compatibilism

[BigMike]

So, I don't know for sure, though determinism looks more solid to me.

Determinism without compatibilism? What do you think of the compatibilist position?

There seem to be a number of them. From Stanford....

2. Classical Compatibilism
2.1 Freedom According to Classical Compatibilism
2.2 The Classical Compatibilist Conditional Analysis
2.3 The Lasting Influence of the Conditional Analysis
3. Compatibilism in Transition
3.1 The Consequence Argument
3.2 A Challenge to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities
3.3 Focus upon the Reactive Attitudes
4. Contemporary Compatibilism
4.1 Compatibilism about the Freedom to Do Otherwise
4.2 Hierarchical Compatibilism
4.3 The Reason View
4.4 Reasons-Responsive Compatibilism
4.5 Strawsonian Compatibilism

But regardless I don't have much of a problem with a compatiblism that focuses on moral responsibility. IOW you still hold people responsible for their actions, despite there being determinism. One can quibble over words but I don't see determinists behaving categorically differently from compatiblists. They still get made at people who do things they don't like. They tend to support some kind of penal system. They chastize and judge individuals. As do people who believe in free will. There may be differences in the way they use background and environmental factors in their judgments and punishments (they may use different words here but I'm not sure how much difference this makes for anyone) but there will be responses and reactions aimed at the individual who carried out act X. Everyone acts as if that person is responsible. Which is of course part of most practical responses to acts we/society don't like.

Well, well, well, look at Mr. Compatibilism over here! It's like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too. "Oh, sure, determinism is a thing, but let's still hold people responsible for their actions." Yeah, because that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

I mean, come on, let's not quibble over words here. Let's just say what we really mean: "I want to be able to blame people for their mistakes and punish them accordingly, but I don't want to have to think about whether or not they actually had a choice in the matter."

And don't even get me started on these so-called "differences" between determinists and compatibilists. They both get mad at people who do things they don't like? Shocking! They both support a penal system? Groundbreaking! They both chastize and judge individuals? Hold the phone, we've got a real game-changer here!

Seriously, though, it's like these people are living in some kind of philosophical Twilight Zone. They act like they're making these grand intellectual distinctions, but at the end of the day, they're just doing the same old thing: blaming and punishing people for their actions.

But hey, I guess it's all just part of the practical responses to acts we don't like, right? Because if there's one thing we humans are really good at, it's being practical. And also blaming other people for stuff.

[Flannel Jesus]

I thought big Mike put you on ignore

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah, that's all pretty reasonable

OK, great. From there, I'm not sure what free will entails/means.
It would seem to mean that the moment before a decision does not determines the decision. So, not just external factors do not determine an action, but also internal factors. One is not compelled to do X by one's emotions, thoughts, desires. One is not compelled by one's instincts. Nor is one compelled by one's goals nor one's assessment of what doing X will do.

Otherwise your choice is still determined.

So, it seems to me free will, in the pure ontological form, means one can choose to go against one's own desires, etc.

I am not sure what this offers.

Now it could be thought of differently (though I think this has the same problem ultimately).

Out of a few choices one can freely choose and nothing that has gone before determines what you will choose (while at the same time you are a real agent (indeterminism keeps one from being a real agent: it's still stuff happens, including your choices)).

But again, it wouldn't be your desire or goals or assessments when choosing between doing X or Y.

But I could be missing something and when dealing with ontology we may have made assumptions that seem obvious/a priori, but are not correct.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yeah, that's all pretty reasonable

OK, great. From there, I'm not sure what free will entails/means.
It would seem to mean that the moment before a decision does not determines the decision. So, not just external factors do not determine an action, but also internal factors. One is not compelled to do X by one's emotions, thoughts, desires. One is not compelled by one's instincts. Nor is one compelled by one's goals nor one's assessment of what doing X will do.

Otherwise your choice is still determined.

All of that is true for some types of incompatibilism , but not compatibilism.

With compatibilism, it's fine that your choice is determined.

[iambiguous]

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?

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

No, I mean I have no capacity to grasp definitively whether it is number one or number two. The "click" part. I'm assuming that I do have this free will capacity but that assumption in and of itself might may well be wholly determined. Thus the reference to the Flatlanders dilemma above. What they don't have access to, what "I" don't have access to.

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.

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.

Here again, this may well be a good point that I am missing. But -- click -- it makes no sense to me. Sure, the friend might have come to Mary of her own free will and tried to convince Mary not to abort Jane. But Mary of her own free will was not persuaded and aborted Jane.

From my own existential vantage point, the role of dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome is such that our decisions are not whims but are predicated instead on all the variables in our life that predispose us to embrace one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another...and all of the variables we are not even cognizant of and/or lack any control over.

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.

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.

Perhaps not compelled as one would be in a determined universe, but even in a free will universe our experiences can become so deeply engrained that it is very, very unlikely that we would have behaved other than in how we came to be predisposed to embrace one rather than another belief about abortion. Based on our childhood indoctrination say or on people we met as adults who were instrumental in shaping our value judgments.

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.

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.

Yes. Jane may be toast or she may be here contributing to this thread. Take that up with her.

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.

Dasein predisposes us in a free will world. If you were born and raised in a Chinese village in 500 BC, or in a 10th century Viking community or in a 19th century Yanomami village or in or in 20th century Soviet Union city or in a 21st century American city, how might your value judgments be different? But that's not to say that these very different components of very different lives compels every behavior someone makes.

Instead, as I note in the OP here -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 -- new experiences can have a profound impact on how you view any number of things. Only in a determined universe "I" is just along for the ride.

[Iwannaplato]

All of that is true for some types of incompatibilism , but not compatibilism.

With compatibilism, it's fine that your choice is determined.

Right. And there are a number of versions. But there isn't free will in the pure sense involved in some of the compatiblisms. Moral responsibility, yes.

[iambiguous]

Well well well, look who we have here! It's either a walking monument of stupidity or a non-stop argument generator, folks! I mean, seriously, I've never seen someone who could give a wall a run for its money in the intelligence department. And as for being argumentative, let's just say that if you were stranded on a deserted island, you'd find a way to argue with a coconut.

But hey, don't take it from me, let's ask the experts! I'm pretty sure if we put your IQ against a bag of rocks, the rocks would win. And if we had a debate between you and a brick wall, the wall would come out on top.

So there you have it, folks. The ultimate question: is our dear friend here terribly stupid or just really good at arguing? The answer may never be known, but one thing's for sure - we're in for a wild ride either way!

Note to others:

Here we go again. Another fulminating fanatic "my way or the highway" objectivist has to abandon a civil exchange in order to make this all about me. My stupidity.

The Satyr Syndrome let's call it.

BigMike [alas] becomes just another one of my Stooges!

On the other hand, in a wholly determined world as I understand it, even here he is off the hook. He posted only what his brain compelled him to post in that particular "now".

And, in fact, he will note that in turn. Only "somehow" his own brain has acquired the capacity to be both wholly determined and never wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

The problem that FJ and I, perhaps others keep reacting to is that your examples with Mary and Jane seem to have the more positive outcome in the free will world and the more negative reaction in the determinist world.

It seems you do not mean the following:
things are better in a free will world because the outcomes will be better (Jane will live, for example).
You have stated that you do not mean this.

However, given your examples often ending with what seems like an appeal to sympathy for the Jane that did not get to live, it is as if we keep getting this message:

In the determinist world more babies get aborted and more Jane's don't get to live.

You have said you don't agree with this, but, yah, the same pattern in all of the examples I have seen.

There's no example like
In the determinist world Mary wasn't going to get an abortion because she was Catholic and afraid of her father's opinion. Jane got to live.
In the free will world, Mary was not compelled by external circumstances nor by internal causes (fear of her father) and chose to abort. In the free will world Jane never got to be asked anything.

Since it always goes the other way - perhaps because this example comes from your life - then it seems, again and again, as if you are making some claim about the free will world being better for fetuses and perhaps in general.

So, when I respond with other possibilities, I am not referring to the specific Mary case you are thinking of. I am pointing out that in general free will could even lead to more abortions and more 'Janes' never get to live.

I think you see these examples as not understanding your specific Mary situation. No. What I mean is with pregnant women in general, we have no idea what the outcomes are for their fetuses.

Perhaps not compelled as one would be in a determined universe, but even in a free will universe our experiences can become so deeply engrained that it is very, very unlikely that we would have behaved other than in how we came to be predisposed to embrace one rather than another belief about abortion. Based on our childhood indoctrination say or on people we met as adults who were instrumental in shaping our value judgments.

Well, if you think you know what a free will world would be like. Me, I don't know.

Dasein predisposes us in a free will world.

If you say so.

I don't know if our world is a deterministic one or one with free will. I can deduce what determinism means, with some confidence. But a free will world. I have no idea how that would function and I don't know how you know.

So, two issues:
1) when you choose examples of what happens when comparing free will world outcomes vs. determinism world outcomes, the determinism world outcomes are presented in a negative light compared to the free world outcomes. This has been consistant. When asked if this is the case on a general level, you say no, but go right back to negative outcomes in determinism and better in free will.
2) You seem to know somehow that in a free will world dasein still, to some degree controls people. Please don't explain why you believe dasein does this. I understand the arguments. I just have no idea why this need apply in a free willl world. I don't even know what a free will world functions like. How do you know that in a free will world there are limits on freedom?

[iambiguous]

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

Iambiguous wrote :

Well, in a determined universe as I understand it, everything that I know about anything at all is only that which my brain compels me to know. Mary will abort Jane no matter what she and her friend think, feel, say and do because they were only ever able to think, feel, say and do what they must.

That is literally the exact opposite of determinism.

Well, in your head it might be, but not in mine. If those aliens in the free will part of the universe observe Mary's friend in the determined part of the unviverse on Earth being compelled by her brain to talk to Mary about not aborting her fetus and Mary compelled by her brain to abort it anyway then everything unfolds in the only possible reality.

The opposite of determinism is a world where both Mary and her friend have some capacity to think through this unwanted pregnancy giving Jane at least the possibility of being born.

Determinism is based on responding to the internal state of a person and the external environment.

Again, in your head. In the heads of others however determinism is a world where both the internal state and the external environment are wholly -- inherently, necessarily -- in sync with the only possible consequence: Jane is history.

As for this...

If you're having dinner with a bunch of people and you ask the woman close to the salt shaker to "Please pass the salt." ....

- You ask because you think the food is not salty enough.

- She passes the salt because you asked her to.

Will she always pass the salt to you?

No.

She might not hear you or mishear because the room is noisy. So she passes you nothing or she passes you the pepper.

Another person might hear and might pass you the salt before the woman reacts.

She might feel that she doesn't like you and she's not going to do anything for you.

The point is that the motion and position of this salt shaker depends on what people think, feel and say.

If you say so. But, for better or for worse, I'm not in your head and you're not in mine.

[BigMike]

Mary's heart was heavy with grief and despair as she faced the most difficult decision of her life. She had just learned that the precious life growing inside her was not as healthy as she had hoped. The doctors had given her the devastating news that her baby had a rare and severe medical condition, one that would cause it immense pain and suffering throughout its short life.

Mary's mind was in turmoil as she tried to process the reality of the situation. She knew that she couldn't bear the thought of bringing a child into the world only to watch it suffer every moment of its existence. She couldn't fathom the idea of subjecting a helpless, innocent being to such agony, knowing that there was no cure or treatment that could save it.

As she considered her options, Mary's heart ached with a sense of profound loss. She had dreamed of holding her baby in her arms, watching it grow and thrive, and loving it with all her heart. But now, she faced the heartbreaking reality that this dream could never come true.

The thought of ending her pregnancy was agonizing, but Mary knew that it was the only humane choice. She couldn't bear the thought of her baby enduring a life of pain and suffering. She couldn't bear the thought of bringing a child into the world, only to watch it die a slow, agonizing death.

With tears streaming down her face, Mary made the heart-wrenching decision to have an abortion. She knew that it was the only way to spare her baby from a life of pain and misery, and she prayed that she could find the strength to heal from the emotional wounds that this decision would undoubtedly leave behind.

As Mary walked out of the hospital, her heart shattered into a million pieces. She knew that the road ahead would be long and painful, but she also knew that she had made the right choice. She had chosen to spare her baby from a life of suffering and to give it the peace and love that it deserved, even if that meant saying goodbye before it had a chance to take its first breath.

Free will?

[BigMike]

As I recount the story of Mary II, my heart is heavy with the weight of her decision. Mary is a woman who has been blessed with the gift of life, but now she finds herself facing an excruciatingly difficult choice - the choice to terminate a pregnancy that has the potential to threaten her own life.

As Mary lies in the hospital bed, tears stream down her face as she contemplates the possibility of losing her child. Her heart aches with the knowledge that she may have to make the ultimate sacrifice - to let go of the life growing within her in order to save her own.

The thought of losing her child is unbearable, and Mary's mind is consumed with images of what could have been. She imagines holding her baby in her arms, watching it grow and thrive, and creating a lifetime of memories together. But all of these hopes and dreams are now overshadowed by the fear and uncertainty of what lies ahead.

Despite the agony of the decision, Mary knows that she must consider her own well-being. She cannot risk leaving behind her family, her friends, and the people who rely on her. She knows that the only way to ensure her own survival is to undergo a termination.

As she lies in that hospital bed, Mary's emotions are raw and unbridled. She feels the weight of the world on her shoulders and wonders why life has dealt her such a cruel blow. But in the midst of her pain, Mary finds solace in the knowledge that she is not alone. She is surrounded by a team of compassionate medical professionals who are there to guide her through this difficult time.

In the end, Mary will make the choice that is right for her - a choice that will be driven by love, courage, and a deep sense of responsibility. It is a choice that will forever change her life, but one that will also reaffirm her belief in the strength of the human spirit.

Free will?

[phyllo]

Iambiguous wrote :

Well, in a determined universe as I understand it, everything that I know about anything at all is only that which my brain compels me to know. Mary will abort Jane no matter what she and her friend think, feel, say and do because they were only ever able to think, feel, say and do what they must.

That is literally the exact opposite of determinism.

Well, in your head it might be, but not in mine. If those aliens in the free will part of the universe observe Mary's friend in the determined part of the unviverse on Earth being compelled by her brain to talk to Mary about not aborting her fetus and Mary compelled by her brain to abort it anyway then everything unfolds in the only possible reality.

The opposite of determinism is a world where both Mary and her friend have some capacity to think through this unwanted pregnancy giving Jane at least the possibility of being born.

Determinism is based on responding to the internal state of a person and the external environment.

Again, in your head. In the heads of others however determinism is a world where both the internal state and the external environment are wholly -- inherently, necessarily -- in sync with the only possible consequence: Jane is history.

As for this...

If you're having dinner with a bunch of people and you ask the woman close to the salt shaker to "Please pass the salt." ....

- You ask because you think the food is not salty enough.

- She passes the salt because you asked her to.

Will she always pass the salt to you?

No.

She might not hear you or mishear because the room is noisy. So she passes you nothing or she passes you the pepper.

Another person might hear and might pass you the salt before the woman reacts.

She might feel that she doesn't like you and she's not going to do anything for you.

The point is that the motion and position of this salt shaker depends on what people think, feel and say.

If you say so. But, for better or for worse, I'm not in your head and you're not in mine.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But it's not determinism.

[Flannel Jesus]

All of that is true for some types of incompatibilism , but not compatibilism.

With compatibilism, it's fine that your choice is determined.

Right. And there are a number of versions. But there isn't free will in the pure sense involved in some of the compatiblisms. Moral responsibility, yes.

I think I maintain that this "pure sense" is not even conceptually possible, that there's no possible arrangement of the world that would satisfy this pure sense, and I think, as far as this whole debate is important at all, is important to understand why that is.

[Flannel Jesus]

That is literally the exact opposite of determinism.

Well, in your head it might be, but not in mine. If those aliens in the free will part of the universe observe Mary's friend in the determined part of the unviverse on Earth being compelled by her brain to talk to Mary about not aborting her fetus and Mary compelled by her brain to abort it anyway then everything unfolds in the only possible reality.

The opposite of determinism is a world where both Mary and her friend have some capacity to think through this unwanted pregnancy giving Jane at least the possibility of being born.

Determinism is based on responding to the internal state of a person and the external environment.

Again, in your head. In the heads of others however determinism is a world where both the internal state and the external environment are wholly -- inherently, necessarily -- in sync with the only possible consequence: Jane is history.

As for this...

If you're having dinner with a bunch of people and you ask the woman close to the salt shaker to "Please pass the salt." ....

- You ask because you think the food is not salty enough.

- She passes the salt because you asked her to.

Will she always pass the salt to you?

No.

She might not hear you or mishear because the room is noisy. So she passes you nothing or she passes you the pepper.

Another person might hear and might pass you the salt before the woman reacts.

She might feel that she doesn't like you and she's not going to do anything for you.

The point is that the motion and position of this salt shaker depends on what people think, feel and say.

If you say so. But, for better or for worse, I'm not in your head and you're not in mine.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But it's not determinism.

I think his reply tells you a lot of pertinent information. Mainly, that he doesn't understand what determinism actually means and its consequences.

[Iwannaplato]

All of that is true for some types of incompatibilism , but not compatibilism.

With compatibilism, it's fine that your choice is determined.

Right. And there are a number of versions. But there isn't free will in the pure sense involved in some of the compatiblisms. Moral responsibility, yes.

I think I maintain that this "pure sense" is not even conceptually possible, that there's no possible arrangement of the world that would satisfy this pure sense, and I think, as far as this whole debate is important at all, is important to understand why that is.

Generally that's my reaction. But I tend to be cautious about ruling things out - in these kinds of discussions. at a schoolboard meeting or at the dinner table, I do rule some things out. I mean, hey, gotta live.)

If we look back on for example Iambiguous' descritpions, he often falls into contructions like
my brain forces me
I am forced

not exact quotes but that's the basic idea.

Is there a him that has no wants desires goals impulses reactions preferences?
If he includes them in himself, then he is part of what is leading to his actions. It couldn't be any other way but he's not just a passenger. If there's a driver, he's part of the driver.
If there's no driver, there are also no passengers. WE/Everything is moving forward.