SenKThe only difference between a monster and a decent human being is the privilege of a support network.
Plenty of monsters with support systems, plenty of decent people who have been beaten down by life and left to fend on their own.
‘Plenty of monsters with support systems’ - so were they inherently monsters? If yes, then they couldn’t help it, like a polar bear can’t help hunting. We don’t call polar bears ‘monsters.’ We call them predators, which is what humans become when their ‘support’ teaches them cruelty, not care.
‘Plenty of decent people beaten down by life’ - same logic. No inherent goodness, just luck: someone, somewhere, showed them ‘don’t be cruel’ before it was too late.
I don’t believe in inherent good or evil.
I think the point they were making is that a decent support system is not the determining factor as your post suggests.
Even your counterarguments rest on the assumption that this is true. You suggest that if it’s not a support system they just be “inherently” good or evil, completely ignoring the more likely possibility that there are countless other variables that could factor into what kind of person someone is.
Even your counterarguments rest on the assumption that this is true. You suggest that if it’s not a support system they must be “inherently” good or evil, completely ignoring the more likely possibility that there are countless other variables that could factor into what kind of person someone becomes.
Like what? You have inherent factors (genes) or environment (the support network, “the village that raises the child” etc.).
ageedizzleA lot of this comes down to people’s free will. If you could perfectly analyze the reasons for every decision a person makes then those decisions would hardly be free.
You’d have to now prove that free will is real.
I can’t prove that to you. And you can’t prove it’s not real, either. This debate has been at a standstill since the Ancient Greeks started discussing it. I just took it for granted in my previous comment because the vast majority of people, including professional philosophers, see here) believe it to be real.
That’s not how burden of proof works. Just because a lot of people (particularly those with culturally Christian backgrounds…) “believe” it’s real, doesn’t make it so.
Like I said in my previous comment, I can’t prove anything to you. And if it wasn’t obvious, I’m not trying to prove anything to you. I’m certainly not saying that free will is real because people believe in it. I’m not saying you have the burden of proof. I’m not trying to persuade you and I’m not looking for a debate.
All I was saying that, in casual conversation, it’s probably fine to speak as if it’s real because very few people will actually take objection to that.
And that has nothing to do with Christianity either. You’ll notice from that survey that the majority of professional philosophers are actually atheists too. In fact, one of the philosophers who is responsible for popularizing atheism in revent decades, Daniel Dennett, someone who is literally one of the founders of the new atheism movement, is a big proponent of free will and has written entire books on it.
Dennett is just a determinist who really, really doesn’t want to admit he is one (probably because he’d have to admit he’s wrong and everyone hates doing that, particularly white men at the top of their fields). I’ve read him and watched his debates.
I said “culturally Christian”. You can’t just shake off the centuries of Christian philosophy that has informed Western thought by just “not believing in God”. One of the symptoms of that specifically is the belief in free will, as Christianity requires there to be some kind of a pure, untarnished essentiality to people that can choose to be evil or good. It’s been hammered into us in media since we were kids, baked into everyday language.
Dennett openly admits he’s a determinist, you’d know that if you actually read his books. He’s literally the world’s leading proponent of determinism. Determinists believe in free will.
He’s a compatibilist. Which I admit we can then break down into compatibilist determinist, which is a different thing from a (hard) determinist.
Which I characterize as a determinist who really doesn’t want to admit to being one.
This is not very charitable of you. Its also simply inaccurate. If they didn’t already openly admit to being determinists then they would, by definition, not be compatibilists
Okay. Sorry if I seemed a but harsh in my earlier messages. After I sent those I was thinking about it and realized I probably went a bit too hard.
I see you’re from lemmy.ca. It’s good to see another Canadian on here. Thanks for contributing to the fediverse. I hope you feel welcome here