compatibilism

[phyllo]

Yes, with the philosophy of free will as its foundation. It has to go wrong.

I really don't see how removing the "philosophy of free will" would stop kids from manifesting a bunch of "bad" behaviors, either as kids or as adults.

[BigMike]

Yes, with the philosophy of free will as its foundation. It has to go wrong.

I really don't see how removing the "philosophy of free will" would stop kids from manifesting a bunch of "bad" behaviors, either as kids or as adults.

According to writer and information security professional Daniel Miessler, if you believe in free will, you most likely believe "that those who don't get an education, make poor financial decisions, use drugs, join gangs, work low-paying jobs all their life, etc.— deserve the pitiful lives they lead. If they end up on food stamps, or in prison, or homeless on the street— the answer is elegant and powerful: they should have made better decisions."

After all, they would have a good education, a good job, and all the joys and benefits that come with it if they had followed in your footsteps and done the same things you did. This means you impose your values and habits on others, regardless of their unique circumstances. Then you judge them in the same way that you would judge yourself. Of course, everything would be fine if your moral beliefs were universally correct and accepted. But this is where you get it wrong. Your moral high ground is not as firm as you think.

Those denied their humanness may be subject to violence because they no longer evoke compassion or other moral responses. It is considered rational, ethical, and natural to treat them differently. Throughout history, this has been seen repeatedly. Genocide is made more likely by making others seem less human. Dehumanization has also been used to justify war, legal and illegal killings, slavery, taking property, denying the right to vote and other rights, and attacks on political rivals and enemies.

Miessler further suggests that when you don't believe in free will, you tend to take a different position, i.e., that "there are causes and reasons for these poor decisions that lie outside of the control of those making them. Broken families, child abuse, a lack of education, peer pressure in poor neighborhoods, etc. The narrative says these factors combine to create environments that retard and harm children's future ability to grow up and make good decisions about education, peers, mates, when to have kids, when to buy a house, how to finance it, etc., and thus poor decisions will be made."

You don't see what difference the belief in free will makes? You think everything's fine?

[promethean75]

Mike yer killin it, bro. You should go to ILovePhilosophy.com, find peacegirl, and aks her out for coffee. That's like her whole thing; freewill is an illusion and is ruining everything.

[phyllo]

Yes, with the philosophy of free will as its foundation. It has to go wrong.

I really don't see how removing the "philosophy of free will" would stop kids from manifesting a bunch of "bad" behaviors, either as kids or as adults.

According to writer and information security professional Daniel Miessler, if you believe in free will, you most likely believe "that those who don't get an education, make poor financial decisions, use drugs, join gangs, work low-paying jobs all their life, etc.— deserve the pitiful lives they lead. If they end up on food stamps, or in prison, or homeless on the street— the answer is elegant and powerful: they should have made better decisions."

After all, they would have a good education, a good job, and all the joys and benefits that come with it if they had followed in your footsteps and done the same things you did. This means you impose your values and habits on others, regardless of their unique circumstances. Then you judge them in the same way that you would judge yourself. Of course, everything would be fine if your moral beliefs were universally correct and accepted. But this is where you get it wrong. Your moral high ground is not as firm as you think.

Those denied their humanness may be subject to violence because they no longer evoke compassion or other moral responses. It is considered rational, ethical, and natural to treat them differently. Throughout history, this has been seen repeatedly. Genocide is made more likely by making others seem less human. Dehumanization has also been used to justify war, legal and illegal killings, slavery, taking property, denying the right to vote and other rights, and attacks on political rivals and enemies.

Miessler further suggests that when you don't believe in free will, you tend to take a different position, i.e., that "there are causes and reasons for these poor decisions that lie outside of the control of those making them. Broken families, child abuse, a lack of education, peer pressure in poor neighborhoods, etc. The narrative says these factors combine to create environments that retard and harm children's future ability to grow up and make good decisions about education, peers, mates, when to have kids, when to buy a house, how to finance it, etc., and thus poor decisions will be made."

You don't see what difference the belief in free will makes?

They still make decisions that are detrimental to me and others.

Simply removing the "philosophy of free will" doesn't stop that from happening.

You're beating me with a baseball bat because of your crappy upbringing. I don't like it no matter what reason you have. I don't really care if you have free-will or not.

[phyllo]

Mike yer killin it, bro. You should go to ILovePhilosophy.com, find peacegirl, and aks her out for coffee. That's like her whole thing; freewill is an illusion and is ruining everything.

Is he the reincarnation of Seymour Lessans?
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.pdf

[BigMike]

They still make decisions that are detrimental to me and others.

But you can't blame them for it, can you?

Simply removing the "philosophy of free will" doesn't stop that from happening.

Not unless you (we) change. How are we going to respond to "wrongdoers" when we no longer can blame them? How are we going to function as a society. Beat the hell out of them just for the heck of it, because it makes you feel good? Pretend that it's all their fault? Clearly you can do better than that.

You're beating me with a baseball bat because of your crappy upbringing. I don't like it no matter what reason you have. I don't really care if you have free-will or not.

If you don't mind living a lie, feel free (poor choice of words).

[phyllo]

They still make decisions that are detrimental to me and others.

But you can't blame them for it, can you?

Simply removing the "philosophy of free will" doesn't stop that from happening.

Not unless you (we) change. How are we going to respond to "wrongdoers" when we no longer can blame them? How are we going to function as a society. Beat the hell out of them just for the heck of it, because it makes you feel good? Pretend that it's all their fault? Clearly you can do better than that.

You're beating me with a baseball bat because of your crappy upbringing. I don't like it no matter what reason you have. I don't really care if you have free-will or not.

If you don't mind living a lie, feel free (poor choice of words).

That just sounds like you're dumping the problems on to me.

My reaction is the problem rather than his behavior.

[iambiguous]

I see no problem. The conclusion is clear: There is no free will. End of story.

Right, BigMike, and here's where we left it above...

Click.

They have not. After all, if they had, it would be explosive news. There would be documentaries on Nova and the Science Channel and the BBC.

And [as usual] you ask me if I get it as an advocate of free will would. In other words, you get it, I have the option to get it too but I don't.





Perhaps. After all, if there is one thing we know for sure, nature doesn't create all that many Newtons and Einsteins and Hawkings. Though it does seem to mass-produce any number of arrogant, authroitarian "my way or the highway" objectivists.

Not to mention pinheads.





Right, like pinning this down one way or the other isn't crucial when it comes to, say, assigning moral responsibility to the behaviors we choose. Just accept the arguments and the facts of the moral objectivists among us and, if you either can or cannot opt freely to do so, move on.





So, is bahman a character that you play here or are you a character that he plays?

Next up: pinning down "foolishness" metaphysically.

Gibberish.

Note to others:

Why do I manage to reduce otherwise intelligent posters here [and elsewhere of course] down to silly "retorts" like this?

BigMike will either respond to the points I raise here or continue to "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" out of it with ridiculous posts like this.

[iambiguous]

Someone with free-will would act exactly as someone without free-will because they would be reacting to the same environmental conditions. The alternative is that the person with free-will acts randomly for no reason.

Phyllo and I have gone back and forth a number of times regarding this over on peacegirl's thread at ILP: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=170060

And I have acknowledged that -- click -- perhaps his point is more reasonable than mine. On the other hand, how exactly would we go about pinning that down here since, for thousands of years now, scientists and philosophers and theologians have been unable themselves to accomplish that?

Only I try to bring it down to Earth.

In a determined world as some understand it [compelled or not], Mary aborts Jane, her unborn fetus. Mary was never able not to abort Jane.

But in a free will world, as some understand it, Mary, having decided of her own volition to abort Jane, decides of her own volition to meet a friend for dinner. And the friend manages of her own volition to convince Mary not to abort Jane. These interactions are not just random...for no reasons. Instead, the behaviors chosen in a free will universe here on planet Earth revolve around reasons that, in my view, are rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein.

The same environmental conditions?

No, in a determined universe as some understand it, those environmental conditions include human brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter. While in a free will universe as others understand it in regard to human brains, Jane is around one day to discuss [of her own volition] her birth with others.

[phyllo]

In a determined world as some understand it [compelled or not], Mary aborts Jane, her unborn fetus. Mary was never able not to abort Jane.

This isn't a reason for having an abortion. People have reasons for decisions.

And if you look at the reasons, free-will Mary has exactly the same reasons for her decisions as determined Mary.

The laws of nature don't make you have an abortion. You have an abortion because you think it's a good thing to do.

[henry quirk]

free-will Mary has exactly the same reasons for her decisions as determined Mary

Nope. D-Mary only has the illusion of choice-makin'. She's a meat machine.

[BigMike]

They still make decisions that are detrimental to me and others.

But you can't blame them for it, can you?

Simply removing the "philosophy of free will" doesn't stop that from happening.

Not unless you (we) change. How are we going to respond to "wrongdoers" when we no longer can blame them? How are we going to function as a society. Beat the hell out of them just for the heck of it, because it makes you feel good? Pretend that it's all their fault? Clearly you can do better than that.

You're beating me with a baseball bat because of your crappy upbringing. I don't like it no matter what reason you have. I don't really care if you have free-will or not.

If you don't mind living a lie, feel free (poor choice of words).

That just sounds like you're dumping the problems on to me.

My reaction is the problem rather than his behavior.

I'm not "dumping the problems on to" you. I am perhaps challenging us all to answer the questions: "How does lacking free will change things? How must we change, if we are to be consistent with that fact?"

If your reaction is the issue, it may be a sign of cognitive dissonance and an indication that it is time to make changes and adapt to a "new" and more coherent reality.

[henry quirk]

time to make changes

How does a meat machine make changes?

[phyllo]

"How does lacking free will change things? How must we change, if we are to be consistent with that fact?"

It doesn't change anything.

People are still going to behave badly.

And the people who are on the receiving end of that behavior are going to be pissed off and unforgiving.

"Okay, you have a good reason for beating me with a bat. It's all good now."

[Belinda]

Mike yer killin it, bro. You should go to ILovePhilosophy.com, find peacegirl, and aks her out for coffee. That's like her whole thing; freewill is an illusion and is ruining everything.

Of course Free Will is an illusion. Free Will was invented for the purpose of social control. If you can't blame a wrongdoer it does not make sense to punish her.