The Problem of Pain

[Neopergoss]

1) Let me be clear. I want you to prove your point. Give me a logical argument rooted in shared premises that concludes that responsibility can come from a source that is not a first cause. So far you have pointed to opinions that people have about responsibility. Popularity is no sign of validity. The sense of responsibility is an intuitional reaction based on previous societal conditioning. It is not a valid premise.
4) Amorality is not associated with moral depravity. I know a good deal of people that believe in an amoral reality and I can personally vouch for their conduct. Science has discovered no evidence of a valid source for morality and continues to discover natural reasons for our invalid moral assumptions.
6) For me, 1 current genocide was enough. However I recognize that many are not a skeptical as me and to make those people doubt would require a lot more than currently is. I hope you have enough empathy to understand this group of irrational people to which I refer.
7) A god is not assumed in the Superman stories. I was pointing out that all beings capable of ending suffering are held to the same standard not just the ones that caused it. If mortals were able to end the suffering they would be held to the same standard would they not?

1) Responsibility can work this way because of how it is defined by popular agreement. It may not make sense to you, but it is perfectly rational. Your talk of people being first causes is nonsense to me. Give me a logical argument that people can be a first cause and I'll give you a logical argument that responsibility doesn't have to come from a first cause. Deal? Your premise is invalid. Mine is a definition of a word -- not a premise.
4) When you talk about an amoral society, ideas come to mind of people raping and murdering and pillaging indiscriminately. Perhaps you should clarify.
6) I thought you were telling me that it wasn't enough. Pardon me if I misunderstood.
7) Well the point was about creating the suffering and that Superman was in a different position. I suppose there's an argument to be made about people being dependent on a hero, but it would certainly depend on the specific situation.

[OldTrees]

1) Let me be clear. I want you to prove your point. Give me a logical argument rooted in shared premises that concludes that responsibility can come from a source that is not a first cause. So far you have pointed to opinions that people have about responsibility. Popularity is no sign of validity. The sense of responsibility is an intuitional reaction based on previous societal conditioning. It is not a valid premise.
4) Amorality is not associated with moral depravity. I know a good deal of people that believe in an amoral reality and I can personally vouch for their conduct. Science has discovered no evidence of a valid source for morality and continues to discover natural reasons for our invalid moral assumptions.
6) For me, 1 current genocide was enough. However I recognize that many are not a skeptical as me and to make those people doubt would require a lot more than currently is. I hope you have enough empathy to understand this group of irrational people to which I refer.
7) A god is not assumed in the Superman stories. I was pointing out that all beings capable of ending suffering are held to the same standard not just the ones that caused it. If mortals were able to end the suffering they would be held to the same standard would they not?

1) Responsibility can work this way because of how it is defined by popular agreement. It may not make sense to you, but it is perfectly rational. Your talk of people being first causes is nonsense to me. Give me a logical argument that people can be a first cause and I'll give you a logical argument that responsibility doesn't have to come from a first cause. Deal? Your premise is invalid. Mine is a definition of a word -- not a premise.
4) When you talk about an amoral society, ideas come to mind of people raping and murdering and pillaging indiscriminately. Perhaps you should clarify.
6) I thought you were telling me that it wasn't enough. Pardon me if I misunderstood.
7) Well the point was about creating the suffering and that Superman was in a different position. I suppose there's an argument to be made about people being dependent on a hero, but it would certainly depend on the specific situation.

1) So people agreeing who is to blame makes that person deserving of blame? (this is different from what it sounded like you said last) Why would the majority's opinion create a deserving for blame in their target? (I assume that is what you meant. please correct me if I am wrong)
As I had clairified earlier before I relaxed my syntax. I am using 'a first cause' to denote the first cause in a string of causes. If humans have free will than their decisions would be uncaused causes because they would not be predetermined.
You are using a word in 2 manners: who deserves blame and who people declare deserves blame. I do not see a reasoned connection between the two usages. You need to provide a reasoned connection. Ex: Murder is another word that symbolizes an argument linking 2 usages: Immoral killing and (for example) the voluntary killing of an involuntary victim. With these two usages the symbol M-u-r-d-e-r would represent the following:
P1) intending to deprive someone of something they own without their consent is immoral
P2) voluntary killing of an involuntary victim deprives the victim of their life (which is the origin of ownership) without their consent
C1) voluntary killing of an involuntary victim is immoral killing
Can you present your usages of Responsibility so they follow this form?

4) Belief in an amoral reality is the metaethical claim of either moral sentences are not statement but rather are opinions or the metaethical claim that morality is objective but its laws are a null set. It does not prescribe how people should behave and thus does not prescribe that people should "rape and murder and pillage". A society built around the belief in an amoral reality would probably be very similar to a society build around the "enlightened self interest" philosophies. Rape, murder and pillage would cause retribution from society that outweighs any perceived advantage to the few that wanted to rape or kill and cause pillaging to be unprofitable. You would see crime and charity because some crime will be profitable and charity can improve the social environment for long term gain for the donor. Not to mention create a safety net as seen with reciprocal altruism being advantageous.
In short you are confusing an Immoral society with an Amoral society.

6) I was saying the theory would be that there needed to be enough pain to cause doubts in those irrational people despite the fact that such volume of pain would drastically surpass the threshold you and I would need to doubt. However the fact that some people currently do not feel doubt despite the volume of pain in the world makes for soft evidence against that theory.

[Neopergoss]

1) So people agreeing who is to blame makes that person deserving of blame? (this is different from what it sounded like you said last) Why would the majority's opinion create a deserving for blame in their target? (I assume that is what you meant. please correct me if I am wrong)
As I had clairified earlier before I relaxed my syntax. I am using 'a first cause' to denote the first cause in a string of causes. If humans have free will than their decisions would be uncaused causes because they would not be predetermined.
You are using a word in 2 manners: who deserves blame and who people declare deserves blame. I do not see a reasoned connection between the two usages. You need to provide a reasoned connection. Ex: Murder is another word that symbolizes an argument linking 2 usages: Immoral killing and (for example) the voluntary killing of an involuntary victim. With these two usages the symbol M-u-r-d-e-r would represent the following:
P1) intending to deprive someone of something they own without their consent is immoral
P2) voluntary killing of an involuntary victim deprives the victim of their life (which is the origin of ownership) without their consent
C1) voluntary killing of an involuntary victim is immoral killing
Can you present your usages of Responsibility so they follow this form?

4) Belief in an amoral reality is the metaethical claim of either moral sentences are not statement but rather are opinions or the metaethical claim that morality is objective but its laws are a null set. It does not prescribe how people should behave and thus does not prescribe that people should "rape and murder and pillage". A society built around the belief in an amoral reality would probably be very similar to a society build around the "enlightened self interest" philosophies. Rape, murder and pillage would cause retribution from society that outweighs any perceived advantage to the few that wanted to rape or kill and cause pillaging to be unprofitable. You would see crime and charity because some crime will be profitable and charity can improve the social environment for long term gain for the donor. Not to mention create a safety net as seen with reciprocal altruism being advantageous.
In short you are confusing an Immoral society with an Amoral society.

6) I was saying the theory would be that there needed to be enough pain to cause doubts in those irrational people despite the fact that such volume of pain would drastically surpass the threshold you and I would need to doubt. However the fact that some people currently do not feel doubt despite the volume of pain in the world makes for soft evidence against that theory.

1) I can see how you became confused about popular decisions about responsibility and actual responsibility. I think that people generally have a good sense for what it means to be responsible for something, so these two concepts tend to be similar. These are understood (and ultimately determined) by instinct. There are certain basic rules about responsibility that will vary a little from person to person but are for the most part universal. The most basic rule that I'm aware of is that people are responsible for their own actions.
The concept of an uncaused cause seems to me to defy logic.
4) Interesting. Enlightened self-interest is an ethical philosophy that I subscribe to. Never heard the term before. If that's how things would be without morality then I don't think morality is necessary. But I actually think the purpose of morality is to help steer people away from their unenlightened self-interest.
6) Very soft evidence, since they are going to be reluctant to change their original convictions.

[OldTrees]

1) So people agreeing who is to blame makes that person deserving of blame? (this is different from what it sounded like you said last) Why would the majority's opinion create a deserving for blame in their target? (I assume that is what you meant. please correct me if I am wrong)
As I had clairified earlier before I relaxed my syntax. I am using 'a first cause' to denote the first cause in a string of causes. If humans have free will than their decisions would be uncaused causes because they would not be predetermined.
You are using a word in 2 manners: who deserves blame and who people declare deserves blame. I do not see a reasoned connection between the two usages. You need to provide a reasoned connection. Ex: Murder is another word that symbolizes an argument linking 2 usages: Immoral killing and (for example) the voluntary killing of an involuntary victim. With these two usages the symbol M-u-r-d-e-r would represent the following:
P1) intending to deprive someone of something they own without their consent is immoral
P2) voluntary killing of an involuntary victim deprives the victim of their life (which is the origin of ownership) without their consent
C1) voluntary killing of an involuntary victim is immoral killing
Can you present your usages of Responsibility so they follow this form?

4) Belief in an amoral reality is the metaethical claim of either moral sentences are not statement but rather are opinions or the metaethical claim that morality is objective but its laws are a null set. It does not prescribe how people should behave and thus does not prescribe that people should "rape and murder and pillage". A society built around the belief in an amoral reality would probably be very similar to a society build around the "enlightened self interest" philosophies. Rape, murder and pillage would cause retribution from society that outweighs any perceived advantage to the few that wanted to rape or kill and cause pillaging to be unprofitable. You would see crime and charity because some crime will be profitable and charity can improve the social environment for long term gain for the donor. Not to mention create a safety net as seen with reciprocal altruism being advantageous.
In short you are confusing an Immoral society with an Amoral society.

6) I was saying the theory would be that there needed to be enough pain to cause doubts in those irrational people despite the fact that such volume of pain would drastically surpass the threshold you and I would need to doubt. However the fact that some people currently do not feel doubt despite the volume of pain in the world makes for soft evidence against that theory.

1) I can see how you became confused about popular decisions about responsibility and actual responsibility. I think that people generally have a good sense for what it means to be responsible for something, so these two concepts tend to be similar. These are understood (and ultimately determined) by instinct. There are certain basic rules about responsibility that will vary a little from person to person but are for the most part universal. The most basic rule that I'm aware of is that people are responsible for their own actions.
The concept of an uncaused cause seems to me to defy logic.
4) Interesting. Enlightened self-interest is an ethical philosophy that I subscribe to. Never heard the term before. If that's how things would be without morality then I don't think morality is necessary. But I actually think the purpose of morality is to help steer people away from their unenlightened self-interest.
6) Very soft evidence, since they are going to be reluctant to change their original convictions.

1a=1) "The most basic rule that I'm aware of is that people are responsible for their own actions." I am contesting this on the grounds that the action of hitting the ground is not the action of the falling rock but rather the consequence of the cause that made the rock fall. If humans do not have free will than I do not see them owning actions and thus they would not be responsible. Please present your reasoning to the contrary.
1b=2) At least 1 uncaused cause is necessary for any finite view of history. Otherwise the existence of 1 caused event would necessitate an infinite regression of causes into the past.
4) Morality, if it exists, is not a kind of thing that has a purpose. It could be represented by the physical laws governing buoyancy:
The physical laws of buoyancy dictate how water separates matter. It uses the rule of more dense and less dense than H20. In a similar vein Morality, if it exists, would dictate how actions are separated into moral and immoral. The rule it uses is unknown although there are lots of guesses. The physical law of buoyancy describes which things will rise and sink. Morality, if it exists, describes what ought and ought not be done. It is not the kind of thing that could be described as having a purpose.

[Neopergoss]

1a=1) "The most basic rule that I'm aware of is that people are responsible for their own actions." I am contesting this on the grounds that the action of hitting the ground is not the action of the falling rock but rather the consequence of the cause that made the rock fall. If humans do not have free will than I do not see them owning actions and thus they would not be responsible. Please present your reasoning to the contrary.
1b=2) At least 1 uncaused cause is necessary for any finite view of history. Otherwise the existence of 1 caused event would necessitate an infinite regression of causes into the past.
4) Morality, if it exists, is not a kind of thing that has a purpose. It could be represented by the physical laws governing buoyancy:
The physical laws of buoyancy dictate how water separates matter. It uses the rule of more dense and less dense than H20. In a similar vein Morality, if it exists, would dictate how actions are separated into moral and immoral. The rule it uses is unknown although there are lots of guesses. The physical law of buoyancy describes which things will rise and sink. Morality, if it exists, describes what ought and ought not be done. It is not the kind of thing that could be described as having a purpose.

1) I don't subscribe to your formulation that one has to be the first cause of an event in order to be responsible for it, so your objection isn't a problem. You can think of this rule as an axiom dictated by instinct.
2) I think an infinite regression makes more sense, though it's hard to grasp such a concept. Either way, there is no rational basis I am aware of for people being first causes; it just seems silly to me.
4) Morality does describe what ought to be done, but where do we get this sense? You're being way too mystical here, if you ask me. If it isn't magically passed down by God (a surprisingly common belief) then it came from society and genes. Morality, in my view, is a set of attitudes that humans developed to make them capable of existing in groups. Some of it is societal and some of it is innate. The more innate, the more universal, and the more clear-cut.

[ratcharmer]

@Oldtrees and Neopergoss:
You guys are really getting into an interesting and detailed discussion. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to follow for anyone who doesn't go through every single post in your discussion so far.

Flayne did a fairly good job of describing the Christian view on the topic, but I'd like to elaborate a little if I may:

The problem of pain is brought up in religious debates frequently, because it's usually such a great way to throw a theist for a loop. Why is that?
From a logical point of view the argument resembles a basic omnipotence paradox, most of which are extremely easy to disassemble logically. The key difference is that this argument says God should do something instead of trying to show he can't do X. So why is this one so hard to respond to?

Because it's not a logical argument. It's an emotional appeal.
Answering an emotional appeal with a cold, logical answer is one surefire way to make yourself look like a total dick. (forgive the colorful metaphor)

What I can say to anyone struggling with this question is this:
According to Christian beliefs, life on earth is just a prelude to eternal life in heaven, where there is no suffering. Thus you are incorporating a finite amount of suffering into an infinite lifespan.
When all is said and done even the most horrifically painful life will seem a completely insignificant burden. You just have to wait for it.

[Belthus]

What I can say to anyone struggling with this question is this:
According to Christian beliefs, life on earth is just a prelude to eternal life in heaven, where there is no suffering. Thus you are incorporating a finite amount of suffering into an infinite lifespan.
When all is said and done even the most horrifically painful life will seem a completely insignificant burden. You just have to wait for it.

That would throw all ethics and accountability out the window. I can torture you for years with medieval instruments of torture, and it won't count because it's a fraction of infinity. I can put babies in the blender because they are moving on to a better life. Or for a more precise analogy, there would be nothing wrong if I stood by and watched passively as someone else put babies in a blender, the better to make a protein shake. If it's wrong for me to allow the crazy blender guy to act, why isn't it wrong for God to do the same?

[OldTrees]

1a=1) "The most basic rule that I'm aware of is that people are responsible for their own actions." I am contesting this on the grounds that the action of hitting the ground is not the action of the falling rock but rather the consequence of the cause that made the rock fall. If humans do not have free will than I do not see them owning actions and thus they would not be responsible. Please present your reasoning to the contrary.
1b=2) At least 1 uncaused cause is necessary for any finite view of history. Otherwise the existence of 1 caused event would necessitate an infinite regression of causes into the past.
4) Morality, if it exists, is not a kind of thing that has a purpose. It could be represented by the physical laws governing buoyancy:
The physical laws of buoyancy dictate how water separates matter. It uses the rule of more dense and less dense than H20. In a similar vein Morality, if it exists, would dictate how actions are separated into moral and immoral. The rule it uses is unknown although there are lots of guesses. The physical law of buoyancy describes which things will rise and sink. Morality, if it exists, describes what ought and ought not be done. It is not the kind of thing that could be described as having a purpose.

1) I don't subscribe to your formulation that one has to be the first cause of an event in order to be responsible for it, so your objection isn't a problem. You can think of this rule as an axiom dictated by instinct.
2) I think an infinite regression makes more sense, though it's hard to grasp such a concept. Either way, there is no rational basis I am aware of for people being first causes; it just seems silly to me.
4) Morality does describe what ought to be done, but where do we get this sense? You're being way too mystical here, if you ask me. If it isn't magically passed down by God (a surprisingly common belief) then it came from society and genes. Morality, in my view, is a set of attitudes that humans developed to make them capable of existing in groups. Some of it is societal and some of it is innate. The more innate, the more universal, and the more clear-cut.

1) You initial claim was that Morality (as defined in 2) could exists without Free Will because Responsibility (deserving of blame) could exist without Free Will. It is up to you to give an argument for why "Responsibility (deserving of blame) could exist without Free Will" based on shared premises. If you resort to calling it an axiom then you will not prove it from shared premises and thus it would not work as a shared premise and your original argument ("Morality could exists without Free Will") would not be built on shared premises and thus is not persuasive. Only arguments with sound form and shared premises will be regarded as valid in a discussion of opposing viewpoints.

However let me give another counter argument while you develop yours.
P1) The actor and not the cause is responsible for the action. (your premise)
P2) If a man releases a wild tiger in a city the man would be the cause but the tiger would be the actor.
C) The tiger and not the man is responsible for the deaths that result
The conclusion seems unreasonable to me and thus P1, P2 or the step P1+P2=C must be false.
P1+P2=C seems like it follows logically
P2 seems to be accurate based on the definitions as I understand them
therefore P1 must be false.
2) Current scientific theory points to the universe having a beginning not an infinite regression. I claimed that Free Will, if it existed, would be an uncaused cause. I further claimed that if humans had free will then their decisions would be uncaused causes. I am not claiming that predetermined actions would be uncaused causes.
4) Are you referring to beliefs about morality (moral codes) or Morality (the unknown answer to the question: What ought I do?). The first is irrelevant to the second. It is this second concept that I refer to whenever I use the word Morality.

[Neopergoss]

1) You initial claim was that Morality (as defined in 2) could exists without Free Will because Responsibility (deserving of blame) could exist without Free Will. It is up to you to give an argument for why "Responsibility (deserving of blame) could exist without Free Will" based on shared premises. If you resort to calling it an axiom then you will not prove it from shared premises and thus it would not work as a shared premise and your original argument ("Morality could exists without Free Will") would not be built on shared premises and thus is not persuasive. Only arguments with sound form and shared premises will be regarded as valid in a discussion of opposing viewpoints.

However let me give another counter argument while you develop yours.
P1) The actor and not the cause is responsible for the action. (your premise)
P2) If a man releases a wild tiger in a city the man would be the cause but the tiger would be the actor.
C) The tiger and not the man is responsible for the deaths that result
The conclusion seems unreasonable to me and thus P1, P2 or the step P1+P2=C must be false.
P1+P2=C seems like it follows logically
P2 seems to be accurate based on the definitions as I understand them
therefore P1 must be false.
2) Current scientific theory points to the universe having a beginning not an infinite regression. I claimed that Free Will, if it existed, would be an uncaused cause. I further claimed that if humans had free will then their decisions would be uncaused causes. I am not claiming that predetermined actions would be uncaused causes.
4) Are you referring to beliefs about morality (moral codes) or Morality (the unknown answer to the question: What ought I do?). The first is irrelevant to the second. It is this second concept that I refer to whenever I use the word Morality.

1) What I meant was that the rules of responsibility are axiomatic, but not my position that responsibility can exist without free will. At any rate, I don't share your premise that free will exists, so your argument is unpersuasive. Responsibility does exist without free will, because free will doesn't exist. Belief in free will exists, but not everywhere. People who don't believe in free will are still able to feel a sense of responsibility and assign responsibility to others. What more proof could you need? It works because it's a commonly shared understanding, like language.
With respect to your tiger analogy: Ah, now you're getting into more of the details of responsibility. The problem here is that people are responsible for animals (and children) that they own. Pets and children aren't responsible for their own actions the same way that adults are. There are numerous other addenda to that basic rule -- the mentally incompetent also have their burden of responsibility reduced. There are surely many extenuating circumstances I haven't thought of.
Consider the following example: a man is paroled from prison. He murders someone on the outside. Should the parole board be tried for murder? Clearly not, even though they could be considered to have caused the murder by releasing the man. They did make a poor decision and bear responsibility for it, but not in the same way as the murderer. This example shows that my exception is valid because the situation is different when it's a person being released.
2) The beginning of the universe is one thing -- regardless of how the universe began, there is no evidence that humans have free will.
4) Morality wouldn't exist without beliefs about morality. The only way to get at any kind of objective morality would be to better understand our common instincts (that we may choose to ignore/be wrong about). Because the only meaningful way that morality is at all objective is in our common instincts. If our instincts were different, morality would be a very different thing (it's not magical or divinely inspired).

[OldTrees]

1) You initial claim was that Morality (as defined in 2) could exists without Free Will because Responsibility (deserving of blame) could exist without Free Will. It is up to you to give an argument for why "Responsibility (deserving of blame) could exist without Free Will" based on shared premises. If you resort to calling it an axiom then you will not prove it from shared premises and thus it would not work as a shared premise and your original argument ("Morality could exists without Free Will") would not be built on shared premises and thus is not persuasive. Only arguments with sound form and shared premises will be regarded as valid in a discussion of opposing viewpoints.

However let me give another counter argument while you develop yours.
P1) The actor and not the cause is responsible for the action. (your premise)
P2) If a man releases a wild tiger in a city the man would be the cause but the tiger would be the actor.
C) The tiger and not the man is responsible for the deaths that result
The conclusion seems unreasonable to me and thus P1, P2 or the step P1+P2=C must be false.
P1+P2=C seems like it follows logically
P2 seems to be accurate based on the definitions as I understand them
therefore P1 must be false.
2) Current scientific theory points to the universe having a beginning not an infinite regression. I claimed that Free Will, if it existed, would be an uncaused cause. I further claimed that if humans had free will then their decisions would be uncaused causes. I am not claiming that predetermined actions would be uncaused causes.
4) Are you referring to beliefs about morality (moral codes) or Morality (the unknown answer to the question: What ought I do?). The first is irrelevant to the second. It is this second concept that I refer to whenever I use the word Morality.

1) What I meant was that the rules of responsibility are axiomatic, but not my position that responsibility can exist without free will. At any rate, I don't share your premise that free will exists, so your argument is unpersuasive. Responsibility does exist without free will, because free will doesn't exist. Belief in free will exists, but not everywhere. People who don't believe in free will are still able to feel a sense of responsibility and assign responsibility to others. What more proof could you need? It works because it's a commonly shared understanding, like language.
With respect to your tiger analogy: Ah, now you're getting into more of the details of responsibility. The problem here is that people are responsible for animals (and children) that they own. Pets and children aren't responsible for their own actions the same way that adults are. There are numerous other addenda to that basic rule -- the mentally incompetent also have their burden of responsibility reduced. There are surely many extenuating circumstances I haven't thought of.
Consider the following example: a man is paroled from prison. He murders someone on the outside. Should the parole board be tried for murder? Clearly not, even though they could be considered to have caused the murder by releasing the man. They did make a poor decision and bear responsibility for it, but not in the same way as the murderer. This example shows that my exception is valid because the situation is different when it's a person being released.
2) The beginning of the universe is one thing -- regardless of how the universe began, there is no evidence that humans have free will.
4) Morality wouldn't exist without beliefs about morality. The only way to get at any kind of objective morality would be to better understand our common instincts (that we may choose to ignore/be wrong about). Because the only meaningful way that morality is at all objective is in our common instincts. If our instincts were different, morality would be a very different thing (it's not magical or divinely inspired).

1) I worry when something is axiomatic. Things that are claimed to be axiomatic tend to be assumed without inquiry or justification. The fact that my perspective on responsibility is different violates the first definition of axiomatic (Self-evident or unquestionable) and the fact that I disagree with the vague premises you have offered shows that the axioms are not shared nor accepted (A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently ). Now I understand if you have not taken the time to investigate your beliefs about Responsibility but the are not axiomatic as it pertains to this discussion.
(I am not trying to persuade you when I refer to free will existing. Rather I am describing my position so you can present your argument better.)
There exist people that don't believe in free will and still assign responsibility to others. This indicates that some people will assign responsibility even if they do not believe in free will. However being blamed is not the same as deserving blame. Nor is disbelieving in free will the same as not having free will. This statement does not seem to relate to either the existence/nonexistence of free will nor the existence/nonexistence of responsibility.
"It works because it's a commonly shared understanding, like language." There are other commonly shared understandings that are about as widespread. Popularity of an idea does not make it right.
Tiger analogy:
Why would pets and children not be responsible for their actions? If free will does not exist then they are not lacking any decision making ability because decisions are not made but rather are predetermined.
Parole board: Under your view of responsibility the actor (convict) is responsible (unless they are non sapient, children or mentally incompetent).
It seems like your exception for the mentally incompetent or immature is a sign that the ability to decide/choose is crucial to having responsibility. However you do not believe humans choose so adult humans are equally handicapped as the others in that regard.
2) Agreed. But if free will existed it would be an uncaused cause. I agree that there is no evidence that humans have free will other than the potential illusion of free will.
4) We are using the same string of characters for different concepts. Using the concept I was referring to (objective morality) it does not need beliefs about morality to exist. Metaethical positions that claim that beliefs about morality predate Morality are the Ethical subjectivism and Non-cognitivist theories^{[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics)]}.

[Neopergoss]

1) I worry when something is axiomatic. Things that are claimed to be axiomatic tend to be assumed without inquiry or justification. The fact that my perspective on responsibility is different violates the first definition of axiomatic (Self-evident or unquestionable) and the fact that I disagree with the vague premises you have offered shows that the axioms are not shared nor accepted (A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently ). Now I understand if you have not taken the time to investigate your beliefs about Responsibility but the are not axiomatic as it pertains to this discussion.
(I am not trying to persuade you when I refer to free will existing. Rather I am describing my position so you can present your argument better.)
There exist people that don't believe in free will and still assign responsibility to others. This indicates that some people will assign responsibility even if they do not believe in free will. However being blamed is not the same as deserving blame. Nor is disbelieving in free will the same as not having free will. This statement does not seem to relate to either the existence/nonexistence of free will nor the existence/nonexistence of responsibility.
"It works because it's a commonly shared understanding, like language." There are other commonly shared understandings that are about as widespread. Popularity of an idea does not make it right.
Tiger analogy:
Why would pets and children not be responsible for their actions? If free will does not exist then they are not lacking any decision making ability because decisions are not made but rather are predetermined.
Parole board: Under your view of responsibility the actor (convict) is responsible (unless they are non sapient, children or mentally incompetent).
It seems like your exception for the mentally incompetent or immature is a sign that the ability to decide/choose is crucial to having responsibility. However you do not believe humans choose so adult humans are equally handicapped as the others in that regard.
2) Agreed. But if free will existed it would be an uncaused cause. I agree that there is no evidence that humans have free will other than the potential illusion of free will.
4) We are using the same string of characters for different concepts. Using the concept I was referring to (objective morality) it does not need beliefs about morality to exist. Metaethical positions that claim that beliefs about morality predate Morality are the Ethical subjectivism and Non-cognitivist theories^{[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics)]}.

1) Do you worry about axioms in math, too? I find these rules of responsibility no more troubling than the definition of a line segment. And as far as I know, you haven't disagreed with anything axiomatic that I've said. To repeat, my claim about responsibility existing independently from free will is not something I'm claiming to be axiomatically true. Have you actually disagreed with any of the rules of responsibility I've mentioned so far? I haven't seen an example of such disagreement. I've been fairly cautious with axiomatic statements to restrict them to things commonly agreed upon -- basic societal values that I believe are universal. They are deliberately vague so as to be more obviously true.
A basic disagreement we seem to have is that you think that morality could somehow exist independently from people (or other intelligent beings). I agree that popular agreement doesn't make a moral rule, but in many ways this is our best way of approximating one. There are limits to how well we can perceive a person's true instincts apart from what they say. If many people across many different cultures agree on a moral rule, it can be said to be universal fairly reliably.
Pets and children are not capable of higher forms of thinking that adult humans can do. They are more apt at making decisions, so they have greater responsibility (it is irrelevant that these decisions are predetermined -- they still come to conclusions based on reasoning that was always inevitable. My argument doesn't imply, as you suggest, that there is no thinking). Also, if an adult is caring for a child or an animal, this means that the adult has control over what they do and is thus responsible for it.
parole board: I do believe that humans (and even animals) choose -- but their choices are inevitable. So it's not "free will" in the sense that they could've made a different choice, but they are still "free" to choose what they prefer (which is definite/predetermined). Humans are more responsible for their choices because they are capable of more advanced thinking.
2) You can't fault me for claiming the rules of responsibility are axiomatic, then, since your argument relies on unsupported assumptions.
4) What does objective morality even mean? How could morality exist without people to perceive it? It seems to me to be very much like color in that regard. I can envision "universal morality," and I guess I thought that was what you meant by objective morality. I guess that's what I've been talking about, then. Why do you believe in objective morality? Is that another "preferred" idea like free will? After reading the article, I can conclude that I subscribe to the ideal observer theory, where the ideal observer makes decisions purely motivated by moral instincts. Which instincts are moral is certainly debatable, though I have my own ideas about them.

[OldTrees]

1) I worry when something is axiomatic. Things that are claimed to be axiomatic tend to be assumed without inquiry or justification. The fact that my perspective on responsibility is different violates the first definition of axiomatic (Self-evident or unquestionable) and the fact that I disagree with the vague premises you have offered shows that the axioms are not shared nor accepted (A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently ). Now I understand if you have not taken the time to investigate your beliefs about Responsibility but the are not axiomatic as it pertains to this discussion.
(I am not trying to persuade you when I refer to free will existing. Rather I am describing my position so you can present your argument better.)
There exist people that don't believe in free will and still assign responsibility to others. This indicates that some people will assign responsibility even if they do not believe in free will. However being blamed is not the same as deserving blame. Nor is disbelieving in free will the same as not having free will. This statement does not seem to relate to either the existence/nonexistence of free will nor the existence/nonexistence of responsibility.
"It works because it's a commonly shared understanding, like language." There are other commonly shared understandings that are about as widespread. Popularity of an idea does not make it right.
Tiger analogy:
Why would pets and children not be responsible for their actions? If free will does not exist then they are not lacking any decision making ability because decisions are not made but rather are predetermined.
Parole board: Under your view of responsibility the actor (convict) is responsible (unless they are non sapient, children or mentally incompetent).
It seems like your exception for the mentally incompetent or immature is a sign that the ability to decide/choose is crucial to having responsibility. However you do not believe humans choose so adult humans are equally handicapped as the others in that regard.
2) Agreed. But if free will existed it would be an uncaused cause. I agree that there is no evidence that humans have free will other than the potential illusion of free will.
4) We are using the same string of characters for different concepts. Using the concept I was referring to (objective morality) it does not need beliefs about morality to exist. Metaethical positions that claim that beliefs about morality predate Morality are the Ethical subjectivism and Non-cognitivist theories^{[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics)]}.

1) Do you worry about axioms in math, too? I find these rules of responsibility no more troubling than the definition of a line segment. And as far as I know, you haven't disagreed with anything axiomatic that I've said. To repeat, my claim about responsibility existing independently from free will is not something I'm claiming to be axiomatically true. Have you actually disagreed with any of the rules of responsibility I've mentioned so far? I haven't seen an example of such disagreement. I've been fairly cautious with axiomatic statements to restrict them to things commonly agreed upon -- basic societal values that I believe are universal. They are deliberately vague so as to be more obviously true.
A basic disagreement we seem to have is that you think that morality could somehow exist independently from people (or other intelligent beings). I agree that popular agreement doesn't make a moral rule, but in many ways this is our best way of approximating one. There are limits to how well we can perceive a person's true instincts apart from what they say. If many people across many different cultures agree on a moral rule, it can be said to be universal fairly reliably.
Pets and children are not capable of higher forms of thinking that adult humans can do. They are more apt at making decisions, so they have greater responsibility (it is irrelevant that these decisions are predetermined -- they still come to conclusions based on reasoning that was always inevitable. My argument doesn't imply, as you suggest, that there is no thinking). Also, if an adult is caring for a child or an animal, this means that the adult has control over what they do and is thus responsible for it.
parole board: I do believe that humans (and even animals) choose -- but their choices are inevitable. So it's not "free will" in the sense that they could've made a different choice, but they are still "free" to choose what they prefer (which is definite/predetermined). Humans are more responsible for their choices because they are capable of more advanced thinking.
2) You can't fault me for claiming the rules of responsibility are axiomatic, then, since your argument relies on unsupported assumptions.
4) What does objective morality even mean? How could morality exist without people to perceive it? It seems to me to be very much like color in that regard. I can envision "universal morality," and I guess I thought that was what you meant by objective morality. I guess that's what I've been talking about, then. Why do you believe in objective morality? Is that another "preferred" idea like free will? After reading the article, I can conclude that I subscribe to the ideal observer theory, where the ideal observer makes decisions purely motivated by moral instincts. Which instincts are moral is certainly debatable, though I have my own ideas about them.

1) I happen to agree with the axioms of math, when doing math however this is because I have decided that I agreed with them. The axiom that I am objecting to is the idea that the tool/actor and not cause is responsible for the consequences. I further object to any unjustified causal link between blaming and deserving blame. I feel both of these claims need support from logical arguments using baser premises.
"If many people across many different cultures agree on a moral rule, it can be said to be universal fairly reliably."
The agreement can be considered universal but that does not make the beliefs about Morality become moral truth by either Objective Morality or Ideal Observer theories. Beliefs do not create reality.
"Pets and children are not capable of higher forms of thinking that adult humans can do."
What aspect of higher thinking causes the ability to be responsible?
PS: Free to choose 1 option is not free. It is just another function called and run by the meat processor.
2) You were trying to persuade. I was describing my view. Persuading requires using premises shared by the audience, Describing requires using your own premises. The Tiger example is where I was trying to persuade instead of describe. As you can see I used my understanding of your premises to do so. Most of this discussion I have been inquiring for baser and baser premises behind your belief in a predetermined but moral reality to find what premises lead to my disagreement so we can discuss that. Alternatively you could try to build off premises I would share. If the axiomatic barrier is to resilient at this time we can leave it till later.
4) I am fairly sure you would not believe the Ideal Observer theory. It says that Morality only depends on a Hypothetical ideal observer. Hence Morality could exist without more than hypothetical observation. (please correct me if I am mistaken)

Why do I believe in Moral Realism? (note the steps are preferences)
Cognitivist: I have already covered this in my preference for the existence of Ought over the nonexistence of Ought.
Not Subjectivist: I find the idea that what was ought could change to ought not to be distasteful.
Not Error Theory: This is the moral/immoral preference over amoral.