compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

Fun fact: the political origins of the religious right's objection to abortion arguably has very racist origins

[phyllo]

Well, given the Benjamin Button Syndrome of course. Jane's friend is on her way to meet Mary, forgets her purse, goes back inside to get it, comes out again and on the way to her car is hit by a bus and killed.

What if you applied that to Mary's abortion?

That's what I was doing.

You only applied it to Mary's friend. You didn't apply it to the events happening to Mary.

In a determined universe as I understand it "here and now", both Mary and her friend are fated [re brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter] to behave in such a way that everything that happens between them could never have not happened.

You don't know what is fated until after the event has happened.

If Mary gets an abortion then that's fated. If Mary doesn't get an abortion then that's fated.

But you're always sitting there after the event, saying that it "could never have not happened". In both cases, you say the same thing.

You don't seem to notice your privileged position.

[iambiguous]

That part often comes down "for all practical purposes" to this:

1] we don't have free will, so my own miserable failure of a life is completely beyond my control
2] we do have free will, and my own hugely successful and fulfilling life is entirely of my own making

Are these your thoughts about you? When you consider free will vs. determinsm? I don't understand.

Again and again and again: as with morality, my reaction to the Big Questions like free will is "fractured and fragmented". Thus, from my frame of mind, either position above embraced by any particular one of us still comes down to what we do not grasp about this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

It's fascinating to speculate about it, but that doesn't make us any less the equivalent of the Flatlanders speculating about our three dimensional world. Only if "somehow" they can acquire an understanding of a three dimensional world will they finally solve the mystery. But how exactly as two dimensional beings would they go about that?

Still, I never tire of reminding others -- and myself -- that I am simply not thinking this through correctly. Assuming that "somehow" my brain really does have the capacity to actually opt for acquiring a more rational frame of mind. But how exactly do I go about demonstrating that?

Hell, in a free will world where human behaviors are often predicated on dasein and on the Benjamin Button Syndrome, the possibilities are practically endless. But in the free will world Jane might stick around, while in the determined world she's necessarily toast.

In that specific case, sure. Jane who probably does not get a name never gets born. But in the free will universe, maybe she gets born, maybe not. And other babies who will get born in the determinist universe will get aborted in the free will universe, since people are free to do this and not compelled by religion, guilt, or whatever to bring the child to term. So, I don't really get the point.

Again, what can I say...

In the determined universe, birth or abortion is part of the either/or world. The laws of matter are such that the brains of some will compel them to abort the unborn while the brains of others will compel them to give birth. Then the brains of others around them will compel them to react to the birth/abortion in the only possible reality as well. It's moral. It's immoral.

Are you arguing that more babies will live in a free will world?
Are you arguing that people will do better in general in a free will world?

I'm only arguing that in a free will world as I understand it, there will be some measure of autonomy such that birth or abortion becomes a part of the is/ought world among those who can choose among alternative options. Obviously, if a pregnant woman lives in a community where abortions are illegal, there are likely to be fewer abortions https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... is-illegal

As for faring better or worse in a free will world, we'll need contexts. What's crucial though is that in a free will world better and worse can be discussed and debated given at least some capacity to think through both the initial premises and the final conclusions. In a wholly determined world, however, better and worse are interchangeable to nature. One brain may conclude that something is better but what does that really mean when it could never have concluded it was worse?

So, you're not saying Jane died in the determinist universe, but if it had been a free will universe, she might have lived, so a free will universe is better.

Again, better for Jane if her life is a bed of roses, but what if it turns out to be a living hell? The surreal aspect of all this [for me] revolves around trying to imagine a bed of roses and a living hell as entirely interchangeable. To nature. It's precisely because brain matter has evolved to the point where brains themselves are able differentiate between better and worse, between pleasure and pain etc., that, sure, it's hard to actually believe this is all unfolding on automatic pilot. That we are all just dominoes toppling over on cue.

But then the part where we differentiate them in our dreams only to wake up and realize that was just our brain creating this "reality".

I haven't undertood what these examples are supposed to show. It seems like in your free will universes the abortion doesn't take place. I mean, in the examples. You don't assert this, but is it meant to be implicit?

What do these possible events in the two universes show us? What do they indicate?

In a wholly determined universe asking anything of anyone is asking them only what you were never able to opt not to ask them. My point is that in a determined universe where Mary's brain was programed by the laws of nature to compel her to abort Jane, one might be programed in turn to ask Mary why she did it. But Jane is never around to be asked anything at all.

Just as babies aborted in a free will world will not be around to be asked anything at all. I am not sure what Jane not getting to say something means or shows.

I do understand that aborted fetuses never end up in discussions with people.

Again: what can I say...

As with phyllo above -- click -- we think about this differently. The Janes aborted in the free will world were aborted only because their mothers did not have a friend around to talk them out of it. Or in regard to all the other components/factors in their life that, had they been different, might have resulted in them changing their minds.

With the determined world Janes, however, abortion is the only possible option. Unless, of course, the laws of nature result instead in them being born.

But, of course: in a free will universe where Mary's friend is hit by the bus and is unable to argue Mary out of aborting Jane, Mary opts to abort her. No Jane around then either. But in a free will world given the right combination of all the existential variables involved [for Jane] Jane has a chance of being born.

Also, however, in this free will world, Jane's life might become so miserable [given other combinations of existential variables] that she curses her mother for giving birth to her.

Or there is a Mary who uses her free will to abort Jane, some Jane.

As always, the crucial point [mine] is that in the free will world, dasein becomes an important factor. The part where events do unfold in our ofttimes very different lives that we do only have so much understanding and control over. After all, isn't that why philosophy and ethics were invented? Different people living different lives accumulating different experiences come to conflicting assessments regard things like abortion in a free will world. So, any number of philosophers have attempted to come up with what they construed to be the most rational, the most virtuous recourse. The "wisest" solution.

...in the determinist world [as some understand it] both the behaviors and our reactions to them are entirely fated, destined. In the determined world even when we do hold people responsible for what they do that is only because we were never able not to.

Yes, I understand that issue

Whereas, in the free will world, moral responsibility is not just on automatic pilot. We can, instead, think situations through to the best of our ability; and then, of our own volition, offer reasons why we construe some behaviors to be good and others bad. The part that "I" root subjectively/intersubjectively in dasein given a free will universe.

Sort of. A free will world would entail that we need not be guided by reason, kindness, morals, guilt, empathy or anything.

Well, my point is more that these things become intertwined existentially in different -- sometimes very different -- ways given different historical, cultural and personal experiences.

People can construe away, but nothing is compelling any action. And people freely choose to come up with morals they don't believe in. Freely ignore reasoning. Freely choose to pretend they are being rational or moral, when really they have no idea or don't care.

It's a very odd world. They can choose to ignore their compassion, morals, reasoning or they can be compelled by them in a free will world. I am not quite sure what this option offers.

I do recognize it would be different. But we wouldn't just be free from outside influence, we would be free to ignore our own desires and compassion because these are causes also in a deterministic world.

I am not saying it is worse or better. I have no idea which world I would prefer. I don't like the sound of determinism, but I am not sure what people hope for - who don't know which is the case - when they think of a free will world.

Here, though, I always come back to this: "given what context?"

In a determined universe as I understand it any and all contexts are interchangeable. They are what they were only able to be.

While in a free will universe, some things are what they could only ever have been because they are a part of the either/or world. Human biology, human sexuality, human pregnancies. Then for some abortion as a medical procedure.

But what of the morality of abortion? In a determined universe that's just an illusion created by the brain. In a free will universe it often revolves largely around dasein.

Clear? I'm the last person to ask that of. Being "fractured and fragmented" in regard to moral and political value judgments revolving around things like abortion, "better or worse" are no less rooted existentially in the particular lives that each of us live. What's better for some is worse for others.

I wasnt' asking for clarity as far as morals.

The either/or world? Here given free will there are clearly right and wrong things to do. Once someone grasps how human biology works in regard to sexuality, they can act more rationally if they do not want to become pregnant. But even here you can behave as rationally as possible but "shit happens". The birth control device fails. You get pregnant willingly, but then dramatic changes unfold in your life and you don't want to be. You're happily pregnant but the doctors discover an affliction in the fetus. You're walking home, get assaulted and raped. The contexts are endless. But where, philosophically or otherwise, is the one size fits all moral obligation?

If you keep presenting THE example in your posts as the baby dies in a determinist universe
it may lead others to think that determinism leads to more abortions in your mind. And also, therefore it is bad.
Since there seems to be this emotional appeal to Jane never getting to talk.
And sure she won't
but other Janes in the free will world won't either. Since this isn't noted it sounds like you are making claims that here you clearly - thank you - said you are not.

For me, one first has to assume the points they make here they are making of their own free will. But that they have no way in which to demonstrate that this is the case. The part that is embedded in the deep, deep mystery that is human consciousness itself. So -- click -- a leap of faith to free will.

And, for me, given free will, both dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome then come into play in regard to any particular pregnancy. Which entails ambiguity, ambivalence, uncertainty, confusion and the like. The profoundly problematic nature of human moral and political value judgments given all of the different way in which individual lives can unfold. And given that with new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, who really knows what is around that next corner? Then there are the objectivists with their "fuck all that, it's my way or the highway" mentality. Or those like gib over at ILP with his "emotional Self", or those like Maia with her "spiritual Self", or those like MagsJ with her "intrinsic Self", or those like Immanual Can and his Christian God or those like henry quirk with his political dogmas.

When you say things like and Jane never gets to answer the questions. It sounds like this emotional appeal. See, in the determinist world, Jane never had a chance. In the free will world she had a chance. But that's cherry picking.

Well, I think about it differently. There are points that can be raised that make free will the best of all possible world and points that must be made to make determinism the best of all possible worlds.

Then back to our actual lives where, depending on the context, it can go either way.

[Iwannaplato]

However, it troubles me greatly to witness your call to censure Mary's actions, all in the name of adhering to your personal "set of ethics". Such a course of action invokes images of the morality police of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban, who impose their values through fear and intimidation.

How could anyone not interpret what you said here to Phyllo as disapproval? You compared his (would be) actions to the actions of groups I think you chose as groups you think act terribly. How is what you did not censure? If it was ok, what you did, it would only be a difference of degree (if that) with telling Mary her aborting was wrong. I say, 'if that', because Phyllo hasn't gone into any details how one would show the disapproval. As a verbal form of disapproval, comparing someone to groups one clearly has moral disaste for, is quite strong disapproval.

You might also want to look at the link I sent to Phyllo again. I'm sick of having to say the same thing over and over to people who don't even bother to read what I say.

I'm sorry if I missed something. I just went back four pages and I couldn't see a link in your posts. I may have missed it. I did read what you quoted of yourself from an earlier post. I haven't seen something that addresses the issue I was responding to. Can you link me to the relevant post?

[Iwannaplato]

1] we don't have free will, so my own miserable failure of a life is completely beyond my control
2] we do have free will, and my own hugely successful and fulfilling life is entirely of my own making

Are these your thoughts about you? When you consider free will vs. determinsm? I don't understand.

Again and again and again: as with morality, my reaction to the Big Questions like free will is "fractured and fragmented".

Perhaps you mean number 2 as sarcastic. If so, then I undersand. If not, then I don't.

Again: what can I say...

As with phyllo above -- click -- we think about this differently. The Janes aborted in the free will world were aborted only because their mothers did not have a friend around to talk them out of it.

No, they could be aborted even if the friend came. You can't say Mary did X because of Y in a free will world. Nor 'Mary did X because Y never happened.' In a free will world Mary can do X or choose not to do X for any reason or not reason. It is the ultimate whim world.

Well, my point is more that these things become intertwined existentially in different -- sometimes very different -- ways given different historical, cultural and personal experiences.

Sure, but in a free will world we are no longer compelled by any of those things. Nothing compells us to choose action X over Y. Nothing compells us even to view things a certain way. We'd be free to choose views or to act as if our view was anything at all.

The either/or world? Here given free will there are clearly right and wrong things to do. Once someone grasps how human biology works in regard to sexuality, they can act more rationally if they do not want to become pregnant.

In the determined world, sure, they do whatever they do. Being informed about sex and biology they do X or they don't. In the free will world, informed about sexuality they do or they don't. But Mary can go either way. In the determinist world it goes the way it goes. Either being informed changes the person or it doesn't. In the free will world the informed person decides to go with information or decides to ignore it.

But even here you can behave as rationally as possible but "shit happens". The birth control device fails. You get pregnant willingly, but then dramatic changes unfold in your life and you don't want to be. You're happily pregnant but the doctors discover an affliction in the fetus. You're walking home, get assaulted and raped. The contexts are endless. But where, philosophically or otherwise, is the one size fits all moral obligation?

and you can choose to act irrationally. Or do things that go against your own values. You can go against anything, choose anything. Perhaps dasein has effects in the free will world, but it cannot determine actions. It cannot compel anything. I'm not sure it can even limit anything, but perhaps it can statisticially limit someone's behavior.

But anyway. The main point of my recent posts in response to you was around what seemed to be you, given your examples, saying that a free will world has better outcomes for people. You said in the preveious post that was not what you were saying. Great.

[Agent Smith]

Compatibilism is nonphilosophical, some might even say antiphilosophical. Philosophy is a bloody huge subject.

[BigMike]

How could anyone not interpret what you said here to Phyllo as disapproval? You compared his (would be) actions to the actions of groups I think you chose as groups you think act terribly. How is what you did not censure? If it was ok, what you did, it would only be a difference of degree (if that) with telling Mary her aborting was wrong. I say, 'if that', because Phyllo hasn't gone into any details how one would show the disapproval. As a verbal form of disapproval, comparing someone to groups one clearly has moral disaste for, is quite strong disapproval.

You might also want to look at the link I sent to Phyllo again. I'm sick of having to say the same thing over and over to people who don't even bother to read what I say.

I'm sorry if I missed something. I just went back four pages and I couldn't see a link in your posts. I may have missed it. I did read what you quoted of yourself from an earlier post. I haven't seen something that addresses the issue I was responding to. Can you link me to the relevant post?

It seems that my previous statement may have been interpreted as disapproval, and for that, I apologize. My intention was not to disapprove of Phyllo's actions but rather to express disagreement with his call to "show" Mary disapproval if she gets an abortion. In an attempt to justify my disagreement, I expressed my concern about the potential consequences of censuring Mary's actions in the name of phyllo's personal ethics.

I understand that my comparison to the morality police of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban may have been too strong and could be interpreted as disapproval, but I only intended to illustrate the potential harm that could come from enforcing personal ethics through fear, condemnation, and intimidation.

In my previous comment, the one I referred you to, I expressed my view that, since people don't have free will, rather than "the punishment of individuals for wrongdoing", I "view collective responsibility as a more appropriate response, holding institutions or societal factors accountable for creating an environment that enabled the wrongdoing to occur."

[BigMike]

In spite of the fact that there is abundant evidence to the contrary, there are times when it can be difficult to express our thoughts without using language that suggests free will. This is because our belief in free will is deeply ingrained in our culture and language and has been for centuries.

For example, consider the phrase, "I am in control of my own destiny." This phrase suggests that we have complete control over the course of our lives and that our fate is entirely in our own hands. However, it is difficult to express the idea that our lives may be influenced by factors beyond our control without resorting to language that implies free will.

Our belief in free will is a cultural and linguistic artifact that has persisted despite the lack of scientific evidence to support it. While it may be challenging to express thoughts without using language that implies free will, it is essential to recognize that our actions and decisions are shaped by a complex web of factors that are beyond our conscious control. By acknowledging this complexity, we can cultivate a deeper understanding of ourselves and our place in the world.

[Flannel Jesus]

Compatibilism is nonphilosophical, some might even say antiphilosophical. Philosophy is a bloody huge subject.

Weird that most academic philosophers consider themselves compatibilists then...

[Iwannaplato]

It seems that my previous statement may have been interpreted as disapproval, and for that, I apologize. My intention was not to disapprove of Phyllo's actions but rather to express disagreement with his call to "show" Mary disapproval if she gets an abortion. In an attempt to justify my disagreement, I expressed my concern about the potential consequences of censuring Mary's actions in the name of phyllo's personal ethics.

Just to be clear on my part: I wasn't worried about Phyllo, who obviously took your disagreement in stride. It was more like, perhaps Phyllo simply means doing something like what you did. He thinks it would be good to tell Mary that he doesn't approve of her behavior. Perhaps he wants to, as you say below, 'illustrate the potential harm' that could come from abortions.

We can get into the words and the words are important, but I think if you went to someone and told them the negative consquences of their behavior, most people will experience this as disapproval, regardless of how one frames what one is doing.

If the issue was murder instead of abortion, would you think disapproval, as part of society's reactions would be a bad choice?

I understand that your position entails the idea that circumstances and things beyond the murderer lead them to commit the crime.

They may also be more inclined to address the underlying causes of wrongdoing rather than simply punishing the individual who committed the act.

and

Instead, they may view collective responsibility as a more appropriate response, holding institutions or societal factors accountable for creating an environment that enabled the wrongdoing to occur. By recognizing that individual actions are influenced by external factors, these individuals may be more likely to focus on structural solutions to prevent future wrongdoing

Agreed.

But I am not sure why disapproval is problematic.

If a child was beaten regularly by their parent and becomes a bully, certainly it's great if the child is not seen as the sole cause of the problem, even when that child is an adult. But I can't really see the problem with saying we don't approve of behavior X (in the workplace, in our building, in our city, on my bus) etc. Social pressures are part of the causes that can stop things that we view as problematic.

So, my point was more like: it seems like your response to Phyllo could be classed as disapproval and likely experienced as that.

I am not saying you did some big bad thing. It's more like: it seems like you understand that this may well be a useful part (but not at all the whole) response to problematic behavior.

I understand that my comparison to the morality police of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban may have been too strong and could be interpreted as disapproval, but I only intended to illustrate the potential harm that could come from enforcing personal ethics through fear, condemnation, and intimidation.

Sure. I'm not sure that Phyllo talk about enforcing or intimidation.

If someone I care about does something harmful to themselves or others or me, and more than once, I am likely to express anger. Other emotions may well be present also. I don't see this as a problem. In cases of addiction as part of a much more complicated response to the addict, anger that may well and really I hope it will scare the person seems unproblematic. Yes, compassion and rehab and support should be in there and probably as the main parts of the response to this person. But I can't see why people need to suppress a natural dislike. And addicts can be affected in positive ways by disapproval and hearing why people dislike what they are doing to themselves and others. It's not enough unless the addiction is extremely mild, but it can be part of a wake up moment. In an intervention concern is key. But no addict is going to experience in intervention as not including disapproval of his or her behavior.

In my previous comment, the one I referred you to, I expressed my view that, since people don't have free will, rather than "the punishment of individuals for wrongdoing", I "view collective responsibility as a more appropriate response, holding institutions or societal factors accountable for creating an environment that enabled the wrongdoing to occur."

I see this as addition not replacement. If you have someone who does something destructive in a workplace, for example, sure you can look at societal factors and his parenting and....so on. But not showing disapproval (or something that will be experienced as disapproval) seems perfectly fitting. Sometimes this is enough to get them to stop. Further they are in motion, due to past causes. They are an immediate problem. Yes, we could go find his parents and lobby the government to fix X (some societal level problem that contributed to his actions). We could think about how to modify schooling to instill something that prevents X. But there we are at work and copy paper keeps disappearing to the degree that several departments are having problems. When asked he thinks it is a perk of the job. I can't see how disapproval of this person's attitude is problematic. I suppose the boss could say 'If you do this, we will let you go.' In a neutral tone, sort of like talking about the weather. Or they could try 'Company policy is that one can't do that.' (but 1) those are both going to be taken as disapproval and 2) I can't see the drawback of being honest and saying, hey that's a poor attitude. Of course you can follow up with: where did you get the idea this was OK? How are you doing in general? and more questions if one begins to understand the specific causes in the background.

Of course it may be a sociopath and genetics, but in either case I can't see the problem with disapproval.

I don't see it as an either/or situation. Either we disapprove of the person's behavior or we focus on societal level causes. Both have their uses.

[Agent Smith]

Compatibilism is nonphilosophical, some might even say antiphilosophical. Philosophy is a bloody huge subject.

Weird that most academic philosophers consider themselves compatibilists then...

Compatibilism is true to some extent. El Rachum.

[Flannel Jesus]

Compatibilism is nonphilosophical, some might even say antiphilosophical. Philosophy is a bloody huge subject.

Weird that most academic philosophers consider themselves compatibilists then...

Compatibilism is true to some extent. El Rachum.

It's true to some extent but anti philosophical?

[Agent Smith]

Weird that most academic philosophers consider themselves compatibilists then...

Compatibilism is true to some extent. El Rachum.

It's true to some extent but anti philosophical?

I'm inclined to say oui.

[Flannel Jesus]

Compatibilism is true to some extent. El Rachum.

It's true to some extent but anti philosophical?

I'm inclined to say oui.

What does that mean?

If you've come to determine that you think it's true to some extent, did you determine that using anti philosophical thought patterns? What do those look like, how do they work, and what relationship to "truth" do they have?

To me, if someone is trying to find truth of any sort, they are necessarily doing philosophy of some kind, even if only implicitly (and even if poorly or incorrectly).

[BigMike]

I'm trying to figure out where we disagree, if we disagree at all. I believe the problem stems from the use of words like disapproval, discouragement, and disagreement.

Disapproval is a feeling of strong disfavor or disapprobation towards someone or something. It implies a judgment that what is being disapproved of is morally wrong, objectionable, or offensive. Disapproval can be expressed in various ways, such as through criticism, condemnation, or rebuke.

Discouragement, on the other hand, is a feeling of disappointment, frustration, or loss of confidence in oneself or others. It implies a sense of hopelessness or pessimism about a situation or outcome. Discouragement can be expressed in a variety of tones, ranging from sympathetic to harsh, depending on the context.

Disagreement is a situation where two or more parties hold different opinions or views on a particular matter. It implies a diversity of perspectives or ideas, which can be constructive or divisive, depending on how the disagreement is handled. Disagreement can be expressed in a respectful or confrontational tone, depending on the level of emotion involved.

I try to avoid expressing disapproval towards people, as it presupposes a notion of free will that is not supported by scientific evidence. While we may have a sense of personal agency, our actions and decisions are shaped by a multitude of factors, including genetics, environment, and upbringing. Rather than judging people based on assumptions of moral responsibility, we should strive to understand the complex forces that influence human behavior and work towards creating a more compassionate and just society.

Discouragement is also something I would prefer to avoid, but I frequently fail. It indicates having given up hope of ever reaching an agreement.

Disagreements, on the other hand, as opposed to disapprovals and discouragements, are something I am perfectly content to live with.

Although I credit you for pointing out my failures here and for having shed light on a subtopic worthy of much more debate, I still think it is a slight distraction from what I was trying to say. Therefore, I will try to restate my message as short and simple as possible: “Because there is no free will, it is wrong to blame or credit anyone for their actions. The reason for any wrongdoings (or welldoings) must be found elsewhere. We should therefore go looking for it.”