Ace300 said:
A person who values being high strung cannot choose to value not being high strung. A person who values disliking certain ethnic groups cannot choose to value liking those certain ethnic groups.
Seems to me they can. Happens all the time.
Ace300 said:
The values may change but it is not a choice
That's an odd thing to say. If that's not a choice, what is a choice?
Ace300 said:
just like someone who values eating a lot of junk food over healthy food will always eat a lot of junk food.
People go from eating junk food a lot to eating little junk food in a more balanced and healthy diet all the time. Seems odd to say they didn't value eating junk food before or something.
Ace300 said:
Or just like someone that values the buzz of alcohol over not being drunk at parties will always get drunk at parties. Up until the value changes.
Seems to me you have an overly simplistic view of values. Look, I value my health. I also value the pleasure of eating a cheeseburger. Most of the time, I don't eat cheeseburgers, but I do eat cheeseburgers maybe four times a year or so.
Ace300 said:
Our values are a result of our personalities, experiences, body and knowledge. It's like a lot of obese people I have heard about. They stuff their faces, until all of a sudden they get diagnosed with diabetes. Their value on life is greater than their value of eating whatever and as much of what they want, so they change their diet and exercise habits to get skinnier and healthier.
Now that's also an odd thing to say. Are you saying they didn't value life before they were diagnosed with diabetes? Or that they weren't aware what they were doing before was unhealthy? Seems to me that decision-making in such situations is rather more complex than that, and involves the weighing of multiple values.
Ace300 said:
Good and evil can only exist if we can choose to be good or evil. If not, than we are just like any other animal, and no one claims any animals are good or evil.
I think animals are good or evil, or at least can be. I detect no logical contradictions in the proposition, at least. I suppose it's fair to say that the goodness or evilness of an action originates in the intent behind the act--or at least that's a common intuition, but intent and choice are two different things. Consider the following example (due to some philosopher whose name I forget):
Aliens learn that a man has formed an intent to kill his sister (who knows why). These aliens decide to perform a bizarre experiment. On the night before he intends to carry out his crime, they come into his bedroom and, using super-advanced technology, they install a little device in his brain. What this device does is just make sure that he carries out his intent. So long as he actually does go through with killing his sister, the device does absolutely nothing. But if, when he's about to pull the trigger, he stops and decides not to kill her, the device takes over and sends the right signals down through his muscles, causing him to pull the trigger anyway.
Now, as it happens, the man confronts his sister and never once falters in his intent to kill her, and kill her he does. The device the aliens implanted never activates. Now, unbeknownst to him, he actually had no choice in the matter. He nevertheless intended to kill his sister--his intent and his choice were two different things.
Now, if you think choice has something to do with whether an act is good or evil, feel free to argue for it. But I see no reason to believe that right now.
