compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

Morally speaking, determinists are mainly divided into two camps, namely compatibilists and incompatibilists. The incompatibilists argue that determinism completely negates the possibility of agent causation, and therefore moral responsibility.

That's more or less me "here and now". Then the part, however, where I flat-out acknowledge how the odds that my take on all of this is the correct one is almost certainly very, very, very remote. All someone need do is to bring back the fact that I haven't a clue regarding how the human species fits into the existence of existence itself. And, of course, neither does anyone else here.

On the other hand, compatibilists claim that moral responsibility is still applicable under determinism. They are both contrasted to libertarians, who defend moral responsibility through believing in free will, dismissing determinism.

What I wouldn't give for someone to actually explain this to me in such a way my own frame of mind here begins to crumble. I begin to see what I keep missing in the arguments of others. I begin to see the likelihood of moral responsibility "somehow" being applicable to human interactions.

On the other hand, back to this...

I come here one day arguing that I finally do grasp how one can be compelled to behave as they do but still be responsible. Only how do I know for sure whether in doing so this isn't just another inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe?

In the interim...

What’s interesting about the compatibilists’ position, is that they adhere to the idea that everything that happens is predetermined to happen, yet still argue for moral responsibility. One wonders, what is it that compatibilists are able to see that allows them to reconcile these two apparently contradictory theories?

I know that I wonder about this all the time. Again, however, I wonder if all that I profess to know, I was never able not to profess to know.

[phyllo]

What’s interesting about the compatibilists’ position, is that they adhere to the idea that everything that happens is predetermined to happen, yet still argue for moral responsibility. One wonders, what is it that compatibilists are able to see that allows them to reconcile these two apparently contradictory theories?

First :
Can an action be attributed to a person, animal or thing?

Jenny won the bowling championship.
Jack slashed his employer's tires.
Kitty is scratching the couch.
A rock fell and blocked the roadway.

Second:
Do we want to encourage or discourage these actions?

If encourage, then praise, reward and/or make it possible to repeat.

If discourage, then criticize, punish and make it hard or impossible to repeat.

Third:
There is no denying that the action was done and cannot be undone.

There is movement forward. There are attempts to get preferred actions in the future.

[Iwannaplato]

What’s interesting about the compatibilists’ position, is that they adhere to the idea that everything that happens is predetermined to happen, yet still argue for moral responsibility. One wonders, what is it that compatibilists are able to see that allows them to reconcile these two apparently contradictory theories?

First :
Can an action be attributed to a person, animal or thing?

Jenny won the bowling championship.
Jack slashed his employer's tires.
Kitty is scratching the couch.
A rock fell and blocked the roadway.

Second:
Do we want to encourage or discourage these actions?

If encourage, then praise, reward and/or make it possible to repeat.

If discourage, then criticize, punish and make it hard or impossible to repeat.

Third:
There is no denying that the action was done and cannot be undone.

There is movement forward. There are attempts to get preferred actions in the future.

Yes, well said.
I think a lot hinges on the word 'responsible'. Joe from the Big Bang down a long set of complicated dominoes hitting each other was always going to rape Sally on the 28th of December, 2023.

Here we are at his trial in 2024. We certainly can't hold anyone else responsible. Joe, it seems, might rape again. Men in society are aware these trials take place. So, what do we do. We decide to punish Joe and also separate Joe from society. Why? To prevent the specific individual from committing the same crime. To show wider society that this will not be tolerated - and hopefully preventing future rapes. It would be great if in addition we tries to help Joe not have this tendency and perhaps learn other things that make him less likely to rape on his release.

Blaming Joe's genes and perhaps experiences might be useful in some other ways. We can feel sympathy for Joe.
But we still want to do those things. At least many of us do. Regardless.

If I have a door with loose hinges that keeps falling on people, I replace it.
If wasps set up a nest near my front door, I'll at the very least have it moved if not destroyed.

The wasps couldn't help but set up there, but I hold them responsible for stinging me and my children. It wasn't the postman. And yes, the wasps may suffer for things they couldn't not help but do.

I can see where determinism, in its compatibilist form also, might lead one to be more understanding of someone's actions. It might cause one to feel empathy for the person who couldn't help have those violent and sexual urges mixed in a way we want to prevent from happening again.

[Iwannaplato]

What’s interesting about the compatibilists’ position, is that they adhere to the idea that everything that happens is predetermined to happen, yet still argue for moral responsibility. One wonders, what is it that compatibilists are able to see that allows them to reconcile these two apparently contradictory theories?

I know that I wonder about this all the time. Again, however, I wonder if all that I profess to know, I was never able not to profess to know.

I think it makes sense that this is a tricky point and that you ask about it. Here's a suggestion that might move the conversation forward. You may have done this before. If so, apologies, but there are a lot of posts to go through.

OK.
You've seen what Phyllo and I wrote above. What exactly about the word responsibility makes it wrong in the way we both suggest reacting to someone who does something we consider wrong or want stopped/inhibited.

I don't think either of us misses that you see inevitability of an action eliminating the possibility of someone being held responsible for it.

Which Is why I think the word responsible is key to this issue.

My guess is, and correct me if I am wrong, that you would think it reasonable to incarcerate a rapist.
But you would consider it, so far, not correct to say that a rapist in a determinist world is responsible for his actions.

If I am correct, then is it possible that what the word 'responsible' does in real world consequences is not what you have an issue with - in that case of the rapist - but rather on purely abstract grounds. Or perhaps on the grounds of how we view the rapist. It might well be best to restrict his movement and also make it clear to other potential rapist that there are severe consquences, but we shouldn't think of Joe, the rapist, as, for example, evil.

In any case, I think focusing on exactly what you mean or think is meant by 'responsible' does not fit the consequences or how people are viewed could get this one step forward.

And I suppose what real world consequence are you concerned about? What difference will considering people responsible for their actions arise? And a specific situation would be useful? On the ground, not in the abstract.

[iambiguous]

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

There are two possible explanations. On one account, compatibilism may simply derive from an arbitrary standpoint and imply logically contradictory things.

For example?

Again, Mary aborting Jane. What might the author's point be in regard to Mary aborting her unborn fetus solely because her brain compels her to? Are the laws of matter themselves capable of producing arbitrary interactions. Connecting the dots between, say, quantum mechanics and the human brain? Assuming there is no God around to explain it instead.

And the logic of it all might appear to accept contradictory things, but that is only because the logic itself is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

We see this in the accounts of those compatibilists who reject the notion of free will yet encourage people to live as if it exists. They say that even if free will does not exist, we have to act like it does.

Okay, and when I suggest that compatibilists do these things only because they were never able not to do them? Yes they encourage people to live as though they had free will -- click -- but only because they were never able not to.

They also argue that moral practices are important for regulating people’s behavior. Yet they fail to explain to us how anything, including moral beliefs, can have a power in changing peoples’ behavior if the course of the world is already determined from the Big Bang. What we end up with is to me a logically contradictory view that can’t be explained outside of the realm of illusion.

Yes, that is basically what "I" believe "here and now". But I am no more capable of actually demonstrating this materially, phenomenologically, empirically, etc., than those who believe exactly the opposite. The compatibilists seem to posit these mysterious "internal components" of human consciousness that "somehow" resulted in human autonomy.

Sure, maybe. But arguing this into existence philosophically? How is that perhaps not just scratching the surface?

[Iwannaplato]

The compatibilists seem to posit these mysterious "internal components" of human consciousness that "somehow" resulted in human autonomy.

Could you quote or link us to compatibilists doing this?

[phyllo]

They also argue that moral practices are important for regulating people’s behavior. Yet they fail to explain to us how anything, including moral beliefs, can have a power in changing peoples’ behavior if the course of the world is already determined from the Big Bang. What we end up with is to me a logically contradictory view that can’t be explained outside of the realm of illusion.

This is something that can only be said by someone who doesn't understand how determinism works ... how cause and effect works.

"Moral practices" or "moral beliefs" cause people to behave in a certain way. The behavior is the effect.

These behaviors produce what is 'determined'. Without the moral practices and beliefs, there would be different behaviors and something else would be 'determined'. With 'moral practices' and without 'moral practices' do not produce the same world.

[iambiguous]

The compatibilists seem to posit these mysterious "internal components" of human consciousness that "somehow" resulted in human autonomy.

Could you quote or link us to compatibilists doing this?

More to the point [mine "here and now"], how would you go about demonstrating that any quote or link I provide here, I provided of my own free will? Again, given my own understanding of compatibilism, they would argue that though I was never able not to provide you with what I did, I am still responsible for providing it.

Any compatibilists here? If so, please note how this responsibility is derived. What, our brains compel us to exchange posts here...posts we were never able not to submit...but we are still responsible for doing so?

On the other hand, I certainly cannot demonstrate that holding Mary morally responsible for aborting her unborn baby/clump of cells in a wholly determined universe as I understand that "in my head", is not reasonable. Then "the gap", right?

[Iwannaplato]

The compatibilists seem to posit these mysterious "internal components" of human consciousness that "somehow" resulted in human autonomy.

Could you quote or link us to compatibilists doing this?

More to the point [mine "here and now"], how would you go about demonstrating that any quote or link I provide here, I provided of my own free will?

I'll take this as a no. That you can't provide a link to where a compatibilist posits these mysterious 'internal components' of human consciousness that result in human autonomy.

Again, given my own understanding of compatibilism, they would argue that though I was never able not to provide you with what I did, I am still responsible for providing it.

That's much more likely, yes. And notice how it is not at all based on some mysterious internal components of human consciousness resulting in human autonomy. In fact, it contradicts this other idea you give them.

Any compatibilists here? If so, please note how this responsibility is derived. What, our brains compel us to exchange posts here...posts we were never able not to submit...but we are still responsible for doing so?

A number of people have done this.

On the other hand, I certainly cannot demonstrate that holding Mary morally responsible for aborting her unborn baby/clump of cells in a wholly determined universe as I understand that "in my head", is not reasonable. Then "the gap", right?

You could try. One can support a position, without necessarly demonstrating it must be the case. Often that is the best we can manage.

[Flannel Jesus]

The compatibilists seem to posit these mysterious "internal components" of human consciousness that "somehow" resulted in human autonomy.

Could you quote or link us to compatibilists doing this?

More to the point [mine "here and now"], how would you go about demonstrating that any quote or link I provide here, I provided of my own free will?

I'll take this as a no. That you can't provide a link to where a compatibilist posits these mysterious 'internal components' of human consciousness that result in human autonomy.

I love it. You ask him a reasonable request and instead of answering it, he goes into some pea brain monologue about something else entirely.

He doesn't want a conversation in this thread. What he wants is to go full stooge mode. Shameless.

[Iwannaplato]

The compatibilists seem to posit these mysterious "internal components" of human consciousness that "somehow" resulted in human autonomy.

Could you quote or link us to compatibilists doing this?

More to the point [mine "here and now"], how would you go about demonstrating that any quote or link I provide here, I provided of my own free will?

I'll take this as a no. That you can't provide a link to where a compatibilist posits these mysterious 'internal components' of human consciousness that result in human autonomy.

I love it. You ask him a reasonable request and instead of answering it, he goes into some pea brain monologue about something else entirely.

He doesn't want a conversation in this thread. What he wants is to go full stooge mode. Shameless.

What was odder what that a few lines later he gave a rendition of compatibilism that contradicts the one I asked about.

Again, given my own understanding of compatibilism, they would argue that though I was never able not to provide you with what I did, I am still responsible for providing it.

No autonomous elements. In fact they don't fit with that version.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'll take this as a no. That you can't provide a link to where a compatibilist posits these mysterious 'internal components' of human consciousness that result in human autonomy.

I love it. You ask him a reasonable request and instead of answering it, he goes into some pea brain monologue about something else entirely.

He doesn't want a conversation in this thread. What he wants is to go full stooge mode. Shameless.

What was odder what that a few lines later he gave a rendition of compatibilism that contradicts the one I asked about.

Again, given my own understanding of compatibilism, they would argue that though I was never able not to provide you with what I did, I am still responsible for providing it.

No autonomous elements. In fact they don't fit with that version.

He has written and read about compatibilism more than probably anybody else here, and seems to still understand it the least. It's amazing really, you'd think after that many words read and written SOMETHING would rub off on him, some kind of understanding eventually. And yet...

[Iwannaplato]

He has written and read about compatibilism more than probably anybody else here, and seems to still understand it the least. It's amazing really, you'd think after that many words read and written SOMETHING would rub off on him, some kind of understanding eventually. And yet...

And just for the occasional record here for the bots reading this thread...
he often writes as if no compatibilist or someone else has written an explanation for how one can consider people responsible for their acts and believe in the inevitability of those acts? He has certainly expressed incredulity when you or I or phyllo has presented a justification for this, but I don't think he's every interacted with those arguments beyond incredulity type reactions and appeals to a non-existent gallery.

But, the request will come again in the future, I would guess, as if no one has responded to this challenge.

Since we are likely to be called Stooges soon, it should be pointed out that we are pretty much the only people who take his posts seriously and respond to them after consideration. Yes, we've gone ad hom - though generally about behavior like we mention here that goes against interactive dialogue - but we have also taken the issues he raises seriously and responded to questions and challenges with some thought and care.

If we are Stooges, he should ask himself why only people he classifies as Stooges take him seriously to any degree at all.

The non-Stooges ignore him almost completely.

[Flannel Jesus]

If we are Stooges, he should ask himself why only people he classifies as Stooges take him seriously to any degree at all.

The non-Stooges ignore him almost completely.

You make a good argument that he's right about us. Only a stooge would give him the time of day.

[Iwannaplato]

If we are Stooges, he should ask himself why only people he classifies as Stooges take him seriously to any degree at all.

The non-Stooges ignore him almost completely.

You make a good argument that he's right about us. Only a stooge would give him the time of day.

Thank you for noticing and highlighting the self-critical subtext of my post. What's wrong with us??????