compatibilism

[promethean75]

Depends man. First i gotta consider what kind of trouble i might get into if i started fuckin with em.

See how everything relevant here depends on what pleases me the most and has nothing to do with what anybody else thinks is right or wrong?

[phyllo]

IOW, you would use blame and guilt if it suited you.

[promethean75]

Here's the difference, P.

There is no freewill, so one can't be blamed or made gulity in the way of charging them with commiting a moral wrong when they could have chosen to do otherwise. That's impossible.

But one is blamed and made guilty in the sense of being the bodily cause of the action in question.

Joe's brain made him floor the gas peddle. He crashed. Joe is to blame (in part) for the damage done becuz joe was driving the car. He's part of the cause of the accident, just like a bolt of lightening is (in part) the cause of a fire, or Beyonce and JayZ are (in part) the cause of so much nausea in the world.

Now if u insist we can trace all the crap back to god, the first cause. Or, we can attribute individual effects (joe and beyonce and jayz) to an eternal chain of causes and effects. But in either case, joe and beyonce and jayz can't be blamed for being the origin of the things that they do. They are merely intermediate stages in a causal chain already in motion.

[phyllo]

Here's the difference, P.

There is no freewill, so one can't be blamed or made gulity in the way of charging them with commiting a moral wrong when they could have chosen to do otherwise. That's impossible.

But one is blamed and made guilty in the sense of being the bodily cause of the action in question.

Joe's brain made him floor the gas peddle. He crashed. Joe is to blame (in part) for the damage done becuz joe was driving the car. He's part of the cause of the accident, just like a bolt of lightening is (in part) the cause of a fire, or Beyonce and JayZ are (in part) the cause of so much nausea in the world.

Now if u insist we can trace all the crap back to god, the first cause. Or, we can attribute individual effects (joe and beyonce and jayz) to an eternal chain of causes and effects. But in either case, joe and beyonce and jayz can't be blamed for being the origin of the things that they do. They are merely intermediate stages in a causal chain already in motion.

One does a wrong and one is held responsible. One does a right and one is held responsible.

Seems to be clear to everyone except the philosophy types.

[Iwannaplato]

Here's the difference, P.

There is no freewill, so one can't be blamed or made gulity in the way of charging them with commiting a moral wrong when they could have chosen to do otherwise. That's impossible.

But one is blamed and made guilty in the sense of being the bodily cause of the action in question.

Joe's brain made him floor the gas peddle. He crashed. Joe is to blame (in part) for the damage done becuz joe was driving the car. He's part of the cause of the accident, just like a bolt of lightening is (in part) the cause of a fire, or Beyonce and JayZ are (in part) the cause of so much nausea in the world.

Now if u insist we can trace all the crap back to god, the first cause. Or, we can attribute individual effects (joe and beyonce and jayz) to an eternal chain of causes and effects. But in either case, joe and beyonce and jayz can't be blamed for being the origin of the things that they do. They are merely intermediate stages in a causal chain already in motion.

There's no point in using moral terms if you don't like the moral implications. You could say they were part of causal chains, period. But for some reason you want to call people guilty and responsible and blame them, categorizing it as blame.

[iambiguous]

If he is decapitating kittens, you're not going to say that he shouldn't do it?

Really?

Why not?

Again, that's not the point in a wholly determined universe.

In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, someone decapitates kittens because they were never able not to. Someone says what they do about that because they were never able not to. You and I react as we do to this because we were never able freely to react otherwise.

There appears little doubt you think that is the point, since you have written it hundreds of times and it seems to be your universal answer to all things regarding determinism.

Point taken . Again.

But it's a small trivial point. Trivially true.

Right.

This...

In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, someone decapitates kittens because they were never able not to. Someone says what they do about that because they were never able not to. You and I react as we do to this because we were never able freely to react otherwise.

...even if true is just a trivial point!

And all I can do -- click -- is to post what "here and now" seems most reasonable to me. So, given that 1] you actually do possess free will and 2] no one is sticking a gun to your head and demanding that your read what I post [or else] why don't you simply avoid me altogether here.

I'll tell you what...

Given autonomy from this point on we will both agree to avoid each other. Problem solved.

Deal?

And just for the record, if I was truly convinced that I do not possess free will, I wouldn't be here posting as though I do. On the other hand, some particularly hardcore determinists [compelled themselves] will just insist that this too is but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

I just don't know. And, apparently, neither do any philosophers or scientists or theologians. Not really.

After all, if someone -- anyone -- had finally been able to demonstrate that we do in fact have free will wouldn't this astonishing news be everywhere? Wouldn't, say, NOVA have already aired a documentary confirming it?

On the other hand...


Here, however, is an article from Scientific American that suggests that, yes, we "sort of" may have free will: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... u-are-too/

Again, I come back to 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.

...because I do not deem it it be a 'trivial" thing.

[phyllo]

And all I can do -- click -- is to post what "here and now" seems most reasonable to me. So, given that 1] you actually do possess free will and 2] no one is sticking a gun to your head and demanding that your read what I post [or else] why don't you simply avoid me altogether here.

You responded to my post, Chuck.

Why don't you take your own advice?

And just for the record, if I was truly convinced that I do not possess free will, I wouldn't be here posting as though I do.

What the fuck would posting as if you know that you don't possess free-will look like?? Or posting as if you think you have free-will?? (Or any other variation for that matter.)

That's one of those bizarre things that's constantly repeated on this site ... "You're not posting or acting like a determinist"

As if a determinist acts in some way that is different from a free-willer.


Note to Iambiguous : I don't have libertarian free-will.

[iambiguous]

And all I can do -- click -- is to post what "here and now" seems most reasonable to me. So, given that 1] you actually do possess free will and 2] no one is sticking a gun to your head and demanding that your read what I post [or else] why don't you simply avoid me altogether here.

You responded to my post, Chuck.

Why don't you take your own advice?

And just for the record, if I was truly convinced that I do not possess free will, I wouldn't be here posting as though I do.

What the fuck would posting as if you know that you don't possess free-will look like?? Or posting as if you think you have free-will?? (Or any other variation for that matter.)

That's one of those bizarre things that's constantly repeated on this site ... "You're not posting or acting like a determinist"

As if a determinist acts in some way that is different from a free-willer.


Note to Iambiguous : I don't have libertarian free-will.

Absolutely shameless!!!

One of us, anyway.

[phyllo]

Now that he is out of the way, we can move on and make some progress.

[Atla]

If people have free will, why don't they just make all the annoying users on philosophy forums disappear, or see the light?
You have free will, all you have to do is want it and it happens.

[iambiguous]

Free will & Moral responsibility
AQA Ethics

Harris asks you to consider the effect that learning about this brain tumour has on your sense of the Whitman’s moral responsibility. It seems to remove the sense that they were responsible. The murderer had no control over the brain tumour and thus it seems they had no control over their actions.

Again, how are we not stuck here? At least until scientists and/or philosophers and/or theologians reach a consensus regarding human autonomy. But then stuck further because how would we go about pinning down whether that consensus itself was arrived at autonomously?

Well, providing of course this is not just a trivial pursuit.

Now back to the part where I'm the first to admit I am just not intellectually sophisticated enough to fully grasp...

However, Harris then suggests that actually, in terms of moral responsibility, all human actions are like that.

Okay, but what if Sam Harris has no autonomous control over his suggestions?

The violent actions were predetermined by the neurophysiology of the brain tumour, but if determinism is true, then all human actions are predetermined by neurophysiology. A brain tumour is an obvious striking case of interference in normal functioning, but if normal functioning is just as pre-determined as a brain tumour, then in terms of being a basis for moral responsibility, they are identical.

Yes, that seems reasonable to me. But: does it include the "normal functioning" we pursue here in posting and in reading the posts of others? Or is it nature and the laws of matter all the way down?

If we are to be logically consistent, we should extend to all humans the same sense of a lack of moral responsibility that we have towards the violent man.

On the other hand, how is human logic itself not entangled in this conundrum? Is it not but one more inherent manifestation of the neurophysiology that may or may not encompass the entirety of human brain?

Well, providing, of course that this too is not just another trivial pursuit.

[phyllo]

Harris asks you to consider the effect that learning about this brain tumour has on your sense of the Whitman’s moral responsibility. It seems to remove the sense that they were responsible. The murderer had no control over the brain tumour and thus it seems they had no control over their actions.

He is going to get locked up.

However, Harris then suggests that actually, in terms of moral responsibility, all human actions are like that.

All humans will be locked up if they don't act "appropriately".

If we are to be logically consistent, we should extend to all humans the same sense of a lack of moral responsibility that we have towards the violent man.

We treat them the same.

[iambiguous]

Harris asks you to consider the effect that learning about this brain tumour has on your sense of the Whitman’s moral responsibility. It seems to remove the sense that they were responsible. The murderer had no control over the brain tumour and thus it seems they had no control over their actions.

He is going to get locked up.

However, Harris then suggests that actually, in terms of moral responsibility, all human actions are like that.

All humans will be locked up if they don't act "appropriately".

If we are to be logically consistent, we should extend to all humans the same sense of a lack of moral responsibility that we have towards the violent man.

We treat them the same.

Anyone else?

[Iwannaplato]

If people have free will, why don't they just make all the annoying users on philosophy forums disappear, or see the light?
You have free will, all you have to do is want it and it happens.

How could you make someone disappear or see the light if they have free will?

[Atla]

If people have free will, why don't they just make all the annoying users on philosophy forums disappear, or see the light?
You have free will, all you have to do is want it and it happens.

How could you make someone disappear or see the light if they have free will?

Don't know, by being quicker than them? Rewriting their minds before they get the idea to rewrite yours.