compatibilism

[BigMike]

"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.

You are essentially stating that you have no intention of adapting to new and better information and comprehension. The prehistoric worldview suits you perfectly, it seems.

[Belinda]

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.

It works as follows:

If you presume the criminal has free will you can blame the criminal for her crime and thus expedite a swift punishment.

If you believe the criminal was caused to commit the crime because of causes outwith her control then you can't rationalise punishing her. In that case you will
prefer to address the causes of her crime.

[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.

You are essentially stating that you have no intention of adapting to new and better information and comprehension. The prehistoric worldview suits you perfectly, it seems.

I don't why you can't recognize that some basic human reactions are not going to go away just by saying that there is no free-will.

Here is an example that actually happened:

Some guy spat on a bus driver. It went to court and the judge decided that because of the guy's bad childhood experiences, he would not be punished.

Should the bus driver now go to work and accept that it's okay for some people to spit on him?

Does this guy have a license to spit on bus drivers or anyone else?

Discuss.

My position is that even if this guy had a crappy childhood, it does not give him a right to spit on anyone. The bus driver has a reasonable expectation to go to work and not be spat upon by anyone.

Do I have a "prehistoric worldview"? I don't think so.

[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.

It works as follows:

If you presume the criminal has free will you can blame the criminal for her crime and thus expedite a swift punishment.

If you believe the criminal was caused to commit the crime because of causes outwith her control then you can't rationalise punishing her. In that case you will
prefer to address the causes of her crime.

Indeed, this is the central point. And because we are all a part of one another's physical environment, our decisions and actions influence one another. Likewise, we have become who we are due to the influence of our parents, siblings, friends, etc. The ring of those who have influenced us extends in all directions and encircles the entire planet. We should take that seriously and not, as some do, dismiss it as irrelevant and place all blame on the last link of the chain of events.

[BigMike]

Does this guy have a license to spit on bus drivers or anyone else?

Discuss.

No, he does not. Of course not. But that doesn't change the FACT that he could not have done otherwise than what he did, when he did it. We should teach him a lesson, subject him to a significant emotional event (ref Dr. Morris Massey) or something, and thus make sure that he never again will contemplate ever doing that again.

[iambiguous]

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.

Again, the assumption of some being that you were never able not to look for reasons other than as your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compel you to. The assumption of others, however, being that "somehow" the human brain evolved into matter unlike any other -- re God perhaps? -- and you could have opted not to look for reasons at all or you could have opted to come up with reasons other than the ones you do "here and now".

Really, how does it make any sense at all to compare the "reasons" of a wholly determined Mary and the reasons of a free will Mary? What extraordinary insight of his am I missing here?

Uh, let's run it by Jane?

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.

Oh, right, I forgot. The brain of the Mary above who thinks and feels and says and does things wholly in sync with the laws of matter is still able to opt to think that aborting Jane is a good thing. That's...different.

Note to others:

“You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.” Arthur Schopenhauer

How, in a wholly determined or a free will universe as you understand it, might that be or not be applicable to Mary here?

[phyllo]

Really, how does it make any sense at all to compare the "reasons" of a wholly determined Mary and the reasons of a free will Mary?

If you ask this, then there is nothing to discuss.

[iambiguous]

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.

And here's this guy again. Merely asserting that others who don't think exactly as he does about the freedom to buy and to sell bazookas -- whether existentially or metaphysically -- are meat machines.

Mind you, like all the rest of us, he has no definitive empirical, experiential, experimental proof of this, but he "just knows" [going all the way back to his Deist God] that he was put here by this long-gone God to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

On the other hand, he does admit that in the past he has been wrong about things like this. So, sure, by his own admission, he may well be wrong about this too.

[iambiguous]

Really, how does it make any sense at all to compare the "reasons" of a wholly determined Mary and the reasons of a free will Mary?

If you ask this, then there is nothing to discuss.

Note to Ecmandu:

Did you put him up to this?

[phyllo]

Really, how does it make any sense at all to compare the "reasons" of a wholly determined Mary and the reasons of a free will Mary?

If you ask this, then there is nothing to discuss.

Note to Ecmandu:

Did you put him up to this?

This bullshit just makes you look bad.

[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.

And here's this guy again. asserting that others who don't think exactly as he does about the freedom to buy and to sell bazookas -- whether existentially or metaphysically -- are meat machines.

No, moron. I'm sayin' what you're sayin': if she has no free will, then she makes no choices, unlike BM who thinks we can...

teach him a lesson, subject him to a significant emotional event (ref Dr. Morris Massey) or something, and thus make sure that he never again will contemplate ever doing that again.

...even though...

he could not have done otherwise than what he did, when he did it.

And if he (and she) had no choice then we -- as meat machines -- have no choice. He couldn't do otherwise, she couldn't do otherwise, and we can't do otherwise.

[popeye1945]

To assume free will one must assume human action without motivation which can never be, one must be moved from within in order to move without. One reacts to the physical world making one's reaction one's will to be fulfilled, and in which case it can never be pure altruism. There is no such thing as human action there is but reaction, and this is true of all organisms. Motivation spells reaction.

Yes, but every reaction has its whole reason in the action that generates it.

There can be no altruism, but there cannot be selfishness either ...

bombax,
The physical world is cause/action, but all organisms are reactive, reaction is the bases of all disease, and evolutionary development. Biological reaction is cause to the physical world. I stated that there cannot be pure altruism, for one's reaction is to fulfil one's own will -- self-interest. One can be selfish but that is a reaction as well.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

It works as follows:

If you presume the criminal has free will you can blame the criminal for her crime and thus expedite a swift punishment.

If you believe the criminal was caused to commit the crime because of causes outwith her control then you can't rationalise punishing her. In that case you will
prefer to address the causes of her crime.

Sure, but you will still want her off the streets in many cases. If it is a crime of violence, then you want to contain the violence until such time that you think it is safe for her to be free. So, it ends up looking a lot like punishment. A rose by any other name.
If it's a white collar crime, say. You may want to compensate the victimes, and thus take away money from this person. You may also want to restrict their work options. All punishment-looking consequences.
Further punishments now called something else can modify behavior. Preventatively and as punshment. Now we mght call it education or training or condtioning.

You will still need prisons. Caught criminals are going to feel many of the same things they felt when the old word punishment was used. And you have no grounds to tell people not to be angry, fearful and judgmental about the criminal. These emotions make sense in many ways even in a determined universe. And, well, they are determined also.

[iambiguous]

If you ask this, then there is nothing to discuss.

Note to Ecmandu:

Did you put him up to this?

This bullshit just makes you look bad.

Fortunately, "here and now", I'm compelled to opine that I was compelled by the laws of matter to post it. So, like you, I'm off the hook.

Also, as though, in a free will world, you posting, "If you ask this, then there is nothing to discuss" to this...

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.

Again, the assumption of some being that you were never able not to look for reasons other than as your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compel you to. The assumption of others, however, being that "somehow" the human brain evolved into matter unlike any other -- re God perhaps? -- and you could have opted not to look for reasons at all or you could have opted to come up with reasons other than the ones you do "here and now".

Really, how does it make any sense at all to compare the "reasons" of a wholly determined Mary and the reasons of a free will Mary? What extraordinary insight of his am I missing here?

Uh, let's run it by Jane?

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.

Oh, right, I forgot. The brain of the Mary above who thinks and feels and says and does things wholly in sync with the laws of matter is still able to opt to think that aborting Jane is a good thing. That's...different.

Note to others:

“You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.” Arthur Schopenhauer

How, in a wholly determined or a free will universe as you understand it, might that be or not be applicable to Mary here?

...might well be construed as bullshit by some. And not just me.

[phyllo]

Note to Ecmandu:

Did you put him up to this?

This bullshit just makes you look bad.

Fortunately, "here and now", I'm compelled to opine that I was compelled by the laws of matter to post it. So, like you, I'm off the hook.

Also, as though, in a free will world, you posting, "If you ask this, then there is nothing to discuss" to this...

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.

Again, the assumption of some being that you were never able not to look for reasons other than as your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compel you to. The assumption of others, however, being that "somehow" the human brain evolved into matter unlike any other -- re God perhaps? -- and you could have opted not to look for reasons at all or you could have opted to come up with reasons other than the ones you do "here and now".

Really, how does it make any sense at all to compare the "reasons" of a wholly determined Mary and the reasons of a free will Mary? What extraordinary insight of his am I missing here?

Uh, let's run it by Jane?

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.

Oh, right, I forgot. The brain of the Mary above who thinks and feels and says and does things wholly in sync with the laws of matter is still able to opt to think that aborting Jane is a good thing. That's...different.

Note to others:

“You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.” Arthur Schopenhauer

How, in a wholly determined or a free will universe as you understand it, might that be or not be applicable to Mary here?

...might well be construed as bullshit by some. And not just me.

More bullshit.