TheOldGuy

• Offline
• United States

I think SA is thinking "hey, we are going where we are going, and we have no 'choice' in the matter"

And I'm think "hey, we are going where we are going, lets enjoy finding out where that is exactly"

Atleast, that's what I'm getting from his and his friends' posts

We have no "choice" in the matter, but odds are, our brains will still operate as they always have, as if we did have free will. All our brain does is calculate risks and benefits in a realm of probabilities so that it can best survive. Actions are taken accordingly. It works the same way you might expect a 'computer' of our complexity to act, and how that is labeled "free," I don't know.

But live your life as if you do have choice. Do not be fooled into thinking that lacking free will means you have no morals. Morals help us with calculating risks and benefits through shortcuts. But please be careful. Base your morals in logic. There are a lot of people out there that would like to lead you to believe that you are a bad person because you do things that, logically, aren't very bad at all. They then ask if they can "save" you. It's like telling someone they have a (fake) disease and selling them the cure. It's a scam. Beware. Your brain is more than capable of figuring out right and wrong (thanks to evolution), so use it! Did your brain tell you, "I need to be saved," or did some creepy guy in a suit tell you that? Do you believe masturbation is a sin, or did your mother tell you that? Do you think cuss words are bad, or does society tell you that they are?

PS: I'm playing the role of devil's advocate.

I actually believe that having a more conservative government would lead to a better society so long as the government's actions were founded in logic rather than religion. Unfortunately, America doesn't have one of those.

Ending slavery wasn't changing people's lives. It was an act of protecting the life of people, thus it is a function of government.

it changed the lives of the slave owners.

what about the other things i mentioned? care to address those?

You have the concepts reversed. Socialism calls for large national governments that reach locally.

Both are "one government" if you want to get technical, but socialism allows local governments (still a part of the whole) to rule in favor of the people they represent.

Socialism's priorities have no place in government. A government's job is to protect the individual rights of the people. Well I for one can't see how social programs are a right. And who exactly are people being protected from with social programs?

first you say that a government health care plan is wrong because it forces people to work, but then you said that "It was an act of protecting the life of people, thus it is a function of government."

Health care PROTECTS PEOPLE from disease and injury.

Education PROTECTS THEIR FUTURE, so that they can better sustain their lives and others afterwards.

Housing PROTECTS FAMILIES from harsh weather and other dangers.

All these things "[protect] the life of people, thus [they are] function[s] of government."

Originally posted by: lazyboy97O
But I do not want to use a government to change people.

Oh, yes. How dare the government abolish slavery, abolish separate but equal, liberate blacks, or liberate women? All of these turning points in American history were done by liberals. Even Lincoln, who was a Republican by name, was a liberal. Conservatives didn't gain the title of 'Republican' and liberals didn't gain the title of 'Democrat' until the late 1800's. It was basically the opposite of what it is now.

I think all this socialism vs arachy business relates to the OP in that Republicans are supposed to be for small government, right? Well let's examine that assertion. What is meant by "small government." Democrats favor a large government with many localized governments controlling major issues. This is why Democrats would like to continue to allow states to choose on the issue of gay marriage. Republicans would like to have one federal government that controls the entire country, without allowing states to make their own decisions. This is why Bush is trying to out-right ban gay marriage with an amendment.

So, given this, is the Republican party (conservativism) really for "small government?" No. It is for a single, LARGE government. This is why you will often hear of Bush being compared to Hitler, because a single large government is little more than a dictatorship.

More liberal parties, such as the Democratic or Socialist parties, want a lot of small governments that govern in their localized juristictions while still guiding those governments towards certain goals/requirements such as housing, health care, and education by a constitution of some sort.

Socialism has priorities. Why lazyboy sees that as a problem, I'll never know.

originally posted by Blitz-sama
If life isn't predetermined, then there MUST be "incomplete variables".  Variables that are left specifically to be filled by an entity outside the scope of time and space, and all it's variables.  This would allow for "choice", because the variable is yours to determine, and is not predetermined.

AKA: A soul.

The problem of the soul is that there is no proof of it, and there is also no reason to assert the existence of one. We understand the complexities of the humans body and brain and know that it is complex enough to sustain itself without the need of a supernatural entity.

Intelligence, consciousness, morality, and personality can all be rationally explained through sciences such as evolution. The "soul" is an ancient construct used to substitute reality. Instead of asserting a soul, it would have been more correct to simply say, "I don't know how X works." Thankfully, more and more people know the value of "I don't know" thanks to the scientific method.

EX Q: Where did the universe come from?
EX A: Aside from asserting that the universe came from somewhere, I'd say that I don't know. I will not assert an answer, such as God, simply to fill the gap.

So to sum up, If life is predetermined, then atleast humans don't have the capacity to feel anything but their own will and understanding, and go about their lives making "choices" and such.  Even if it is a mathematical "sham" to think we have choice, it doesn't really have any TRUE bearing on how we will live our lives.  After all, you still have the tell the waiter, in your own words... just which you will have: the spaghetti, or the lasagna.

Absolutely. Some societies made the mistake of thinking that predeterminism meant that punishments were not fair, since we can't control our actions. Why should I get punished for murder if it wasn't my fault? Well, it was my fault. It was the same way it would have been had a robot killed the person. Would we allow the robot to go on killing people simply because we didn't believe it to have free will? No. We would, in effect, punish the robot, either by isolation (jail), repair (psychiatric ward), or by demolition (death penalty).

So no, understanding that the universe is more-than-likely predetermined does not mean that we should alter our behavior. The negation of "Free Will" is simply a practical use of Occam's Razor, a logical tool used to 'slice off' unnecessary entities.