1) Random events B and C do not lead to event A, they ARE event A
2) If Event A IS the event of someone choosing\deliberately deciding an action then that person's choice is responsible for the consequences of A. Of course if you keep separating the random event from the person making choices you are always going to find a difficulty, but that is just misrepresenting my point rather than criticising it.
It seems you are drawing upon Sartre, (paraphrase) choice is a 'midpoint' of necessary past and future. Random events are reduced to nothing in human existence.
if the past is random and the furture random, then we have a real, 'liberal', of libertarian, choice.
your postulate (1) contradicts itself: B & C not equal to A; B & C = A.
And this points to Sartre's explanation.
the conflation of inner and outer, as in your essay, would remove the definitions we have for 'random' and 'causality' and 'choice' from their meaning we typically know. this comment is not addressing this argument directly (my mistake)
I am not sure why you think the phrase "leads to" is equivalent to the phrase "are". The former suggests something causing something, the latter is a statement of identity. An act of throwing a brick at a window may lead to the window shattering, but they are hardly the same thing. Are not you suggesting that that which causes an event is actually a necessary part of the event, ie, identical with the event. Are not you arguiing Determinism? Perhaps I am misrepresenting your position.
Also, what essay of mine are you talking about and why do think I am a woman? Are you confusing me with the lady who co-wrote the article we are debating who was arguing against free will? Authors: Luke/ Rebecca. Yes I apologize. I thought 1)that you MGL was the 'Rebecca' in the debate, because 2) an author of another essay in PN which suggests a type of similar agument as this one is named Mary.., and 3) I was mixing up the discusssions, and 4) sometimes my mind runs paralell thoughts that do not encounter each other to make the correction that I find subsequently.
But I am no longer arguing determinism; i have changed my position; I argue Free will.
the determinist structure of argument was based upon my choice to determine what terms I would use to describe the situation of reality. The result of the conflation of freely choosing agents has brought me this problem, upon which I have chosen to advocate Free Will. If I argue determinism it is because I chose that it is the most sensible route.
If there is a truely random subatomic reality then it is caused by the conglomerate of freely choosing agents determining that such TRSR exists. It does not exist except in that we have chosen it to exist.
If there is a causality that exists in an determined arena, then likewise is the case.
If I come upon a reality that has been determined, then it is because of my free choice in the matter of my reality.
If there is a larger reality in which I am a part, it is because of the conglomerate of freely choosing agents, which I have chosen to entertain.
Let me reveal my idiocy by asking: Is this Luke then (MGL)? Is not Luke taking the side of Free will? It seems the M-- is arguing Determinism in this thread.
chaz wyman wrote:
Why not provide correction, rather than punishment. Why not change the person, rather than punish them? Educate rather than blame them for their ignorance?
Determinism rules okay!
Not that I disagree with your sentiments about being tough on the causes of crime, but what if it turns out we have an unreformable deterministic biological instinct that grounds our desire to to punish those that transgress our moral rules?
lancek4 wrote:Let me reveal my idiocy by asking: Is this Luke then (MGL)? Is not Luke taking the side of Free will? It seems the M-- is arguing Determinism in this thread.
No, sorry, I (MGL) am not Luke, but I am taking the side of free will, like Luke. Not sure who you are referring to as "M".
Not that I disagree with your sentiments about being tough on the causes of crime, but what if it turns out we have an unreformable deterministic biological instinct that grounds our desire to to punish those that transgress our moral rules?[/quote]
Do you mean what if the criminal has no ability to be 'penitant'?
lancek4 wrote:
Are not you suggesting that that which causes an event is actually a necessary part of the event, ie, identical with the event. Are not you arguiing Determinism? Perhaps I am misrepresenting your position.
No, I don't think I ever said that the cause of an event was a necessary part of the event it caused. I was merely saying that the event of choosing an action could be reduced to ( and thereby equivalent to ) random sub-atomic events, but that this did not mean that those sub-atomic events caused the choosing of the action becasue they WERE the choosing of the action.
lancek4 wrote:OK, i apologize for my blunder. Moving on....
MGL wrote:
Not that I disagree with your sentiments about being tough on the causes of crime, but what if it turns out we have an unreformable deterministic biological instinct that grounds our desire to to punish those that transgress our moral rules?
Do you mean what if the criminal has no ability to be 'penitant'?
No, I mean what if we - as potential and actual victims of crime - are predetermined to want criminals to be punished. What if the satisfaction we get from the suffering of a criminal - barbaric and distrurbing though it may seem - is simply innate, and cannot be reformed.
chaz wyman wrote:Those who promote free will tend do point out the problem with personal responsibility and accountability. As if a problem means you have to ignore the argument and pretend it does not exist. It is much like Kant saying there ahs to be a God because I can't imagine a world without one. Well just because you don't like it does not strengthen the argument.
My view of Determinism does not present any kind of problem.
your determinism is interestingly determined here (by you)...
So let's assume that we are all determined. What role does punishment have, and what can we take from determinism to make the penal system better and more attuned to stop recidivism.
With the old system where the illusion of free will holds court, each individual is punished for what he does because it is assumed that he or she has the absolute god given choice to have done otherwise; that he knows that difference between right and wrong and his crime is a wilful neglect of his duty as a human being. This does not even have to assume that the criminal has ever had any access to moral teaching, education, an internal moral compass- none of that matters because his crime is an act of will and he is deserving of punishment. Free will does not even indicate any remedial treatment, as all that is empty if he can go out again a wilfully commit a crime. Prison is a means by which the criminal is protected from society. In this system the person is punished as the person he has chosen to be. Any suggestion that there were causal factors is not on the table.
If, on the other hand we accept determinism; that each person for each act is a culmination of a multitude of factors that lead inevitably to the commission of a crime - factors include genetics, environment , social position, poverty, wealth, culture, and so on.., what lesson can we learn to adjust punishment for the betterment of the individual and his role in society? I see not problem with promoting a penal system which recognises that an adjustment in attitude can be made; provision of a job skill to avoid the poverty that led the person to a crime; punishment to deter; and incarceration more as a punishment and less about keeping them off the streets. But whilst each one is there do something so that they will be a changed person. With determinism we are forced to consider the causes. We are forced to consider the causes of crime and the causes that might lead the person away from crime, rather than just let them rot.
We all know that prison is not working in any sense. Recidivism rates are on the increase and all we seem to do by incarcerating criminals is to make them better criminals. I think it is no coincidence that the Western country which is most Christian and holds onto the idea of a god given free-will has by far the most massive per capita prison population on earth, and the greatest death row in the Western world. Whilst the people rage for vengeance the prison population swells and crime seem to be on the increase.
Why not provide correction, rather than punishment. Why not change the person, rather than punish them? Educate rather than blame them for their ignorance?
Determinism rules okay!
It seems you are using Determinism as a label for how to interpret the past while leaving out the present. (Again, I do nn disagree with your proposal, only that it promotes a type of ethical activity (a technology if you will ).
Indeed, the general system of law we have limits its scop of what reality may be for the purpose of managing society. Law overtly, consciously, argues no existential position, only in its activity does it argue free will and social responsibility.
If we take determinism as a valid position, we cannot leave out the present, as if all of a sudden we become free (god given). Our present decisions must likewise be determined if our past was. If not then determinism is empty of meaning and has 'no content'; that is, unless we have a basic duality.
how do we say that our choices were determined in the past, but in the present we have responsibility. Subatomic activity would have to have some sort of 'random', but more properly, 'separate force-element' in order to bring about a free choice in one moment and determined choice in the next. Indeed, to have any type of absolute free choice, there must be an effective element that is beyond our knowable universe.
In fact, i am changing my position to advocating Free Choice, for I choses freely to absolutly deny that this sentence I am writing has been determined. Determinism is a necessary condition of my having a free choice. there could be no determinate reality without my first free choice.
Your choice to change has been determined by your cussedness. It only verifies my resolve and proves beyond doubt the veracity of a deterministic stance. You must have an argumentative gene!
(Uh --I wish to admit that I am a dork. I had read this article and another one recently and was mixing them up on this thread. Yes, now that I am am a dork,I can now make relevant comments to this thread.
There is no duality between past and present. We live in a continual present. Our choices are not determined "in the past" they are determined by what has occurred in the past; i.e. what has occurred in the eternal present. To say that our choices have been determined in the past is to look with the mind of god; we are not PRE-determined, in the sense of predestined. The future is always unknown. Predicable to the limits of our purview but nonetheless determined by necessity.
With determinism we have social responsibility because we have to take responsibility not just for what we do, but for what we are, who we are. If we are 'afflicted' with the warrior gene, or have a lack of empathy then that should not allow us to avoid ethical rules, it means we have to take extra care to avoid transgressing the common good. But society should also take seriously its responsibility to assist those that fall foul of its numerous laws, and that such laws should not be capricious, unfair, or prejudicial.
But such a route is better learned when we recognise that the vicissitudes of social inequality have serious implications for the interpretation and compliance with what moral and civic laws society chooses to impose.
chaz wyman wrote:
With determinism we have social responsibility because we have to take responsibility not just for what we do, but for what we are, who we are. If we are 'afflicted' with the warrior gene, or have a lack of empathy then that should not allow us to avoid ethical rules, it means we have to take extra care to avoid transgressing the common good. But society should also take seriously its responsibility to assist those that fall foul of its numerous laws, and that such laws should not be capricious, unfair, or prejudicial.
How can we have any kind of responsibility if our choices are determined? How is it possible to take extra care to overcome a warrior gene? What criteria are you using to judge laws as unfair? Can you possibly rephrase these points so that they are free from any hint of free-will?
I think its because genes are not a rule-book for behaviours they are propensities not laws. I think its also dubious about how far up the chain of actions they can be used to describe behaviour.
chaz wyman wrote:
With determinism we have social responsibility because we have to take responsibility not just for what we do, but for what we are, who we are. If we are 'afflicted' with the warrior gene, or have a lack of empathy then that should not allow us to avoid ethical rules, it means we have to take extra care to avoid transgressing the common good. But society should also take seriously its responsibility to assist those that fall foul of its numerous laws, and that such laws should not be capricious, unfair, or prejudicial.
How can we have any kind of responsibility if our choices are determined?
Of course!!! Did you not read the above?
How is it possible to take extra care to overcome a warrior gene?
Everyone has the capacity to kill. It might be advantageous if a person knows he was a greater propensity to avoid potentially violent situations, east really. The knowledge is a determining factor too.
What criteria are you using to judge laws as unfair? Can you possibly rephrase these points so that they are free from any hint of free-will?
Who said laws are fair or have to be fair. Society determines what is and is not acceptable. Participants in society comply with them. What is the relevance to determinism/free-will?
I don't see any thing I recognise as free-will here. What DO you mean?
chaz wyman wrote:
With determinism we have social responsibility because we have to take responsibility not just for what we do, but for what we are, who we are. If we are 'afflicted' with the warrior gene, or have a lack of empathy then that should not allow us to avoid ethical rules, it means we have to take extra care to avoid transgressing the common good. But society should also take seriously its responsibility to assist those that fall foul of its numerous laws, and that such laws should not be capricious, unfair, or prejudicial.
How can we have any kind of responsibility if our choices are determined?
Of course!!! Did you not read the above?
How is it possible to take extra care to overcome a warrior gene?
Everyone has the capacity to kill. It might be advantageous if a person knows he was a greater propensity to avoid potentially violent situations, east really. The knowledge is a determining factor too.
What criteria are you using to judge laws as unfair? Can you possibly rephrase these points so that they are free from any hint of free-will?
Who said laws are fair or have to be fair. Society determines what is and is not acceptable. Participants in society comply with them. What is the relevance to determinism/free-will?
I don't see any thing I recognise as free-will here. What DO you mean?
You said "we have social responsibility " and "we have to take responsibility". What kind of responsibility is this, if we are not responsible for our actions? You ask "Who said laws are fair or have to be fair?" You did, when you said "such laws should not be capricious, unfair, or prejudicial". If "society determines what is and is not acceptable" then why should you think current society is unfair? Or is there some other criteria other than society that determines what is right and wrong? If not, then what grounds are you using to complain about the current state of society? A concept of fairness suggests to me that people should be rewarded for good actions or their efforts and punished for bad ones and their laziness, but surely you cannot mean this if they are not responsible for their choices?
I think to say Pre-determined and determined is splitting hairs.
1) the past as a set of given conditions upon which to make a present choice.
2) the set that is the given condition for the present is determined, that is the past determines the present situation.
Is this what you are calling 'determinism'?
I thought determinism claims that choice is merely another condition of the present potential to be the past.
Either: choice is not Free, (determinism) or, choice is free (libertarianism).
Or is it both? If it is both then we have Free Choice, since we then extrapolate backwards: the condition of ultimate free choice extends to the past as 1) the past is the conglomerate of free choices such that the present was arbitrarily consigned, such that 2) our choice extends to the ultimate condition of the past in that we choose what orientation the past manifests as the condition that it grants to the present.
The past is only determined by choice: but this is not Determinism, but maybe 'soft' determinism, which is really free choice.
lancek4 wrote:I think to say Pre-determined and determined is splitting hairs.
No. Determined is enough. Adding "pre-" to the start has to mean something. Pre would imply fate. Fate implies that no matter what happens "it is written". Pre implies that the conditions are known or knowable. No such implication rests in determinism alone. This is why I took you up on the distinction between determined in the past rather than determined by the past; also took exception to your false dichotomy between past and present which does not, exist as we are always in a continual state of presentness. - A dichotomy that you have not yet integrated into your thinking.
1) the past as a set of given conditions upon which to make a present choice.
2) the set that is the given condition for the present is determined, that is the past determines the present situation.
Is this what you are calling 'determinism'?
I thought determinism claims that choice is merely another condition of the present potential to be the past.
Not really. the new present conditions are the consequence of novel conjunctions of causal factors.
Either: choice is not Free, (determinism) or, choice is free (libertarianism).
What do you mean 'free'. How can you make a choice without reference to the conditions of your morivation and experience, and are these not determined in a chain if causality?
Or is it both? If it is both then we have Free Choice, since we then extrapolate backwards: the condition of ultimate free choice extends to the past as 1) the past is the conglomerate of free choices such that the present was arbitrarily consigned, such that 2) our choice extends to the ultimate condition of the past in that we choose what orientation the past manifests as the condition that it grants to the present.
The past is only determined by choice: but this is not Determinism, but maybe 'soft' determinism, which is really free choice.
).