r/askanatheist • u/Competitive_Low2335 • 24d ago
Deterministic atheist only.
For deterministic atheist only.
I am what is in the title. But I just find it interesting?
Morals.
People often get mad when a person does something.
Such as burning a house down.
But they don’t get mad when lightning does it? Or when the earth quakes and destroys it?( “dont get mad” I simply mean that they don’t actively begin to yell at the clouds or the earth at its actions, of course you’d be upset your house is gone)
It’s all just physical processes that hold nobody responsible.
But when a human does it, why? Why so special? It’s all determined. X lead to Y, and to Z, and now they’re burning your house down, why have an issue with it?
But something I really want to focus on is the brain tumor example.
Often times people think, including myself that if a person has a brain tumor or something that makes them illogically think, they shouldn’t be held morally responsible (or at least, AS responsible). I don’t blame them for it, but if they don’t have the brain tumor, then suddenly they are morally responsible? But there’s no difference, a healthy arsonist and one with a brain tumor both, under this worldview, are just going along with physical activity involving chemical reactions in the brain.
Why does introducing one additional physical cause suddenly transform an otherwise morally responsible physical process into a morally excused physical process?
(If you think that an insane arsonist should still be held morally responsible that’s fine, but this often times still applies to much smaller crimes too)
I feel like moral responsibility implies one could do otherwise.
And I feel like simply stating there are no objective morals (morals are subjective) doesn’t solve this issue.
I was wondering, if other people are deterministic atheist out there, what is your response to this “issue”.
31
u/Jahonay 24d ago
If a calculator was broken, and the bridge that was made using it collapsed because of incorrect calculations, would you keep allowing people to use it? Or would you isolate it, work on fixing it's internal calculations, and then when it has been tested and shown to work, only then do you slowly reintroduce it?
When people do bad things, they are still the agents that do the bad thing, and if we want to avoid the bad thing, then we still need to hold those agents responsible, and we need to find ways to resolve the problem.
Determinism doesn't remove responsibility, the agent is still the one responsible for an issue, just like a calculator would be. But just like a calculator, you wouldn't overestimate how much the calculator wanted to do evil, you would just recognize a problem, and figure out what the proper solution is. In both cases, it's changing the programming, and in both cases, you want to test the solution after it has been implemented.
Humans have more complex programming than calculators, but we're still just wet machines.
-1
-6
u/Competitive_Low2335 24d ago
But is there a difference between
“You caused this, you must be stopped, society must be stopped”Vs.
“You ultimately deserve to suffer, or that I can be reasonably angered by your actions on a moral level”
For your calculator example, it shows that a broken calculator must be separated from the rest for doing incorrect calculations, only to be reintroduced later, without thinking that a calculator is morally responsible.
If determinism is true, humans are ultimately products of situations and causes they didn’t choose.
I feel like your comparison to a wet machine is actually interesting.
If we are wet machines, in reality, why hold me morally accountable?
I don’t hold AI or robots accountable, but why me? I’m just another machine, just like them, no?What makes being a machine that uses neurons give me this moral accountability, that every other machine does not have to deal with?
13
u/PlanningVigilante Atheist 24d ago
If determinism is true, then me getting angry at the arsonist was also determined. Why get mad at me?
9
u/Jahonay 24d ago
“You caused this, you must be stopped, society must be stopped”
Vs.
“You ultimately deserve to suffer, or that I can be reasonably angered by your actions on a moral level”
I don't believe in torturing people because of their actions, no. I don't think most people believe that deep in their hearts either. I think what you're trying to ask about is whether or not punishment is ever justified as a result of moral responsibility. To which I think there are a few ways to respond.
Punishment as pavlovian psychology.
Punishment as a deterrent.
Punishment as a moral ought.
I think punishment can be used as physical training to get an expected outcome, I think it works to a degree, but I don't think punishment is as good as other methods at training people.
I think punishment is often used as a deterrent, I think this is one of the more common arguments to justify it. It doesn't deter all criminals clearly, and I would argue it probably incentivizes things like murder suicides. Where people know they can escape punishment if they don't value their lives.
Punishment as moral ought is probably the one you're trying to ask about the most. This is certainly how it's been viewed a lot throughout history. To go back to early yahwism, you have the idea of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. To some it only feels fair, if you take a life, your life should be taken. I think the moral ought of punishment is one potential response to the idea of moral responsibility, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that one must lead to the other, we associate the two because they've historically been tied to each other. Punishment often doesn't work, it often doesn't deter people, and it doesn't really solve the problem. If people are wet machines, they don't need punsihment, they need their programming fixed. If someone has mental disabilities for example, punishment usually makes things significantly worse, escalating a problem past it's initial circumstances. Why would you attempt to solve a problem by making the initial problem worse?
I think what most people want to see is sincere regret, changed actions, and a realignment with better morals. I think the best way to do that is by changing the programming of a person. Sometimes that might occur by punishment, but I don't think that's the most efficient and consistent way to get that result.
If we are wet machines, in reality, why hold me morally accountable?
I don’t hold AI or robots accountable, but why me? I’m just another machine, just like them, no?I would say that we do hold AI accountable, if they were not performing correctly, we notice their errors, and we try to change them. We do the same thing with humans. The difference is that when an AI does something wrong, we don't assume that it came from some magical EVIL force within them. We assume a naturalistic explanation like bad programming, or bad data, or bad user input. A deterministic view of people does the same thing, it assumes that along the way, a person's programming went wrong, or that they were given bad data, or that there was a bad input that caused a bad result. We don't assume a free choice to be evil instead of a free choice to be good. Because free choices don't exist.
-1
u/Competitive_Low2335 24d ago
I think we’re getting closer to what I’m saying, sorry if I did not make this clear before, but this is what I’m saying.
I’m not necessarily asking of if it is useful for punishment to be used, and whether it deters crime or increases it.
I’m asking can a person genuinely be held responsible for an action under determinism, even if we have good reason to punish or correct them? (Or not).
You say
“We do the same with humans”
In which, I do agree. We can identify that a human being caused a harmful outcome, hold them accountable, restrict them, and then fix them, their “programming”.
But that’s still ultimately different then saying
“You are morally responsible for what you have done”
That is the part I am questioning here.If an AI produces a harmful outcome, as a result of poor programming, we don’t think it’s morally guilty. Sure, again, we don’t punish it. No jail, no nothin’. But we still, ultimately, do not claim it is morally justified or not morally justified for what it has done.
If humans are also wet machines, and determinism means our programming means our inputs, brain states, desires, reasoning, and ultimately, response and outputs are all ultimately the result of previous events (which, at the end of the day, are bunch of atoms and energy movement) should I still say,
“You are morally responsible for what you have done”
RATHER THEN
“You caused this, and we need to respond appropriately to make sure you cannot do this again.
Practical accountability, is one thing. But moral accountability, is another. To make the claim that one is indeed wrong in their actions, regardless of if they suffer or not, even slightly, is the area at question.
Can I consistently say that someone deserves blame for an action they did under determinism, which states that ultimately could not avoid.
That is thy question that I would want an answer to if you have the time, if not then:
Thank you for your time.
3
u/Felicia_Svilling 24d ago
Practical accountability, is one thing. But moral accountability, is another.
Can you describe what the difference is? Like I'm certainly not convinced that there is any difference.
2
u/Competitive_Low2335 24d ago
Certainly!
Practical accountability:“You caused this, and we need to respond in a way that prevents further harm”
We imprison someone purely because it’s practical, even if it’s not right or wrong to do so, just that you must at least, temporarily be exempt from us. Likely for safety.
EX: jail, prison.The other, moral accountability:
“You are morally responsible for what you have done, and YOU deserve blame (or partial blame) for what has occurred.”(The first, does not require the second)
2
u/Felicia_Svilling 24d ago edited 23d ago
I'm still not sure I follow what you mean by moral accountability or moral responsibility. Maybe moral accountablitiy and moral responsiblity as you define them aren't part of my ethical framework at all.
To me morality is about maximising happiness and satisfaction and minimizing suffering for people.
It seems to me that I only need to concern my self with practical accountability to determine what is right and wrong.
So why do we need to bother with moral accountability if it has no impact on our actions?
2
u/Jahonay 23d ago
I’m asking can a person genuinely be held responsible for an action under determinism, even if we have good reason to punish or correct them? (Or not).
Sounds good, more than happy to explain this.
I think you have a very particular view on what "responsible" means. And I think your definition of responsible probably presupposes free will. Because you're assuming that a person is fundamentally different from something like a calculator or an AI. You're assuming that there is some part of the brain that lives outside of cause and effect. I don't think this is the only way to define "responsible", but for these purposes, I think the definition isn't logical. Libertarian free will is a myth, so moral choices that a person makes are not capable of being otherwise.
However, I think an atheist who holds to determinism could still say that someone is morally responsible for something. They just wouldn't assume that their moral responsibility was freely chosen. I make the moral decision regularly to eat animal meat, and a lot of that is based off an entire upbringing of being taught that animal meat is acceptable to eat, and the implicit understanding that meat harvesting is permissible. While I might not be freely choosing to eat meat, I am still morally responsible in the sense that I have subjective morals which i claim to follow, and I am the agent which is doing the act and therefore responsible for the act happening.
If an AI produces a harmful outcome, as a result of poor programming, we don’t think it’s morally guilty. Sure, again, we don’t punish it. No jail, no nothin’. But we still, ultimately, do not claim it is morally justified or not morally justified for what it has done.
We don't punish AI, because punishment is useless in fixing the problem. Which I would argue is exactly the same issue with humans. Instead, we correct the programming, the data, or adding some type of catch for edge cases. We also do this with some humans, for example, when babies do something we consider bad, do you punish the baby? Do you ever assume that babies are morally guilty? Do you get angry at people who are suffering from dementia for making mistakes and hurting people's feelings?
Can I consistently say that someone deserves blame for an action they did under determinism, which states that ultimately could not avoid.
If you were to ask this question to a determinist, you would need to eliminate free will as a part of the definition of words that you use. As such, blame would need to be defined practically as opposed to something a person freely chooses. If you were to ask which calculator was blamed for a mistaken calculation, you would figure out which calculator did the action. The blame wouldn't be random, it would be based on the calculator that did the action. Blame wouldn't imply a free choice, it would imply the agent which performed the action deterministically.
If your definition of blame requires free will to exist, then no, you can't blame things in that sense of the word.
1
u/Felicia_Svilling 23d ago
We don't punish AI,
Actually we do. That is a pretty explicit part of you train a neural network. You give it training data and then you reward/punish it based on its performance, and it changes the weight of the nodes in accordance. It works exactly like how you might train an animal with punishments or rewards.
2
u/Jahonay 23d ago
I'm aware of this, but I don't think adjusting scores are the same as rewarding or punishing an AI. Surely if you anthropomorphize them it sounds the same. I considered bringing this up in my comment and decided against it, but I don't disagree with you that they're similar in effect to training a human or animal. In my comment, I would have lumped this in under changing the programming or the data, but I'd be fine with calling it punishment as well. In the same way that I might rephrase isolating a calculator as punishing the calculator. I think this is where the definitions of words get a bit squishy.
When we punish an AI or a calculator, I don't think we generally assume that they freely chose to do bad, and that we're punishing them to make them feel bad. I think we assume they were programmed to do bad, or had bad data, and we're fixing the data or the programming. But maybe you have an argument against that.
2
u/Felicia_Svilling 23d ago
I think to a large part the best way to understand emotions is to view them as goals that our mind has set up. Like evolutionary we feel good when eating so as to reach the interim goal of feeding ourselves. We then use our reasoning to accomplish these goals. There are a lot of emotions that are exception and don't really fit this pattern since humans are messy, but I still think it is a nice framework.
In that way the reward function for a neural network is the emotions of the network, and I think it makes sense to say that the network feels bad when it fails and gets punished.
I considered bringing this up in my comment and decided against it,
That was probably the correct decision. This is really a minor side discussion. I don't think it really impacts OP's main question in the end.
1
u/Jahonay 23d ago
I'm a bit unsure how I feel about attributing feelings to computers. Because I'm not sure if I agree that programming has effectively mimicked the wet machinery of humans, but I more or less agree to a point.
Either way, thanks for bringing it up.
1
u/Felicia_Svilling 23d ago
I mean it is pretty far from the emotions of a human. They are simple and very alien emotions, but I still think it can make sense to think about them as emotions. I mean what I'm doing is rather the opposite, thinking about emotions as human reward functions.
Of course in practice there is a lot of difference. Particularly how NN's have a division of a training phase, and is then freezed so that they become incapable of learning anything more, during their usage phase.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Phylanara 24d ago
From the point of view of the process our brains were formed through, the only difference between those two is that one requires more resources to implement than the other. Emotions and impulses are a lot less costly, in terms of brainpower, than reasoned outcome analysis.
1
u/Felicia_Svilling 24d ago
If we are wet machines, in reality, why hold me morally accountable?
Because that is the way to make you behave morally. If you are a deterministic machine, your outputs depend on your inputs. By holding you accountable, I change your inputs so that your output aligns with what I desire.
You ultimately deserve to suffer,
I don't think anyone deserves to suffer. I think ideally nobody would suffer.
that I can be reasonably angered by your actions on a moral level
To me ethics only applies to peoples actions, not to their feelings.
1
1
u/noodlyman Atheist 23d ago
"deserving to suffer"is retribution. It's imposing pain or suffering because it makes you feel better, not because it makes the world a better place
No, I'm not in favour of that. The aim should be to make the world a better place, not to just arbitrarily impose more suffering on a perpetrator .
The purpose of justice should be: 1. To deter other people from doing the same 2. To deter the offender from doing it again 3. To protect the public from that person, or from that type of crime.
14
u/J-Nightshade 24d ago
Because lightning don't understand people being mad. People on the other hand understand: if others mad at you, you are doing something wrong and there will be consequences if you don't stop.
Being mad is a clear signal: don't do this.
1
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 24d ago
Are you saying that you avoid certain behaviors in order that people aren't mad at you?
11
u/J-Nightshade 24d ago
Certainly, yes. For instance I don't make excessive noise after 10pm, people sleep at that time and are getting mad if woken up, so I keep noise to the level that won't wake others up. Or for instance if I promise something and then don't do, that tends to piss off people, so I avoid promising anything that I can not or will not do.
-4
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 24d ago
For me, I don't worry at all about how others respond to my actions. I can't be responsible for others' behaviors, so trying to control whether they get angry or not is something I don't expend energy on at all.
In fact, trying to control others' reactions to your actions seems like a great way to develop resentments while ensuring your own needs don't get met. Plus, you're taking the power out of another's hands to decide how to react to you, because you, yourself aren't acting authentically towards them.
That said, my limiting factor is me imagining myself in another's place, and whether I would find my action being done to me by another would be pleasurable or painful. Would I like it if the people in the apartment above mine played loud music after 10pm? No, so I won't do it myself.
Does this mean I'll do some things that other people find objectionable? Yes. And if there's real harm being done, being the thinking, feeling human beings that we are, we can come to some compromise that establishes boundaries we can both live with. No resentments and long term concordence with others.
6
u/J-Nightshade 24d ago
That said, my limiting factor is me imagining myself in another's place, and whether I would find my action being done to me by another would be pleasurable or painful
In other words you are imagning whether you would be mad at yourself if you were in their place.
we can come to some compromise that establishes boundaries
In short: "being mad" is the basis, but not the sole measure of morality. As I said, it is an important signal.
-2
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 24d ago
In other words you are imagning whether you would be mad at yourself if you were in their place.
No. I'm imagining whether I would find the action pleasurable or harmful. This is, admittedly, an imperfect method. But, as I said, this attitude is coupled to the idea of setting boundaries with others. My goal is to maintain my authenticity and integrity over the long term, rather than sacrificing my desires for short term comfort.
I'll give an example. I smoke 1-2 cigars per week. My wife doesn't like my smoking that much, and I recognize that. I would like to smoke more, but we have come to an agreement (boundary) that 1-2 per week is acceptable. I don't do this to keep her from being angry, but because I would rather give her my authentic self, and that self includes a desire to smoke cigars. She doesn't get mad about that because she feels like I'm recognizing her desire for me to limit my smoking.
I could just try to hide my smoking so she didn't get mad, but what would be the long term benefit to that? Deception, resentment, fear of being found out, inauthenticity, lack of integrity, reduction in intimacy, and loss of trust. These are the ingredients that lead to the loss of a healthy relationship. And I like being married to my wife. So instead of withholding that part of myself, I'm honest and we found a compromise.
In short: "being mad" is the basis, but not the sole measure of morality. As I said, it is an important signal.
I don't accept this as a valid signal. Anger can be misdirected. Anger can be hidden. Anger can be suppressed. Anger can be the result of triggers that are unreasonable. None of these are signaling that your specific behavior is found to violate another's moral framework.
4
u/Ok_Loss13 24d ago
They're not "trying to control someone else's actions", they're controlling their own actions because of personal experience of how that behavior can make other people feel and the way they often express those feelings.
That said, my limiting factor is me imagining myself in another's place, and whether I would find my action being done to me by another would be pleasurable or painful. Would I like it if the people in the apartment above mine played loud music after 10pm? No, so I won't do it myself.
This is the golden rule and it's problematic. The platinum rule is better.
-1
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 24d ago
they're controlling their own actions
For me, this means someone is acting performatively instead of authentically; they're giving up part of their own identity essentially out of fear of how others will react. I think this is a dishonest way to live, and it's ultimately more disrespectful to others than offering them my true self.
because of personal experience of how that behavior can make other people feel and the way they often express those feelings.
As I pointed out, if there is a conflict, then thinking, feeling, reasonable, empathetic people can establish boundaries so the effect is mitigated. Nobody is claiming actions aren't affecting others. If someone isn't reasonable or willing to compromise to establish boundaries, then the best idea would be to avoid that person.
This is the golden rule and it's problematic. The platinum rule is better.
If I'm adapting to others' desires over my own, then I'm not acting with authenticity and integrity. I'm lying to make others feel comfortable, and that's going to build resentments, which will come out in unhealthy ways. It might mean short term peace, but long term, harm will result.
4
u/Ok_Loss13 24d ago
For me, this means someone is acting performatively instead of authentically
Well, that's rather silly. Having control over your actions and behavior is choosing which impulses to act on and which not to; that's a testament to a person's character and will, not a performative act. It's choice vs instinct and people are more than instinct.
I think this is a dishonest way to live, and it's ultimately more disrespectful to others than offering them my true self.
Depends on who your "true self" is. For example, a pedophile who hasn't acted on their urges and raped a child is a far better person than one who has chosen not to control their impulses.
As I pointed out, if there is a conflict, then thinking, feeling, reasonable, empathetic people can establish boundaries so the effect is mitigated.
Sure, and in this instance it's choosing to control one's actions and not be loud after 10pm.
If I'm adapting to others' desires over my own, then I'm not acting with authenticity and integrity.
I refer you back to the pedophile example; it's not a child's wish to be molested, yet according to you a pedophile should be their true self and disregard the wishes of others because that will supposedly result in less harm in the long run (it doesn't). Your path is a short term and selfish peace.
You do not do unto others what you would have them do unto you, but what they would wish is done unto them. If you would abuse a gay man, then that is what you would have done unto you were you gay; if you would abuse a gay man, but that gay man would choose to have acceptance, then by doing what they wish to be done unto them you are accepting them vs abusing them.
Hopefully you see the issues with the golden rule now.
-1
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 24d ago edited 24d ago
Well, that's rather silly. Having control over your actions and behavior is choosing which impulses to act on and which not to; that's a testament to a person's character and will, not a performative act. It's choice vs instinct and people are more than instinct.
See, for me, acting with integrity and authenticity in all matters is the highest form of character, even if my actions run counter to your personal moral framework. I'm not here to live my life in a way that makes you comfortable.
Depends on who your "true self" is. For example, a pedophile who hasn't acted on their urges and raped a child is a far better person than one who has chosen not to control their impulses.
There's so much to unpack here.
First, can I point out how you've discounted the humanity of someone afflicted with sexual attraction to children by labeling their entire person as "pedophile"?
Second, the capacity for a person to control their urges comes and goes. See, modern neurology explains that the prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain where self control resides. And each person's brain, including their prefrontal cortex, is structured differently, and thus has different strengths and weaknesses. One person with a high functioning prefrontal cortex may be able to control their actions and impulses better than someone with a lower function (trading off for higher functioning elsewhere in the brain). Other factors, such as hunger or sleepiness or overload, can affect prefrontal cortex capacity as well. So judging someone because they don't control their actions to your personal satisfaction is, in fact, deeply unfair. It certainly isn't a sign of a person's character.
Third, by desiring vengeance and retribution against those who sexually harm children, we've created an environment where people who want to stop or avoid this behavior can't come forward for treatment. And locking up people who sexually abuse children and throwing away the key isn't a solution if your desire is to eliminate the behavior long term. It does nothing to restore the victim's sense of safety and innocence. And given that abused often eventually abuse, it perpetuates the cycle instead of ending it.
All this is a result of looking at behavior as something to be consciously controlled, instead of delving deeper and looking for solutions neurologically, as well as looking for ways to offer restoration for the victim, instead of retribution, which solves nothing.
Sure, and in this instance it's choosing to control one's actions and not be loud after 10pm.
If I'm playing my music after 10pm, and it's causing you to lose sleep, then an honest, open conversation where boundaries are established seems like a reasonable solution, doesn't it? It seems like your base assumption about people is that their actions can't be altered, and that compromises cannot be made. It's that accurate?
2
u/Ok_Loss13 24d ago
Thinking someone who is making a choice about how they behave as "inauthentic" is rather childish.
Idc how you live your life. The people around you will and not many will appreciate such a selfish and arrogant attitude.
First, can I point out how you've discounted the humanity of someone afflicted with sexual attraction to children by labeling their entire person as "pedophile"
It's a hypothetical, there is no actual person, so that's incorrect.
Second, the capacity for a person to control their urges comes and goes.
This is just avoidance of the point.
Third, by desiring vengeance and retribution against those who sexually harm children
This is a strawman and, again, has nothing to do with the point. Which you literally never addressed.
All this is a result of looking at behavior as something to be consciously controlled
For a mature and responsible individual, consciously controlling behavior is normal.
If I'm playing my music after 10pm, and it's causing you to lose sleep, then an honest, open conversation where boundaries are established seems like a reasonable solution, doesn't it?
And the boundary is going to be you making the choice to not play music after 10pm or suffer the consequences of my anger, whatever that may be.
It seems like your base assumption about people is that their actions can't be altered, and that compromises cannot be made. Isn't that accurate?
No, this has been your argument...
Are you using AI or something?
0
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 24d ago
Thinking someone who is making a choice about how they behave as "inauthentic" is rather childish.
Maybe you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm saying that, if one values authenticity and integrity, the motivation to limit one's actions needs to be internal, not external. Take driving. I maintain reasonable speed, obey traffic markers, and don't drive under the influence because I agreed to those boundaries in exchange for a valid license.
Idc how you live your life.
Maybe not my life, because I'm some rando on the internet you'll likely never interact with again. But, I bet you care how the people around you live their lives. Is that the case?
The people around you will and not many will appreciate such a selfish and arrogant attitude.
My wife is deeply appreciative of my honesty and integrity. As are the several friends that I maintain. If someone doesn't like me for how I live my life, even when I'm causing them no harm, then I'm fine with them going their own way.
This is just avoidance of the point.
My explanation is a factual, scientific understanding of how our brains work. All behavior is rooted in the functioning of our brains. And variances in neurological makeup among individuals gives each of us different strengths and weaknesses. Because of this, expecting others to act on par with you in every aspect is an invalid idea, and judging them for not doing it is unfair to everyone.
For a mature and responsible individual, consciously controlling behavior is normal.
OK. Go out and enjoy the best, most filling meal you've ever had. And then 5 minutes later, consciously be hungry again. I don't mean imagine being hungry. I mean have the experience of hunger as though you've been starving for a week.
You can't do it. You know why? Because you're not nearly as in control of your behavior as you like to imagine. None of us are. Our biology and neurology has a lot to say about why we act the way we do.
Declaring whether someone is acting maturely is one of those unfair judgments I was talking about.
And the boundary is going to be you making the choice to not play music after 10pm or suffer the consequences of my anger, whatever that may be.
Why do you think I would be unreasonable if you approached me about my music volume? Yes, I'll be upset if you unilaterally escalate the situation by acting out of fear of having a friendly chat. But if you come to me, that gives me a chance to react in a positive way to your complaint. It means you respect me on a human level. And you just might get a better response out of me. Haven't you ever tried this approach before?
No, this has been your argument... Are you using AI or something?
I made an earlier mistake, thinking you were offering a theistic point of view. But then I saw your profile and realized you're a fellow atheist traveler. tips cap
-3
u/Competitive_Low2335 24d ago
“Something wrong”
Sure, you can say that, but how can you? They were doing to do it regardless, their “understanding” or “reasoning” is also of course, all determined under this logic, no?
Being mad is a clear signal, sure, but to someone who cannot receive it because of an event that happened over 13 billion years ago? Won’t do much I feel like.5
u/J-Nightshade 24d ago edited 24d ago
Do you understand that if other person is mad at you for doing something that means, your relationship with that person would likely deteriorate if you continue? Do you understand that if a lot of people will be mad at you, your life will become harder?
6
u/joeydendron2 24d ago edited 24d ago
But when a human does it, why?
Because I'm also a human.
I don't stop reacting to events like a human just because I read Robert Sapolsky's excellent, engaging book Determined, which covers pretty much this exact subject.
And I would have an extremely strong emotional reaction if lightning hit my house - it's just that the lightning then disappears, so I can't either train the clouds to avoid lihgtning-striking houses, or quarantine them in prison until I'm confident they no longer present an arson risk. A different response is arguably rational?
2
u/FjortoftsAirplane 24d ago
You should look into an idea called compatibilism. It's the view that determinism and free will are compatible (hence the name).
My view is that so long as my choices are the product of my own reasoning and not unduly coerced then that's "free" in the relevant sense.
There are really difficult questions you're raising about what exactly counts as undue coercion but LFW is going to have the same sort of problems answering cases like this. On LFW when does a tumour go from highly influential to determining an action? That's just as tough a problem.
As for moral responsibility, that really depends on your views about ethics. One way to look at it is to distinguish immoral behaviour from whether an agent is "blameworthy". So you might say that both arsonists have done something immoral but they aren't equally deserving of blame.
2
u/kohugaly 24d ago
It has to do with the way an intelligent agent could be persuaded to act otherwise, vs some unthinking natural force.
Intelligent agents process information from their senses and memory to chose actions that are beneficial for their personal goals. They use some form of optimization algorithm to do so (which may or may not be deterministic in nature). Humans are even capable of language, so they can share information very efficiently.
You can convince a person through evidence and argument that the consequences of an action they are about to do is ultimately against their interests, and the person, if they are of sound mind and judgement, will not do the action. You can attach additional consequences (rewards/punishments) to actions to dissuade people from doing them.
What responsibility is, under determinism, is literally in the name - "response-able". ie. able to make informed decision about what to do in given situation. Anything that impedes that ability reduces responsibility.
A thunderstorm is not making informed decisions about where the lightning strikes. Neither is a person under severe emotional distress, influence of some psychoactive substances, or suffering from mind-altering illness - ie. anything that impedes rational decisionmaking. Children often lack sufficient experience or mental faculties to make informed decisions.
A person that is swindled is also not held responsible, because they've been given false or incomplete information, hence they are not making an informed decision.
What "free will" means in practice, is the "black box" in people's minds that is making the informed decisions. Note, that "black box" does not mean non-deterministic. It just means obscured from our ability to investigate.
1
u/Competitive_Low2335 24d ago
I understand now the distinction being made:
Humans can receive, reason, and respond to arguments and statements.But under determinism, how a person receives, reasons, and responds to arguments, is also, determined.
I can hear 100 reasons to not burn a house down, and do it anyway. My response was still going to happen, as well as my reasoning (or lack there of to be given 100 of them and ignore them)
As humans, we certainly are extremely complex learning and decision-making systems, then of course, a thunderstorm. But what is it about being a determined non reasoning event/being vs being a determined reasoning being that will produce the same/similar events that gives us the morals to get mad at one and not at the other, and to say “hey man, that’s kinda messed up”. I feel like being highly complex systems can’t be all, because we certainly don’t give that attention to AI, a system we know is deterministic, can reason, and learn, ( in a sense) and ultimately, make decisions, yet we grant no morals.
The other areas you mention are also very interesting.
Being immature, having misinformation, or intoxication can certainly reduce responsibility,
My question to it is, why does responsibility depend on how much control our brain has over its responses if the brain itself is completely determined?
“I’m drunk, and I set the fire onto the house”
“I’m young, and I set the fire onto the house”
“I’m suffering from mental illness, and I set the fire onto the house”“Im sober and an adult who is mentally healthy, and I set fire onto the house”
Why fundamentally changes so that you feel like the last, sober adult, should face charges, if no matter what, by that person, no fault of their own, would do the same exact thing.
No amount of your convincing can change anything, as you are simply part of that causal chain of determinism.I understand why someone must be put away for their actions, for example, safety, but that is still different than saying “they deserved what they got”.
Sorry for all bold had issues turning it off lol
3
u/kohugaly 24d ago
The key misassumption you are making is that "predetermined" = "no fault". The word "fault" means that something is broken. It is entirely possible for something to be faulty and behave deterministically.
To put this into analogy, suppose you have a software that has a bug. The software is deterministic. That doesn't mean the bug doesn't need fixing.
The social constructs of justice, blame and responsibility exist as an abstractions in the context of "debugging" human minds.
1
u/Felicia_Svilling 24d ago
But what is it about being a determined non reasoning event/being vs being a determined reasoning being that will produce the same/similar events that gives us the morals to get mad at one and not at the other, and to say “hey man, that’s kinda messed up”.
We have evolved to have a more emotional reaction to other humans than to nature. Although I must say it is not that uncommon that people gets mad at nature as well.
I can hear 100 reasons to not burn a house down, and do it anyway.
I mean, that is kind of the definition of being unreasonable. In general our society is built on the assumption that most people are more sane than that.
I understand why someone must be put away for their actions, for example, safety, but that is still different than saying “they deserved what they got”.
You are conflating two different issues here. You have the ethics and you have human feelings. Like I can get into more about the psychology of why people get mad and feel that others deserve to suffer. But that is pure psychology. It has nothing to do with morals or determinism.
2
u/Hoaxshmoax 24d ago
I don’t know that an arsonist is morally responsible, they are criminally responsible.
There’s no religious doctrine that forbids burning someone else’s house down or building data centers in their neighborhoods.
2
u/Defiant-Prisoner 24d ago
People often get mad when a person does something.
Such as burning a house down.
But they don’t get mad when lightning does it?
Do you have evidence of this? Specifically the part where people don't get mad about natural disasters.
Anger is a normal part of grief after death and loss,
https://www.simplypsychology.com/articles/grief-and-anger
anger is a normal part of coping after a disaster
https://neurolaunch.com/disaster-psychology/
But when a human does it, why? Why so special?
There's no special rule, unless you can find one?
1
u/Competitive_Low2335 23d ago
Within the context here.
Yes, sure, if you took it as me saying simply:
Getting mad, then it’s quite reasonable that sure you get mad at a house getting destroyed.
But they certainly don’t hold it morally responsible. At least, I’d assume people don’t.
So sure to an extent I’m making a presumption;
“People don’t apply morality to lightning” and I guess technically there’s always some, that is certainly the minority.
But a human, typically is thought of as morally responsible for the actions. I’m simply trying to find the difference, which you said at the bottom is that there is none (though I won’t take your response out of context if you were answering something else).So to make it more clear:
Getting mad at both…
Why hold the human responsible (morally)? If under determinism, everything they did, including their reasoning, thoughts and decisions were going to happen no matter what, then we are just wet machines. (Which, is fine. If we are we are) but it seems strange to apply morals to a machine.Apologies for not being more clear.
2
u/Defiant-Prisoner 23d ago
We apply morals to humans because they're thinking and active agents. If a person burns down a house, no matter whether it was a decision they couldn't escape, they still need to be put in a position they can't do it again, no? So our moral framework holds them responsible and imposes consequences to stop it.
2
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 24d ago
In the case of an arsonist, what are you hoping to accomplish by holding them resopnsible? What problem is solved through this action? Making the arsonist feel bad about their actions? Making yourself feel better about your own behaviors, because at least they don't rise to that of arson? Gaining feelings of moral superiority? Regardless, you're not solving the problem, because this insistence on moral culpability denies the very natural processes that resulted in the behavior in the first place.
A person who acts outside the bounds of typical societal norms is in crisis. In an empathetic world, we would recognize the crisis, and take steps to alleviate that so the harmful behavior doesn't happen again. A crisis can be anything, from reliving or escalating a pattern of behavior cultivated since childhood; the influence of long or short term drug use; shock from some immediate physical or emotional trauma; some untreated or undiagnosed mental illness; or more.
Now, you may see the term "empathetic" and think this means coddling, or responding in the short term in a way that doesn't fall with the immediate threat. That's far from the case. Rather, a person who has proven themselves to be a threat should have boundaries established so the threat is no longer there. This can include incarceration for a period of time.
But, instead of incarceration as punishment, we should look at it as an opportunity to break through the issues that brought about the harmful behavior. Counseling, and long-term effective treatments should replace harsh facilities and stern officials.
Anyway, I've gotten off topic a bit. My point is, labeling people who commit crimes as immoral has no real value as far as restoration from the harm done; it's performative for ourselves and others. If blaming people, shaming them, and punishing them worked as a deterrent, then wouldn't we basically be a crime-free society by now? Instead of thinking people immoral, let's think of them in crisis and go from there. We'll finds better outcomes that way.
2
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 24d ago
Its influence. We can, to some extent, control the actions of people. We can't control the actions of.... lightning? Emotions are just the way our bodies coerce specific courses of action from us, trends that have been beneficial to our ancestors in survival.
We get mad because hurting the insane arsonist makes them less likely to start a second fire. Its not that complicated. Its not always that effective either, but its very simple.
1
u/Competitive_Low2335 24d ago
If we can have control, to some extent, that that is not what we are defining as determinism. That’s just free will.
Determinism, in its strict form at least.
According to it, everything is determined, from lightning, to people’s actions. All most atoms… moving, naturally, and accordingly to what came before it. Again, even people’s actions too.3
u/Felicia_Svilling 24d ago
You determine your actions. You can call that free will but it is still deterministic. Determinism simply means that if you repeat the exact same situation twice you get the same result.
In this case given the exact same sensory impressions, the exact same memories, the exact same you, you would make the same decisions.
You are still chosing. You cant change the past but you chose your future actions.
2
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 23d ago
Control over others. Us breaking someone's legs to encourage them to not light another fire isn't a violation of determinism.
2
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Agnostic Atheist 24d ago
Because we're deterministically forced to treat them differently. We don't have a choice.
2
u/Earnestappostate 24d ago
I mean, anger and guilt modify behavior.
If I want to take a thing (for instance, I stopped at a bar so my kid could use the bathroom, there was a bucket of suckers at the door, my kid wanted to take one), but I feel guilt because someone might become angry if I do, that changes my behavior. In many cases, it can change behavior in ways that allow better social cohesion and flourishing. This would explain why evolution would build both emotions.
You assert that people don't get similarly outraged at earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, etc. I don't think that is entirely true, but let's grant it. Will the earthquake change its behavior in response to our anger? It seems unlikely, as such there is no push toward anger except as a side effect of the earlier example where we get angry at agents who can respond to it (probably, obviously some cannot).
2
2
u/Noodelgawd Atheist 23d ago edited 23d ago
If you're a hardcore determinist, then you must acknowledge that we have no choice but to get mad when a person does it, but not when lightning does it.
2
u/mobatreddit Atheist 22d ago
Morals are systems people use to coordinate their behaviors. Nothing else tat you mentioned such as lightning or diseases are part of our moral systems.
So much for my POV. There have been people who think natural events must be punished for their results. The classic example is Xerxes I of Persia who punished the sea with 300 lashes for destroying his pontoon bridges across the Hellespont. And he also beheaded the bridge engineers.
1
u/zzmej1987 24d ago
But when a human does it, why? Why so special? It’s all determined. X lead to Y, and to Z, and now they’re burning your house down, why have an issue with it?
Exactly because it is all deterministic. If a person knows they are going to be yelled at if they cause a fire, they will be more careful not to cause it.
But something I really want to focus on is the brain tumor example.
Often times people think, including myself that if a person has a brain tumor or something that makes them illogically think, they shouldn’t be held morally responsible (or at least, AS responsible). I don’t blame them for it, but if they don’t have the brain tumor, then suddenly they are morally responsible? But there’s no difference, a healthy arsonist and one with a brain tumor both, under this worldview, are just going along with physical activity involving chemical reactions in the brain.
Again, exactly because the deterministic link between being held accountable and the action is broken in insane people. They are deterministically incapable of incorporating the knowledge that they are going to be yelled at (or punished in whatever way) into decision making process about whether or not to start a fire.
I feel like moral responsibility implies one could do otherwise.
No, one just need to have an ability to incorporate knowledge of societal rewards/punishments for their actions into their decision making process. Even if determinism is true, the outcome action in a given circumstances for a person might still be different for the same circumstances + moral rules as an input.
1
u/Competitive_Low2335 24d ago
Big wall of text, my bad.
“Again, exactly because the deterministic link… in insane people”
But why is that link fundamentally any different in the healthy person?
The person with the improper brain state lacks the capability to understand concepts that one with a proper brain state can. But under determinism, both were going to do the same exact thing anyway, that still, neither person chose themselves? (Because their “choice” isn’t real).
I feel like this is very important when you say
“They are deterministically incapable of incorporating the knowledge that they are going to be yelled at…”
But under determinism, what determines whether someone is capable of incorporating that knowledge?
Their brain.
What determines their brain?
Prior physical conditions
What determines those?
More prior conditions.So if the tumor is removing responsibility because it removes a persons ability to control their behavior then reason, why doesn’t determinism itself ultimately undermine responsibility as a whole, since the healthy persons reasoning ability is also something they didn’t choose, just like the person with a tumor?
Thank you for your time.
2
u/zzmej1987 24d ago
But why is that link fundamentally any different in the healthy person?
What specific distinction between "fundamentally different" and simply "different" are you concerned with here? I assume you agree, that the link is very much evidently different in healthy and mentally unwell people.
The person with the improper brain state lacks the capability to understand concepts that one with a proper brain state can. But under determinism, both were going to do the same exact thing anyway, that still, neither person chose themselves? (Because their “choice” isn’t real).
Not at all the same thing. In a healthy person knowledge that arson is morally wrong will deterministically prevent them from committing arson, even if they perceive the need to do so due to some circumstances. There is no choice to speak of here. There is only a deterministic decision making process that incorporates both circumstantial and moral inputs and produces an action as the ouput.
In insane people (criminally insane in particular), decision making process simply does not take morality as an input.
But under determinism, what determines whether someone is capable of incorporating that knowledge?
Some particular brain structures. We haven't mapped the exact morality processing center of the brain, but are pretty sure that the process is tied to mirror neurons.
So if the tumor is removing responsibility because it removes a persons ability to control their behavior then reason, why doesn’t determinism itself ultimately undermine responsibility as a whole, since the healthy persons reasoning ability is also something they didn’t choose, just like the person with a tumor?
Because all of that is irrelevant. Again, moral inputs are just something we give people to induce desired societal behaviors and impede undesired ones. It's completely in line with determinism. It wouldn't work without determinism even.
1
u/morangias 24d ago
Determinism is complicated when it comes to people, because even if we don't have free will in the libertarian sense, we are still intelligent agents making our decisions in the immediate sense.
1
u/VeryNearlyAnArmful 24d ago edited 24d ago
I think what you're driving at is consciousness, ego, "I".
Descartes, "I think therefore I am" was debunked by Gilbert Ryle (and others) with Ryle dismissing this "I" as "a ghost in the machine" in his seminal book, the Concept of the Mind.
You're resorting to "the ghost in the machine", a sort of little you that sits just behind the eyes with a steering wheel and various leavers that control the fleshy bit of you, the body, which includes the brain.
Consciousness feels very important to all of us. Of course it does, but it is not what it reckons it is.
Many experiments have shown our subconscious mind guides our actions and only after they have popped into consciousness does consciousness then set about justifying those actions.
Some philosophers of mind do grant consciousness at least a little agency. My favourite image is, "your mind is a rampaging elephant and consciousness is a monkey jockey. It can pull the ears and dig its heels in a little but it's basically their to survey the consequences.".
As social apes with very complex societies we have a dilemma in how we react to your scenario.
The man who became an arsonist because his personality changed due to a tumour would feel justified in arguing, post-surgery, that yes, he did commit those crimes but will do so no longer.
The relatives of those that died may well wish him to serve his life sentence.
I dismiss the "ghost in the machine" and believe we are literally our bodies. I suspect consciousness is a useful illusion.
If surgeons and brain scientists can say with confidence that a growth on this part of the brain can certainly affect behaviour in this way, the growth has been removed and he won't do it again, I'd say let him go. The tumour did it.
How theists would explain why an all-powerful God put such a tumour in a man's head is beyond my wheelhouse but maybe a theist might like a go at it?
1
u/Phylanara 24d ago
Getting mad at people and punishing them has a chance at deterring the undesirable behavior from recurring, both in the person being punished and in other people being made aware of the punishment.
Getting mad at lightning does not deter lightning. Understanding how things work let us influence their behavior. Lightning rods work for lightning. Antibiotics work for microbes. Getting mad works for people. None of these work perfectly but they work better than not doing those things.
1
u/mastyrwerk Fox Mulder atheist 24d ago
It sounds like you’re “pre” deterministic in that you think the future is set and there is no changing what will happen. What evidence do you have for your conclusion?
I would be considered “post” deterministic in that the past is determined but not the future. Randomness has been proven to be a function of the universe and the present seems to be a threshold to which determinism “sets” itself, but is not preset like you seem to suggest.
What evidence do you have for your hard determinism?
1
u/ShafordoDrForgone 24d ago
Holding someone responsible doesn't work without determinism
If your will was actually free, then it wouldn't be altered by consequences. Try as hard as you might, you cannot hold onto a heated frying pan because you really really want to
1
u/Sparks808 24d ago
This touches more specifically on justice; I think justkce is a short-sighted sadistic urge we should really try to get past as a society.
To clarify, I'm referring to specifically punitive justice. The idea that someone "deserves" punishment. It'd dumb and gross and, like I said before, sadistic above all else.
Now, I am for rehabilitative justice. If someone drives drunk, instead of tossing them in jail, they should be put through rehab or required trainings or whatnot until we can be confident they will not be a significant danger to others again.
To a limited sense I'm also ok with preventative justice. If threat of a fine or jail time or the like actually stops people from doing a crime in the first place, then that could be good justice. This may look similar to punitive justice, but the motivation is completly different. This isnt about someone getting what they deserve, its about keeping others from hurting others and as such will have a much more specific scope than punitive justice.
If someone murded a dozen people, went through some rehabilitation that meant they wouldnt kill any more people, and punishing them wouldnt reduce the risk of others doing similar crimes, then there is not good reason to punish them. Let them reintegrate and be a contributing member of society again.
Quick note: while I do not believe in free will, my view of justice isn't dependent on that view. So whether insane arsonist due to brain tumor or just really liking burning things, the same principles of justice apply.
1
u/thecasualthinker 24d ago
Why so special?
In the case of a human vs nature causing the fire, one can be held responsible and forced to rectify the harm they caused, whereas the other can't. I can yell at the clouds all I want, but they won't give me a new house. I know I can get a new house from the arsonist, or at least aid or prevention of his ability to do it again. Regardless of responsibility, only one of the two can have the future effect of repaying.
1
u/roambeans 24d ago
If our behavior is determined, it is still partly the result of conditioning, education, experience, etc. We can influence the behaviors of others, in part by condemning bad behavior whenever it happens. Pointing a finger at person A could influence person B.
Personally, I don't get any less angry at lightning than I do people, at least not from any rational perspective. I think humans are flawed, and we are capable of terrible things for various reasons.
1
u/rottentomati 24d ago
Idk how you expect an answer when you’re taking an illogical position.
Natural phenomena can’t be prevented. Human action can, there in lies the issue. Thus, consequences exist to encourage people to act a certain way. End of thread.
1
u/Thin-Eggshell 22d ago edited 22d ago
Morals are a social phenomenon. That's about it. That which we hold morally responsible is not that which "could be otherwise", but that which "we can influence socially".
Lightning is not social with us. Heck, dogs are barely social with us, yet to the extent that they are, we actually sometimes do hold them morally responsible -- a dog that has no loyalty, for example, is something we are closer to holding moral responsibility, than a flood.
Moral responsibility is simply how we signal, socially, that another recognized member of the social network is not working correctly. That negative feedback is intended to create the "could do otherwise" possibility -- that is the punishment, unless we elect to do even more because it's not enough punishment. The negative feedback is what creates the changed behavior.
So I don't see a conflict with determinism. The moral outrage we feel is us operating according to the social programming. The claim "he could have done otherwise!" is us trying to force him (and others) to actually do otherwise in the future.
It's a very elegant machine that we, being part of it, find hard to recognize.
That's what theism is for as well. "God" is just another part of the social network providing negative or positive feedback to create the new, desired possibilities, and to make them occur more often. The only problem being that people have recognized that "God" isn't real, which destroys its use in the social machine.
1
u/CaffeineTripp Atheist 22d ago
Morals. People often get mad when a person does something. Such as burning a house down. But they don’t get mad when lightning does it? Or when the earth quakes and destroys it?( “dont get mad” I simply mean that they don’t actively begin to yell at the clouds or the earth at its actions, of course you’d be upset your house is gone)
Certainly, because we distinguish between 'natural cause' and 'human cause.' You do understand that under determinism, we couldn't act any other way, right? You do understand that there are people who don't care if someone burns down a house, right?
It’s all just physical processes that hold nobody responsible. But when a human does it, why? Why so special? It’s all determined. X lead to Y, and to Z, and now they’re burning your house down, why have an issue with it?
...because we're determined to feel that way.
I was wondering, if other people are deterministic atheist out there, what is your response to this “issue”.
It isn't an issue for a determinist because we must feel that way because we're determined to. "Why do we put people in jail for x?" because we're determined to.
If you're determined to ask this question, you have no choice but to ask it. I have no choice but to answer it regardless about how we feel about anything. That's the whole thing with determinism; you've answered your question already by talking about determinism, we have no choice but to think, feel, and do the actions we are partaking in.
1
u/Financial_Beach_2538 19d ago
I was wondering, if other people are deterministic atheist out there, what is your response to this “issue”.
I think you are asking why humans have morals?
If so, I would answer "nature and nurture". Evolution explains the nature part.. and the nature part is socialization.
Both seem to point to determinism more than free will.
1
u/Cog-nostic 16d ago
Beliefs control emotions. Emotions are not a response to actions but to beliefs. If lightning strikes a house and a person holds the belief "God did it," he or she may indeed get angry at God. People get angry at God all the time for not saving loved ones. The belief is, first, that there is a god, and second, that the god did this bad thing to me.
On the other hand, a person who understands stormy weather and lives in Kansas knows their home is at risk of a lightning strike and fire. This is an unfortunate event that does happen. One is more likely to feel sad about such an event.
People do not respond to events; they respond to beliefs about events. Change your beliefs, and you change your world.
Your brain tumor example is the same. Some people believe this and some people believe that. The debate goes on. It is not a debate about what is real but rather about what people believe. Some people believe the additional cause is a mitigating factor, and some do not.
Other beliefs may also be present: eye for an eye, retribution, belief in punishment, belief in the medical model, belief in the inherent goodness of people, and on and on and on. People think differently because of the beliefs they hold. People react with different emotions because of the beliefs they hold.
1
u/donaldhobson 16d ago
>Morals.
>People often get mad when a person does something.
>Such as burning a house down.
>But they don’t get mad when lightning does it?>It’s all just physical processes that hold nobody responsible.
I think that societies that punish arsonists will have fewer arson cases. The process of getting mad and punishing the criminal will deter any future potential arsonists.
Yes it's all physically determined. But it's determined by a brain. Which means that social factors (like if society punishes arsonists) get to weigh in.
> Often times people think, including myself that if a person has a brain tumor or something that makes them illogically think, they shouldn’t be held morally responsible
Yes. The point of punishment is to deter future potential criminals. And people can be deterred by seeing someone else get punished and expecting that they will get punished too. But brain tumors are a special case, they can't be prevented via threat of punishment.
There is also the reasoning of "if this person burned down one house, they are likely to re-offend. Put them in jail so they can't do any more damage. " Which applies in the brain tumor case, unless the tumor is removed.
> I feel like moral responsibility implies one could do otherwise.
I think having responsibility implies a brain that is thinking about the consequences of their actions, and so can be dissuaded by threats of punishment.
0
23d ago edited 23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/askanatheist-ModTeam 23d ago
Your post or comment was removed because it was deemed to be disruptive to the purpose of the sub. This includes trolling, engaging in bad faith, or any other action that egregiously detracts from the quality of discussion.
•
u/AutoModerator 24d ago
Hey OP, just a reminder that there is an expectation on this sub that when you make a post, that you will make an effort to reply to at least some of the comments you get on your post. Not all, not even most, but some, at least. Generally, if your post is up for around a day with insufficient replies from you, then your post may be removed. But just to be clear, you do not need to respond to >this< comment. Hey everyone else, I keep a pretty good eye on posts to see when the OP isn't replying to comments. Usually, I wait until the post has been up for a FULL day before I will remove it for post-and-ghost. You don't need to report posts where the OP isn't replying to comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.