannot choose without the preexisting emotional content.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Doubtless memory has an effect on how we determine the effects of our actions on the world.

But no matter how we perceive the world and no matter what expectations we have for our possible actions, it gives us no perspective for comparison. If we only had our reason and senses, we would have no motivation, as we would know what we could do, but we would not prefer any of the possibilities.

For us to choose, for us to act, for us to have agency, we must first have passions (sorry Icon, that's Hume, but nobody has their own ideas). We must have those values, that emotional content prior to the choice. Reason does not create our values; it cannot oppose our values.

Icon is wrong. We cannot choose without the preexisting emotional content.

I agree for the most part. As far as that Initial "spark" goes, thats seems to be a very metaphysical area. Hard to say exactly what it "is". But yeah, I think that there ultimately has to be the consciousness area that extends into the five senses. Also, that clouded are between chemical energy and consciousness.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Hey Icon,

Looks like an awesome discussion topic and I'm hoping to understand the quoted question a little better. You mind a quick clarification here?

The judgments you're referring to in your question; are you talking about the judgment one makes towards something being 'right' or 'wrong'? In other words, trying to get past judgments of rightness and wrongness towards this broadened understanding?

THanks

Even more than that actually. I am talking about judgment of almost all things. Right, wrong, fault, intention, and the rest of the major judgments which we apply to information related to cause and effect. To simplify: What happens when we stop Re-Acting and begin Acting? What happens when we stop applying needless sorting meta data to input and start processing input as information only. We can learn more from a situation when we remove ourselves from it personally and look at it from various angles. I am talking about the closest thing to absolute I can get to that goal. Action and result being viewed as simply something which happened rather than something which effects me.

What happens when we stop applying ourselves over abundantly. (assuming that what we do is an over abundance per this theory)

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Even more than that actually. I am talking about judgment of almost all things. Right, wrong, fault, intention, and the rest of the major judgments which we apply to information related to cause and effect. To simplify: What happens when we stop Re-Acting and begin Acting? What happens when we stop applying needless sorting meta data to input and start processing input as information only. We can learn more from a situation when we remove ourselves from it personally and look at it from various angles. I am talking about the closest thing to absolute I can get to that goal. Action and result being viewed as simply something which happened rather than something which effects me.

What happens when we stop applying ourselves over abundantly. (assuming that what we do is an over abundance per this theory)

What would this mind-state translate into? Meaning, how would a individual act throughout the day? Any examples?

Also, I'm assuming that you mean to accept beliefs as equal as widely supported fact. or do you mean that there should be no difference between the two, theoretically.

@Joe,

Icon;58462 wrote:

I have, for a long time, determined that every action taken by a human being is a matter of choice.
(...)
I do not believe in right and wrong.

I wanted to write a long response, but I don't have the time to find the right words now.
My view is pretty much diametrically opposed to yours.
I don't believe in choice and actions are only right and wrong, consequences don't count.

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Even more than that actually. I am talking about judgment of almost all things. Right, wrong, fault, intention, and the rest of the major judgments which we apply to information related to cause and effect. To simplify: What happens when we stop Re-Acting and begin Acting? What happens when we stop applying needless sorting meta data to input and start processing input as information only. We can learn more from a situation when we remove ourselves from it personally and look at it from various angles. I am talking about the closest thing to absolute I can get to that goal. Action and result being viewed as simply something which happened rather than something which effects me.

Thank you very much - this is what I thought.

What you're talking about is - I think - a form of Bias. And yes, I'd say you're absolutely correct on it being an impediment to broadened understanding. The personal bias' we have towards moral, political and religious orientations, and judging the motives of others is perhaps the most prevalent roadblock towards personal enlightenment (at least as I see it).

There's no way I can see, that someone can gain insight and truly evaluate ideas, situations and concepts if they look upon any of their elements with any sort of prejudice. We're such sappy, saucy and tender-hearted wretches, really. If one of our closely-held concepts is, in any way, impugned we snap back with guns flaring (our wittle feelings hurt) to defend. Such a waste this is.

But I suppose that if any of this is true, the next question would be how does one achieve such a state of impartiality? We can't be completely impartial, but I believe we can come to a place where we don't feel such a need to judge or discount out of puerile defensiveness. I think I know how (or at least one way how) but would love to hear your - or other's - ideas.

Thanks

@Icon,

You sir, are the first person I have talked to who grasps the fundamentals of this theory. But there is a bit more to it in the way of minor details. They include, for the most part, processing power. The brain is a wonderful thing but it has limits. The more information you attach to something, the more must be considered. If we start attaching these personal judgments or bias then we not only add that little bit of data but now our equation just got a million times more complicated because we must calculate the equation within the confines of our understanding of that bias. In the end, we process much more slowly and ruin other possible tracks of thought and possibility. When you boil it down, you are left with something that looks like this.

c?a=r

Where c=choice
a=action
r=result

That is the simplified version. Now let's add the element of right and wrong. First we must establish the equation

Pr[r]=
N!
________
r!(N−r)!
πr(1−π)N−r

where Pr[r] is the probability of exactly r successes, N is the number of events, and p is the probability of success on any one trial. This formula assumes that the events:

1. are dichotomous (fall into only two categories)
2. are mutually exclusive
3. are independent and
4. are randomly selected

This is just right or wrong in a clear cut situation. We have not started calculating emotions or other elements such as the possibility of being both right and wrong on various elements of the action.

So just to calculate right and wrong as basic, unattached elements of probability we have already incresed the complexity of the equation 10 fold. Now add the calculation for emotional attachment which is beyond anything I could comprehend because we would have to evaluate each emotion, convert it to an equation and run a calculation for each everytime we approach a problem. Then we have to incoprorate our understanding of the history of similar events so we have to calculate in that pactor as another case of probability of repeatable events. Then we need to calculate emotions of those events and match them with our understanding of the current situation. Then we have to weigh pros and cons of probable action and by the time we are done, the equation would rival the most complex equations in the world today.

And this is just to make a choice on right or wrong and how we feel about it. This is a simple choice such as, "Should I approach that girl in the corner?" or "What do I want for breakfast?". Imagine a truly complex event and how that equation would look.

How much brain power is necessary for this sort of evaluation? How much for c?a=r?

Now, I am not saying that we can always simplify to c?a=r because I am not that naive. I am aware that certain situations are complex and do require all of these calculations. What I am suggesting, however, is that we can simplify that process as well. If our understanding of the events in our past comes down to c?a=r then we have much less information to pile through in order to calculate a choice. Then we can ignore how we felt in the past and deal with how we feel now. We can go beyond those limiting paths and see new possibilities. We can even manage to go beyond ourselves and see things from new stand points and new views which we would never have even considered if we really thought about it.

P.S. These are mostly calculations made after the action has produced a result. This does not include the process of making the choice. If we can simplify, we can go much farther, much faster, with much more ease. It is like a question asked in two ways. Example: What is Africa like? vs. What precise pigment in hex is the sky in the South African at noon today, GMT-6? Which will give you a broader view? Which will give you more information to calculate?

@Icon,

1. The brain has a certain about of rigidity and a certain amount of plasticity. There isn't just some thing called "brain power", and the brain functions in a multitude of way, often simultaneously. There is no reason to assume that "calculation" of right and wrong would cut back on the mental functions that allow us to reason.

2. All the c>>a=r calculations you want to do will do nothing without the emotional input of the should. You can list every single action contingent future with unerring accuracy, and it will never prompt you to action if you do not first have some preference.

3. Emotional content is built into our perception. We often process things emotionally before we are cognitive of them.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

1. The brain has a certain about of rigidity and a certain amount of plasticity. There isn't just some thing called "brain power", and the brain functions in a multitude of way, often simultaneously. There is no reason to assume that "calculation" of right and wrong would cut back on the mental functions that allow us to reason.

2. All the c>>a=r calculations you want to do will do nothing without the emotional input of the should. You can list every single action contingent future with unerring accuracy, and it will never prompt you to action if you do not first have some preference.

3. Emotional content is built into our perception. We often process things emotionally before we are cognitive of them.

Again. This is post result math in just trying to figure out if what you DID was right or wrong. This does not include, as stated before, the calculations involved in making the choice and taking the action.

Also, how can you possibly conclude that the mind does not require extra time/processing power to calculate these probabilities rather than just choice and action?

Also, I mentioned that it is not possibly to simplify all the way down to c?a=r completely. I am aware of this. But we can get as close as possible. I also believe that you are missing my point by including the word rational or conscious to choice. I would like to remind you that choice does not have to be rationalized or conscious. Keep in mind that we are trying to keep things at a high level rather than arguing symantics. I know some of you are going to argue that we won't get anywhere that way but if that is how you see it then you are missing the point entirely.

Not you Mr.FtP. I am just trying to head it off before we turn that way.

@Icon,

Right, wrong, blame, and guilt are important in both the way it affects our future behavior and in how it prevents antisocial behavior of others in the future.

@Icon,

How would you define antisocial behavior?

If by antisocial behavior you mean behavior outside of normal then I am guilty of this due to my views on the matter. I say what I want when I want for no reason other than it is the first thing which pops in my head. It gets me in trouble, sure. It also gains me a great deal of benefit and has made me quite infamous amongst my several groups of friends.

@Icon,

Behavior that is not conducive and disruptive to a social environment.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Right, Wrong, Choice and Blame

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Right, Wrong, Choice and Blame

Quick Links

My Account

able2know