u/Competitive_Low2335

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”.

This is my slight adaptation of what is known as patternism. I’ve seen a few arguments, and it made me think. But I wanted more input from others to see other possible fallacies. 
I’m using the Eiffel Tower due to it’s long history of being “replaced” (for a lack of a better word) since its creation in 1899 (being “replaced” 2.5 times)

1: The identity of an object wouldn’t JUST  in its physical measures, RATHER it’s patterns and 
organization as well

The Eiffel Tower, is defined in its arrangement. It’s specific lattice design defines it, as per normal patternism. HOWEVER: it should be noted that material still matters
For example: You can replace a piece of the structure, but what you replace it with must ALSO be steel (or whatever was originally placed there, this part may be slightly confusing for some so please do ask if you need more explanation.)
So in order for it to be the same Eiffel Tower, it must be the same organization (four pillars, lattice, merging into one tip) but same KIND of material (steel) but does not have to be the same PIECE(S) of steel. (This is an oversimplified version, as in real life there are alloys, carbon content, etc. Yes, they all do indeed matter as well).

2:  An object can temporarily stop instantiating its pattern without losing its identity.

 If the Eiffel Tower were completely dismantled, piece by piece (to whatever  measure you want, each steel beam to each atom) the assembled version of the Eiffel Tower simply no longer exist during that time. Though, importantly, its identity still remains because at SOME point, it did exist and was real.
That pattern and historical identity are still established, and even if no longer there, it is still defined and called the “Eiffel Tower”.

Final restatement: “Existence at one point” simply means that the object must have been instantiated as a REAL THING at a moment in time. Once that has occurred, its identity is completed/established and remains, regardless of its CURRENT physical orientation. (Even if patterns do indeed play a part in identity).

3: Restoration of the same pattern through the same historical continuity, is restoration, NOT the creation of a new object.

Assuming the Eiffel Tower is again, dismantled, but later reassembled into the same formation, it is the SAME Eiffel Tower. The Original instance has simply been restored rather than any kind of replacement ( OR DUPLICATION, which I have heard as a topic, further discussed next)

4: A duplicate pattern and material set  still won’t mean they are the same exact object.

If two Eiffel Towers were to be constructed at the same exact time, (and both are exactly the same as well) they still exist as separate, physical instances because both have their OWN physical manifestations. The patterns determine what something IS while the number of PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS determine how many  instances exist.

This is my slight adaptation of what is known as patternism. I’ve seen a few arguments, and it made me think. But I wanted more input from others to see other possible fallacies. 
I’m using the Eiffel Tower due to it’s long history of being “replaced” (for a lack of a better word) since its creation in 1899 (being “replaced” 2.5 times)

1: The identity of an object wouldn’t JUST  in its physical measures, RATHER it’s patterns and 
organization as well

The Eiffel Tower, is defined in its arrangement. It’s specific lattice design defines it, as per normal patternism. HOWEVER: it should be noted that material still matters
For example: You can replace a piece of the structure, but what you replace it with must ALSO be steel (or whatever was originally placed there, this part may be slightly confusing for some so please do ask if you need more explanation.)
So in order for it to be the same Eiffel Tower, it must be the same organization (four pillars, lattice, merging into one tip) but same KIND of material (steel) but does not have to be the same PIECE(S) of steel. (This is an oversimplified version, as in real life there are alloys, carbon content, etc. Yes, they all do indeed matter as well).

2:  An object can temporarily stop instantiating its pattern without losing its identity.

 If the Eiffel Tower were completely dismantled, piece by piece (to whatever  measure you want, each steel beam to each atom) the assembled version of the Eiffel Tower simply no longer exist during that time. Though, importantly, its identity still remains because at SOME point, it did exist and was real.
That pattern and historical identity are still established, and even if no longer there, it is still defined and called the “Eiffel Tower”.

Final restatement: “Existence at one point” simply means that the object must have been instantiated as a REAL THING at a moment in time. Once that has occurred, its identity is completed/established and remains, regardless of its CURRENT physical orientation. (Even if patterns do indeed play a part in identity).

3: Restoration of the same pattern through the same historical continuity, is restoration, NOT the creation of a new object.

Assuming the Eiffel Tower is again, dismantled, but later reassembled into the same formation, it is the SAME Eiffel Tower. The Original instance has simply been restored rather than any kind of replacement ( OR DUPLICATION, which I have heard as a topic, further discussed next)

4: A duplicate pattern and material set  still won’t mean they are the same exact object.

If two Eiffel Towers were to be constructed at the same exact time, (and both are exactly the same as well) they still exist as separate, physical instances because both have their OWN physical manifestations. The patterns determine what something IS while the number of PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS determine how many  instances exist.

**1: An object’s identity is primarily determined by its pattern and organization, not by the specific matter composing it.**
*The Eiffel Tower is not defined by having the exact same atoms forever; it is defined by the arrangement, structure, and organization that make it the Eiffel Tower.*
**2: An object can undergo changes to its material components while remaining the same object, as long as its defining pattern is preserved.**
*If pieces of the Eiffel Tower are replaced over time with new pieces that serve the same purpose and maintain the same structure, it remains the Eiffel Tower.*
**3: An object can temporarily stop instantiating its pattern without permanently losing its identity.**
*If the Eiffel Tower were completely dismantled, the assembled Eiffel Tower would no longer exist during that period. However, its identity is not destroyed, because its defining pattern, history, and origin remain connected to it.*
**4: Restoring the same pattern through the same historical continuity restores the original object rather than creating a new one.**
*If the original Eiffel Tower pieces were taken apart and later reassembled into the same configuration, it would still be the Eiffel Tower because the original instance has been restored rather than replaced.*
**5: A duplicate pattern does not automatically mean the same individual object.**
*If another Eiffel Tower were built elsewhere with the exact same design, structure, and organization, it would be a separate instance of the same pattern, not the original Eiffel Tower. The pattern determines what something is, while historical continuity determines which particular instance it is.*

Feel free to ask question perusing specifics, if needed.
What is the main area usually target, or as to not agree with this stance?
(Feel free to continue using the Eiffel Tower 🇫🇷)

**1: An object’s identity is primarily determined by its pattern and organization, not by the specific matter composing it.**
*The Eiffel Tower is not defined by having the exact same atoms forever; it is defined by the arrangement, structure, and organization that make it the Eiffel Tower.*
**2: An object can undergo changes to its material components while remaining the same object, as long as its defining pattern is preserved.**
*If pieces of the Eiffel Tower are replaced over time with new pieces that serve the same purpose and maintain the same structure, it remains the Eiffel Tower.*
**3: An object can temporarily stop instantiating its pattern without permanently losing its identity.**
*If the Eiffel Tower were completely dismantled, the assembled Eiffel Tower would no longer exist during that period. However, its identity is not destroyed, because its defining pattern, history, and origin remain connected to it.*
**4: Restoring the same pattern through the same historical continuity restores the original object rather than creating a new one.**
*If the original Eiffel Tower pieces were taken apart and later reassembled into the same configuration, it would still be the Eiffel Tower because the original instance has been restored rather than replaced.*
**5: A duplicate pattern does not automatically mean the same individual object.**
*If another Eiffel Tower were built elsewhere with the exact same design, structure, and organization, it would be a separate instance of the same pattern, not the original Eiffel Tower. The pattern determines what something is, while historical continuity determines which particular instance it is.*

Feel free to ask question perusing specifics, if needed.
What is the main area usually target, or as to not agree with this stance?
(Feel free to continue using the Eiffel Tower 🇫🇷)