compatibilism

[Consul]

If you believe libertarian free will is reconcilable with necessitarianism, you're a compatlibilist, yes.

Compatibilists cannot be libertarians, since libertarianism entails the denial of determinism. Libertarianism = libertarian incompatibilism!

[iambiguous]

Free will & Moral responsibility
AQA Ethics

Compatibilism/soft determinism on punishment

Compatibilists believe that criminals are morally responsible for their actions that are determined in the morally relevant way, such as those that are determined by their internal causes.

Shall we go around and around and around again regarding the extent to which the compatibilists among us are able to believe "internally" other than what their own brains compel them to believe.

If a criminal is morally responsible, it follows that they deserve punishment. So, a retributive view of punishment could be justified on compatibilism.

And if criminals are compelled by their brains to break laws that lawmakers were compelled by their brains to enact?

This part...

However, compatibilists also believe in determinism, which is difficult to combine with the idea that a criminal deserves punishment. This could cause a compatibilist to adopt a weaker less harsh form of retributive punishment.

Right, like this too is not an inherent component of the only possible reality. Weak or strong retribution? Sure, that makes sense in a free will world. We call them aggravating and mitigating circumstances. But how are both not interchangeable in a wholly determined universe?

Alternatively, compatibilists could simply give up on retributive punishment and adopt a view punishment like Harris does; that punishment for rehabilitation or defence of society could be justified in a way that is compatible with determinism.

All of which Sam encompasses in a world of words? But wait. Sam is himself a neuroscientist. So perhaps he has experiential and experimental evidence to back the words up. He can point to actual chemical and neurological interactions in the brain that do in fact demonstrate his philosophical arguments.

Compatibilist free will cannot grant moral responsibility. The motivation behind compatibilism is to find a definition of free will that works with determinism yet also preserves the ethical function of the traditional definition. So they might argue that we are morally responsible for our actions that were determined by our internal causes. However, it’s hard to see how we can we have moral responsibility for something we couldn’t have helped doing.

Yep, the part I keep coming back to in my own "world of words".

Psychological determinism would argue that our internal causes are the direct result of conditioning external causes, which also questions the validity of Hume’s conception of moral responsibility.

Internal/external? Half a dozen of one six of the other?

[phyllo]

However, it’s hard to see how we can we have moral responsibility for something we couldn’t have helped doing.

Was already considered in the same article.

This:

Consider the situation of a bear wandering into an area that humans are living in and attacking them. We do not need to think the bear has free will in order to justify tranquilizing it and locking it up if we can or shooting and killing it if we have to.

We could regard human beings in this way too. Putting them in prison or even killing them doesn’t have to be justified as a ‘deserved punishment’, it could simply be justified as necessary for the defence of society.

[Flannel Jesus]

However, it’s hard to see how we can we have moral responsibility for something we couldn’t have helped doing.

Was already considered in the same article.

This:

Consider the situation of a bear wandering into an area that humans are living in and attacking them. We do not need to think the bear has free will in order to justify tranquilizing it and locking it up if we can or shooting and killing it if we have to.

We could regard human beings in this way too. Putting them in prison or even killing them doesn’t have to be justified as a ‘deserved punishment’, it could simply be justified as necessary for the defence of society.

It's really quite simple conceptually, as long as one doesn't have motivations to not understand.

[iambiguous]

However, it’s hard to see how we can we have moral responsibility for something we couldn’t have helped doing.

Was already considered in the same article.

This:

Consider the situation of a bear wandering into an area that humans are living in and attacking them. We do not need to think the bear has free will in order to justify tranquilizing it and locking it up if we can or shooting and killing it if we have to.

We could regard human beings in this way too. Putting them in prison or even killing them doesn’t have to be justified as a ‘deserved punishment’, it could simply be justified as necessary for the defence of society.

Already responded to that above:

Of course, both bears and human beings are mammals. Over millions of years the first brains became bear brains became our brains. But bear brains are rooted almost entirely in genes [biological imperatives] whereas our brains evolved to encompass memes [social, political and economic narratives] as well. Memes then evolved into morality.

Still, how did our brains come to acquire autonomy?

Again, other than defining and deducing free will into existence philosophically here, how exactly do the free will folks explain how human brains acquired autonomy in the first place? And bears may have some measure of autonomy themselves...but few would argue that they deserve to be killed when they kill us. Why? Because it's not like they could have chosen not to kill us. We just don't fully grasp how and why brains evolved as they did here on Earth.

As for the compatibilists with their "internal" vs. "external" factors, this belief in and of itself may well just be another manifestation of nature's domino effect.

[attofishpi]

What's wrong with everyone!?

Is this not an adequate thought experiment for the thread? Maybe you chaps don't want to reveal your cards..

IMO: I think after they speak at the time time, they soon manage to get to a normal discussion.
I think they don't draw on identical parts of the wall, close but not identical and definitely the same fruit, but slightly different drawings of them.


Boony’s Room

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him. The two copies of Boony, instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.

What happens next?
Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other?
Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall?
Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?

[phyllo]

Already responded to that above:

These "responses" have nothing to do with responsibility:

Of course, both bears and human beings are mammals. Over millions of years the first brains became bear brains became our brains. But bear brains are rooted almost entirely in genes [biological imperatives] whereas our brains evolved to encompass memes [social, political and economic narratives] as well. Memes then evolved into morality.

Still, how did our brains come to acquire autonomy?

This one is about brains, evolution, memes and autonomy.

Again, other than defining and deducing free will into existence philosophically here, how exactly do the free will folks explain how human brains acquired autonomy in the first place? And bears may have some measure of autonomy themselves...but few would argue that they deserve to be killed when they kill us. Why? Because it's not like they could have chosen not to kill us. We just don't fully grasp how and why brains evolved as they did here on Earth.

This one is also about free-will, brains, evolution and autonomy.

The point was that bears, people can be held responsible even if they don't have free-will or (your version of) autonomy.

We already do it.

If we have free-will, we do it. If we don't have free-will, we do it. So your standard, "we could never have not done it" doesn't work since free-willers have no problem dealing with non-free-will, non-autonomous bears.

[Flannel Jesus]

What's wrong with everyone!?

Is this not an adequate thought experiment for the thread? Maybe you chaps don't want to reveal your cards..

Why would it be? Maybe nothing is wrong with everyone else, because that thought experiment doesn't explain compatibilism to BIGGY, which is really the reason this thread is still continuing. He of course has no desire to understand, but just to talk to himself in circles for eternity.

The thought experiment itself isn't even about compatibilism directly at all. So... I don't think anything is wrong with everyone else if they're ignoring that thought experiment. It's barely on topic.

[attofishpi]

What's wrong with everyone!?

Is this not an adequate thought experiment for the thread? Maybe you chaps don't want to reveal your cards..

Why would it be? Maybe nothing is wrong with everyone else, because that thought experiment doesn't explain compatibilism to BIGGY, which is really the reason this thread is still continuing. He of course has no desire to understand, but just to talk to himself in circles for eternity.

The thought experiment itself isn't even about compatibilism directly at all. So... I don't think anything is wrong with everyone else if they're ignoring that thought experiment. It's barely on topic.

It's bang on topic. Does David Boon have free will within a determined universe? ..tested by the instantiation of identical copies of him capable of interaction from said instantiation point in time.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's bang on topic. Does David Boon have free will within a determined universe? ..tested by the instantiation of identical copies of him capable of interaction from said instantiation point in time.

If it doesn't help biggy understand why compatibilists think what they think, then it's not doing anything to resolve this thread. Do you believe this thought experiment helps biggy understand why compatibilists think what they think? If so, can you explain how this sheds light on why compatibilists think what they think?

[attofishpi]

It's bang on topic. Does David Boon have free will within a determined universe? ..tested by the instantiation of identical copies of him capable of interaction from said instantiation point in time.

If it doesn't help biggy understand why compatibilists think what they think, then it's not doing anything to resolve this thread. Do you believe this thought experiment helps biggy understand why compatibilists think what they think? If so, can you explain how this sheds light on why compatibilists think what they think?

I don't think anything is going to help biggy understand anything, so if everyone has resigned themselves to this thread being all about biggy then fuck it.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't think anything is going to help biggy understand anything, so if everyone has resigned themselves to this thread being all about biggy then fuck it.

The thread was created by biggy and persists through biggy. The problem is this:

1. Biggy will keep on posting in this thread until he understands why compatibilists think what they think, and can thus either accept or reject their thoughts

2. Biggy intends on doing literally none of the work required to understand why compatibilists think what they think. Instead, his strategy is to quote writings by compatibilists or about compatibilists, and pretty much ignore what those writings say

So this thread is perpetual and never ending. Biggy is the proverbial philosophical zombie. The lights are on but no one is home.

[Iwannaplato]

Shall we go around and around and around again regarding the extent to which the compatibilists among us are able to believe "internally" other than what their own brains compel them to believe.

How do you decide that someone' was 'shameless', given that their behavior might have been utterly determined?

If a bear broke into your apartment, would you not call Animal Control, since they will shoot it, it being the bear that has attacked other humans? Even though you think bears are utterly determined.

Down to earth examples.

[Flannel Jesus]

Bears are, quite literally, shameless

[Age]

What's wrong with everyone!?

Is this not an adequate thought experiment for the thread? Maybe you chaps don't want to reveal your cards..

IMO: I think after they speak at the time time, they soon manage to get to a normal discussion.
I think they don't draw on identical parts of the wall, close but not identical and definitely the same fruit, but slightly different drawings of them.


Boony’s Room

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him.

When you say, 'Two identical copies of "david boon" were made are you talking about 'the person' and/or 'the body'?

As this INFLUENCES the 'thought experiment' CONSIDERABLY, and ABSOLUTELY.

But then 'you', people, in the days when this was being written, were NOT YET FULLY AWARE of the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES. As, if 'you' did, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW the ACTUAL ANSWER/SOLUTION to these types of 'thought experiments'.

The two copies of Boony, instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime.

What can be SEEN here is, ONCE AGAIN, some words are USED but with ABSOLUTELY NO clue AT ALL what those words ACTUALLY MEAN or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.

HOWEVER, by the time that 'this sentence' was finished an ACTUAL DIFFERENCE has ALREADY OCCURRED.

What happens next?
Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other?

AGAIN, the ABSOLUTE Correct ANSWER to this QUESTION depends on WHETHER 'the person' and 'the body' is COPIED, EXACTLY, or NOT.

Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

HOW would ANY one KNOW what A human being IS GOING TO ACTUALLY DO, at ANY moment, AFTER the first so-called 'split-second' of initiation of coming-into-Existence.

Just GUESSING, ASSUMING, or PRESUMING what "ANOTHER" animal/human being WILL DO, FOR SURE, is NOT like GUESSING, ASSUMING, or PRESUMING what OTHER non animal 'things' WILL DO, FOR SURE.

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall?
Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?

ONCE AGAIN, it ALL DEPENDS on 'what' was COPIED, EXACTLY?