Pascal's Wager

[Jenkar]

So... not right, but not wrong? As in, justified but still wrong...
Still, i don't get how impulses help construct morality (definition here : view of what's right/wrong), since impulses are involuntary,  while morals are (supposing you're a personn) a choice?

[OldTrees]

So... not right, but not wrong? As in, justified but still wrong...
Still, i don't get how impulses help construct morality (definition here : view of what's right/wrong), since impulses are involuntary,  while morals are (supposing you're a personn) a choice?

I see I am explaining it badly.

Type 1: Dishonesty (This is the case of the impulses)
People have free will. Sometimes they do things that they claim they did not want to do. I theorize (partly from experience) that they do want to do those acts in
those situations but do not admit it to themselves.

Type 2: Extenuating Circumstances (The hostages)
People that honestly believe that the usually ought not do something (say kill an innocent) can believe that extenuating circumstances (like their family being held hostage) justifies the usually immoral action making it something that in those circumstances they ought to do it.

[Jenkar]

I understand now, though i disagree, due to the theory part, which, partly from experience, i believe is wrong : in my opinion, some people are indeed like you said, but others are really not willing to do the things they do on impulsion.
Complete agreement on part 2.

[agentflare]

This debate is getting kind of confusing and slightly off topic. Let's define the givens or premises of the argument:
Pascal's Wager is essentially this table:

	God is not real	God is real
Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite
Not Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=negative infinte

Therefore you should believe.

Is that not right? (We can argue on why it's wrong /right after we are clear on what it is)

[Jenkar]

This debate is getting kind of confusing and slightly off topic. Let's define the givens or premises of the argument:
Pascal's Wager is essentially this table:

	God is not real	God is real
Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite
Not Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=negative infinte

Therefore you should believe.

Is that not right? (We can argue on why it's wrong /right after we are clear on what it is)

God 1a is real

God 2a is real

...

God na is real

God 1b is real

God 2b is real

...

God nb is real

God 1c is real

God 2c is real

...

God nc is real

Believe

Infinite happiness

Infinite happiness

Infinite happiness

Infinite happiness

Infinite unhappiness

Infinite unhappiness

Infinite unhappiness

Infinite unhappiness

0

0

0

0

Not believe

Infinite unhappiness

Infinite unhappiness

Infinite unhappiness

Infinite unhappiness

Infinite happiness

Infinite happiness

Infinite happiness

Infinite happiness

0

0

0

0

With God in the a set reward belief, gods in b subset hate to be believed in, and gods in c subset don't care (includes atheism, since god that does not exist doesn't care)
Makes the (big) assumption that those are the only subsets.

[agentflare]

Jenkar, you've pointed out the main flaw in Pascal's argument, but what I've outlined is Pascal's original wager

[Jenkar]

Yus, we agree (at least i do with you) on what pascal's gamble is.

[Neopergoss]

You are within your rights to belief things and to belief you know the things you believe. You can accept something to be true without having knowledge of it being true. However neither of those would be evidence that you do know. Nor does most people agreeing in an objective morality indicate that we know morality is objective instead of subjective. I will point out many do what they profess to be evil but saying and believing rarely correlate in those instances. I count rationalizations as signs of the individual's true beliefs not matching what they claim to believe. I also consider all of the mind including impulses as having a say in the honest beliefs of what is evil. It is a cynical view not optimistic like most "naive dreams".

Ah, interesting you bring up objective vs subjective truth. I don't believe morality is objective in the sense that it could exist independently from people, but I think that there are moral truths that ring true for so many people that they might as well be objective. You may be noticing a theme for me of working truths that are less than certain but are still likely enough to believe in without any real doubt. I still don't see why you insist on certainty. I'm starting to think we should continue this in PMs as we have hijacked this thread.

[WrekX]

Infinite posibility:

	God is not real	God is real
Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite, or 0, or negative infinte
Not Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite, or 0, or negative infinte

Pascals Wager:

	God is not real	God is real
Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite
Not Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=negative infinte

[Jenkar]

Infinite posibility:  

	God is not real	God is real
Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite, or 0, or negative infinte
Not Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite, or 0, or negative infinte

Pascals Wager:

	God is not real	God is real
Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite
Not Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=negative infinte

You're assuming that there is only one possibility of god, that either rewards, does not care, or punishes belief?

[QuantumT]

I think he's merely putting all the possibilities in that spot. Any combination of them is as valid as any other.

[WrekX]

Infinite posibility:  

	God is not real	God is real
Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite, or 0, or negative infinte
Not Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite, or 0, or negative infinte

Pascals Wager:

	God is not real	God is real
Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite
Not Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=negative infinte

You're assuming that there is only one possibility of god, that either rewards, does not care, or punishes belief?

No, I assume happiness and sadness is measureable. Therefore if for some reason there was a god that both punishes and rewards his believers happiness would still be gained, lost or 0.

 I suppose changing it to "=infinite, or positive, or 0, or negative, or negaitve infinite" would be more accurate because providing the simple "positive and negative" removes the assumption that whatever happens in the afterlife would be permanent.

Thanks for pointing that out. (even if indirectly so)

Infinite posibility:

	God is not real	God is real
Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite, or positive, or 0, or negative, or negative infinte
Not Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite, or positive, or 0, or negative, negative infinte

Pascals Wager:

	God is not real	God is real
Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=infinite
Not Believe	Happiness gain=0	Happiness gain=negative infinte