Response: "-How can accepting determinism be beneficial to us? -If not God, then what entities manage determinism? " - Israel

I'm going to try to talk about both of these questions as one, because I feel they are linked well enough to make a connection.
First, I don't think accepting determinism can really be beneficial. There are those who would argue that it gives them comfort to think that their lives are going well because they are supposed to, or that the world has determined them to be born in an industrialized country with a good chance of leading a happy life. I say that these people, whether or not they believe in God, are in the same category. They accept that there is something in the world outside of their control that is determining their lives, and they feel complacency as a result. Whether or not you choose to label this kind of control as God makes no difference, you are still accepting that you have no choice against an overwhelming control.
Second, I would argue that we don't gain anything by thinking this way. Which person is more likely, do you think, to make the more radical decisions for themselves - a person who thinks they are in complete control of their own destiny, or someone who has accepted that the universe has a will of its own? This premise assumes that we do actually have free will and that those people adhering to determinism are fooling themselves, but I think I can make this clearer with one last point.
Determinism likes to make you think that you have no control. The way I view determinism chalks it up to not much more than this statement, "Well of course everything has a cause, and of course every cause makes an effect, but that doesn't mean that any specific cause can force any specific effect." Determinism would have a person believe that if they did well, it was because the workings of the world led them to do well, and vice-versa. However, it might just as well be true that you have the ability to create causes for yourself, and that you are not stuck in any kind of cause and effect chain. What is the driving force behind any action made by a person who believes in free will? It is the thought that they are in control of their choices. Is this not as much of a cause as anything else? Does believing in free will not alter what would happen to you just as much as believing in determinism? So then, what separates one from the other? It is a person's ability to choose. A person who has learned how to think through the choices they have made and the choices they will make is breaking out of the determinist cycle. They are altering the effects which the causes they make in their life have, i.e.: the difference between doing something instinctual and doing something because you know it's the right thing to do. This core concept of free will is often mislabeled as determinism, because it still requires different causes in your life for you to make these choices, but really, this is what free will is. An animal that cannot think about its own decisions, such as an ant or a fly, does not possess free will. It is purely instinctual, and will act as such. But an animal such as a human, who can look at different reasons to perform different actions, is capable of altering what happens in their life.
So I believe accepting determinism exclusively is not beneficial in any way, just as how I would say accepting things that happen in your life because they are "God's will" is just as much of a waste. I believe that determinism and free will both exist, that they are a constant struggle in a developing mind, and that we are the only true masters of our fate.

Q: How can accepting free will not be beneficial?

Free Will and Determinism (2)

After looking into both sides of the issue here, I have to say that I believe that free will and determinism can exist together. Determinism seems to imply that just because everything has a cause or causes, that those causes will always lead to a certain effect. I believe that can be true with basic cause and effect relationships, such as dropping something to the ground to prove gravity, or that people need energy to stay alive and so they will always require food. However, I don't think this relationship is strong enough to imply that even when a being has the ability to think about its actions that it is still stuck in the chain. Just because there are always causes for how I act, it does not necessarily mean that I had no choice, or that my actions were predetermined in any way. My ability to reflect on the possibilities of a future choice breaks this chain, because I can alter the cause and effect chain before it has a chance to happen. My example is this: a being that does not have the ability to react beyond instinct will follow a certain set of rules for itself; it will eat when it is hungry, sleep when it is tired, and so on. A being that does have the ability to think deeply about its decisions can alter the outcomes. It might choose not to eat, even though it is hungry, because it has principles against eating the food that is in front of it. It might not sleep just because it is tired because it has work to do, obligations to fill, and decides to put off sleep temporarily.
So, my view is this: A person who does not tend to think about their actions lives a more determined life than someone who does think about what they do. A truly thoughtful and learned person begins to break away from the basic flow of cause and effect, thus becoming more free. I believe this because of the argument that I stated earlier: if a being does not learn how to react thoughtfully to its environment, much of its life will happen simply as "this is what I must do now" and they will go do it, whereas if they do learn to react thoughtfully, their life becomes "must I do this, or is there something better I can do instead?"
Now, it was stated in our discussions that this is still just cause and effect, that you can never truly break away from determinism unless you manage to act against all cause, but that view insists that all causes have equal chance to make an effect. I believe that is only true if you lack the ability to think about the causes leading up to your choice. The cause of "I'm tired" doesn't lead me to go to sleep until I am ready, because I think, "Well, should I go to sleep now, I have work to do". Now, you can label the fact that I had work to do as my cause for staying up, but if every cause had just as much of a chance to make me act a certain way, I could just go to sleep. It is because I thought about which cause had more relevance that one of them wins out over the other, and not because one of the causes was inherently stronger. My ability to think about what I am doing is the only catalyst towards what I end up doing. Free thought such as this is what makes free will, to label it determinism would be to relabel what free will actually is.
The two work against each other, but they can exist together.

Q: If determinism is truly and exclusively the way the universe works, then where does the nearly universal conception of free will come from?

Response: " Knowing that it is apart of human nature to sleep why is it then that we all don't sleep the same?" - Shannon

First, I don't know if we can necessarily classify "sleep" as human nature, since all animals do it. It doesn't really set us apart from them, although it is an ingrained part of how we survive.
I like the "bell curve" analysis of sleep you gave. Perhaps it has to do with our growth and deterioration; when we're little, we need more sleep because of how much growth we are undergoing, and when we're older we need more sleep because of our bodies beginning to break down and not be as effective as they used to be. That would place our prime performance somewhere from post-adolescence to mid-life, which seems to be the time that people sleep the least.
Personally, I find myself having large stores of energy during the day, so sleeping a lot is not really necessary for me. This may be due to the fact that I have a high metabolism, I drink a lot of things with caffeine, and I eat lots of sugar and starch throughout the day. I believe that diet and lifestyle, as well as genetic predispositions for digestion, must have a lot to do with how quickly a person tires. It must stem from both the biological and mental, however, as you can force yourself to stay up for quite a bit longer than average if you will yourself to and keep your mind occupied, although I don't recommend doing this on a regular basis.
Of course, sleep seems like a strange thing to me, despite how "natural" it appears (by which I mean common). You basically are involuntarily going unconscious for a few hours at a time so that your body can recuperate from basic life processes. It's kind of strange if you think about it like that.

Q: What concepts about human nature might be different if we didn't ever sleep?

Free Will and Determinism

My issue with accepting determinism is born from not understanding why it is practical, and not so much why it is possible. I see that if everything is the universe is a certain way, and there is a totality of natural laws, then the universe must progress in a certain way; in this case, determinism works in theory. But applied practically, I do not see the point. If we feel guilt or pride in our actions due to responsibility, then determinism, which seems to remove responsibility by saying we had no choice, rules out a reason for feeling either guilt or pride (blame or praise). Is there some way in which viewing the world under this hypothesis would help us achieve anything? I cannot see a way in which it could, rather, empowering one's self with an attitude of free will seems much more prone to allow for blame and praise to exist appropriately. If one believes that their actions have consequences, and one has adequate understanding of how they can influence their own actions, then, and only then, it seems, would they be able to take responsibility for which action they choose.
So although I am not ruling our determinism as a possible choice for the way the universe works, I do ridicule it for how it applies to our everyday lives.

Q: What can we gain from viewing our world as predetermined, and what can we lose from viewing our world as undetermined?

Response: "Do our morals improve?" - Cameron

I believe that our morals are improving. We are developing more dangerous technologies, yes, and we have the ability to consider an "immoral" action and still do the "wrong" choice, yes, but we have been making advancements. I feel as though technology improving is just our moral boundaries expanding. The example that we find a way to cure cancer and, at the same time, develop a doomsday device does not make us immoral, it just gives us further moral consideration. We simply have two new things to think about, one that can be answered fairly simply because of its obvious goodness and one that is a little more tricky because of its inherent wrongness. The cure for cancer then becomes question number one, "Should we use it?", and I believe, yes, we should. Question two then is, "We've developed a doomsday device, should we use it?", to which I believe most people would answer, "No." Contemplation of a larger field of morals does not necessarily mean that we are not making progress, it could also mean that we are simply discovering more of the world which we must take into consideration when making our decisions. A cave man both does not have the capacity to make a doomsday device nor the capacity to understand its ramifications. If he were to discover one somehow and use it, would that make his actions immoral? Or is it simply his lack of understanding that makes the event into an innocent accident? On the other hand, we have, in the original hypothetical scenario, a scientist or team of scientists, most likely, that have made this weapon, and fully understand what would happen if they used it. Can we consider their actions immoral if they decide to use it? I feel as though there is a certain level of innocence in ignorance and a bit of maliciousness in misuse.

My question is then:
Is it right for us to judge our ancestors with the same criteria we use to judge ourselves today?

The Voluntary Consumption of Nonhuman Flesh

A question that has become a large part of my life is, "Why do I eat meat?" After careful consideration, I realized my only defenses were aesthetic in nature. I enjoyed the taste, and never really thought about where my food was coming from. Making the connection between seeing a living animal in pain mercilessly killed so that I could enjoy a particular taste didn't seem like a good enough rationale for me. So, I no longer eat meat, and have been living a healthy and happy life, unaltered in almost every way, since I made this decision. Giving up the trivial pleasure of one taste over another and, in it's place, removing myself from a system that I see as torturous and abusive, seems like a good choice so far. My chief concern for myself, up to this point, has been my nutrition, but I have found many ways in which I can acquire all the necessary nutrients in my diet, and have yet to find anything present in meat that I cannot find elsewhere.

So, my questions here are:
Why is it that humans living in a society that can provide healthy (and often healthier) alternatives to eating meat still choose to do so?
Is there a reason for a person in our society to eat meat other than the pleasure of good taste?

Response: "So could it be that our drive to form societies actually is a bit self destructive?" - Griffin

First, let me say that I agree with this post in most every way. I do not think that there is a society, culture, or other social environment created by man that suits the needs of the whole. Of course, we have some that work better than others; I am willing to say that capitalist society can serve the elite well, as socialism can serve the lower class well and anarchy can serve those with strong feelings of independence. The forms of government, economy and social networking that make up the greater "society" are, in themselves, complex beings, making the whole issue of a working society a very complicated one. Our nature may be to form groups to accomplish tasks, but possibly not at the level or in the manner in which we generally tend to go about it in the present day. This argument asks me the questions: Are humans meant to form groups so large that no one person can comprehend the entirety of it, the way we do with countries? Are we meant for smaller groups that interact with each other, such as states, or are we destined for even less regulation than that? Or is this just a consequence of living in a society that promotes individualism to a species that truly values interdependence? "Man is a social animal" holds great truth, but is it correct that we place such a value on this idea that we overlook the ways in which man values independence?

If human nature drives us towards independence while society drive us towards interdependence, wherein can we find the proper balance?

On the "Cuteness Factor" of Rabbits (but not really)

I draw a distinction between the usefulness of a being to others and the usefulness of the being as a whole. The instance that came up today was the value of a weed in a garden versus the rest of the plants. If we were to say that the plants have a purpose for the owner of the garden, whether they are being grown for the purpose of nutrition, such as vegetables, fruits and spuds, or for the purpose of aesthetics, such as roses, shrubs and herbs*. The plants are therefore given an indirect moral value to the owner of the garden, meaning it would be objectionable if a person was to come along and destroy the garden. The distinction drawn for weeds is then that they have two differences from that person, the first being that they cannot understand the consequences of their actions, such as taking nutrients away from the other plants and therefore causing them to die, and the second being that they cannot suffer when harm is caused to them, making it more morally acceptable to kill them than a being that can feel harm. What I mean by this is a person can understand why killing the garden is wrong, because they can understand the grower's reasons for making the garden in the first place, whereas the plant cannot. But, the person would suffer if violent attempts were made to stop them, whereas the plant would not, which is why we draw the moral distinction of a wrongness in killing a human for trampling your garden but much lesser of a wrongness in uprooting weeds to save the gardener's plants from wilting.
This discussion can now enter the realm of property rights, and where the distinction is drawn there. When a person buys a piece of property with the intent of growing a garden in a specific area, what exactly is it that they are purchasing? Is it purely the soil on which boundaries can be placed? What about the plant life? We usually say that the plants are a part of the property as well, because they live and thrive there. What about the insects and other life forms we usually disregard because of their lack of ability to suffer? Does buying a property of soil mean that you then own all the insects that live in that area? And what about the more cognitively advanced animal life? If there are birds nesting on your property, are they your birds? Do we draw a distinction as to whether or not the animal can leave of it's own accord? The bird can choose to fly away. The bugs can choose to fly as well, and if they are without this gift, they can crawl or squirm or slither or whatever system of movement they happen to possess. But the tree cannot. The tree is a more permanent fixture; the only mobility it happens to be capable of, while still retaining the ability to live, is if another being uproots it from its current location and replants it in another. Does this mean that we can apply property status, and therefore indirect moral status, to another being simply because of how mobile it is?

Q: Where do we draw the lines between ownership and the moral ramifications of claiming something as property?

*I list herbs as aesthetic because they are pleasing to our senses. We can eat herbs such as basil and bananas, but I tend to think of an herb garden as something designed to please taste and smell. The roses and shrubs are in this category for their obvious aesthetic relationship to sight.
(Of course, if we go further, and include potentially hallucinogenic or otherwise mind altering herbs, that becomes another discussion which I have chosen to omit for the time being).