Philosophy

I’ve been reading “The Cartoon Introduction to Philosophy”.

I discovered that I have been a philosopher since I was a teenager and had begun to think critically. Many of the concepts in the book I have considered on the path of learning wisdom, such as determinism, free will, and logic. I remember once praying for the wisdom of Solomon, and I thought I felt God replying that not only would he grant me that, but even greater. Which is rather humbling for a young teenager, but can also make you a little arrogant and over confident if paired with ignorance and a lack of experience. As an agnostic though, I wonder what God really meant.

I argued with my mother about why I did things a lot. I can understand why she was concerned with the why of my actions; the more you understand why a person does things, the more you can manipulate their behavior to be different.

But is it moral for parents to manipulate their children’s behavior? Many would argue yes. But what if children are more moral than parents?

I felt that my mother’s techniques were immoral, but whenever we began to fight about it it was too late; she would refuse to accept that the cause of our argument was in any part due to one of her imperfections, and redirect the subject to why I had x, y, or z imperfection.

I have suffered a lot of psychological manipulation in my lifetime, and while I loathed it at the time, I accept it as a crucial part of my development as a human being today. Had I not suffered psychological manipulation, I would have not known the difference in psychological freedom, and had no preference as to whether or not I was psychologically free or not. So I suppose–and I don’t think she would like this–that I owe it in part to her that I am no longer a member of the LDS faith.

Which brings me back to an earlier point: I feel that children are less tainted by world views at an early age. They might do things that we would consider inappropriate, but they are innocent due to their lack of experience.

But that begs the question: if I was manipulated by my parents, who were manipulated by theirs, all the way back to the first primate parents, what events spurred the first concepts of morality? And what if the only entities completely innocent are those which have no concept of innocence in the first place, such as infants and toddlers?

If one caveman stole another’s possessions, how would that affect their survival? Maybe the victim wouldn’t have survived at all, and this behavior would go unpunished, especially in a state of nature setting. Now, what if a child did something like this, would it be different? Does experience change the weight of morality? If I am in a third world country and perceive someone’s possessions to be a pile of trash, does that suddenly exonerate them from any recourse if they took their possessions?

I think Mormons would argue, especially considering Mormon’s indemnification of infant baptism, that experience and knowledge are prerequisites to punishment and being subject to the law. If I have not been taught any laws, then how can I expect to follow social norms? If I have no knowledge of guns, stumble across one in my journey, and kill someone by accident in trying to discern it’s purpose and function, am I guilty of murder? My gut reaction is “no”, but let’s analyze this statement further. If I killed a man, albeit without intent to do so, does that still make me the progenitor of his death? Then yes. But guilt? I suppose I would not be guilty of intending to kill, but I would be the one who pulled the trigger. I still caused the action, but there was no knowledge of the consequence that would follow, and I would have no ability to revers those consequences.

Here’s the premises I’m basing my conclusions off of.

1. Intent (according to Google) means “resolved or determined to do (something).” So if I am resolved to do something, I will act hoping or expecting that the consequences will bring about the result I desire.
2. If I have intent, therefore I have designed my actions to bring about my desired outcome.
3. Due to the stochastic nature of reality, there exists a probability of failure in my actions, meaning that I may not succeed despite my actions and intent.
4. If my actions bring about a result that is not my intention, then I have experienced a failed attempt, and if I do not make any further attempts, then I will have failed altogether.
5. If I continue to modify my process and improve my attempts, then I have not yet failed, but I have not yet succeeded.
6. If my attempt accomplishes my desired result, then I have succeeded.
7. You can only be proven guilty of being the progenitor of an event if it can be proven that you acted with the intent to cause the event. [Therefore if I desired to kill a man, made an attempt, and succeeded, I am guilty, but if I desired to not kill a man, and did so, I am not guilty.]
8. I can only prove my innocence if I can prove that my intent differed from the result of my actions.