popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 4:52 am
To assume free will one must assume human action without motivation which can never be, one must be moved from within in order to move without. One reacts to the physical world making one's reaction one's will to be fulfilled, and in which case it can never be pure altruism. There is no such thing as human action there is but reaction, and this is true of all organisms. Motivation spells reaction.
Yes, but every reaction has its whole reason in the action that generates it.
There can be no altruism, but there cannot be selfishness either ...
Now that it has been determined that we lack free will, the obvious next question is: What now? In particular, our lack of free will absolves us of moral responsibility, as most people understand the term. Yet, we all appear to possess "moral responsibility" and demand it from others.
In contrast to Hobbes' state of nature, I believe that the necessity-driven evolution of our brains' sophisticated logical capacities has led us to recognize the benefits of some social contract. In exchange for my killing you to steal your food, you pledge to care for my basic needs if I for any reason become incapacitated and cannot do so on my own, and I vow to do the same for you. This agreement allows us to collaborate to the benefit of the entire community. This seeming benevolence is superficial, though; it is basically a survival strategy with self-serving goals. Thus, moral responsibility is reduced to fulfilling one's end of the bargain. Moreover, ethical behavior becomes assisting one another in meeting their basic needs.
BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 9:51 am
Now that it has been determined that we lack free will, the obvious next question is: What now? In particular, our lack of free will absolves us of moral responsibility, as most people understand the term. Yet, we all appear to possess "moral responsibility" and demand it from others.
In contrast to Hobbes' state of nature, I believe that the necessity-driven evolution of our brains' sophisticated logical capacities has led us to recognize the benefits of some social contract. In exchange for my killing you to steal your food, you pledge to care for my basic needs if I for any reason become incapacitated and cannot do so on my own, and I vow to do the same for you. This agreement allows us to collaborate to the benefit of the entire community. This seeming benevolence is superficial, though; it is basically a survival strategy with self-serving goals. Thus, moral responsibility is reduced to fulfilling one's end of the bargain. Moreover, ethical behavior becomes assisting one another in meeting their basic needs.
Despite that there is no such thing as absolute Free Will, we need to act as if there is such a thing. Many of life's decisions are ad hoc.
Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 11:28 am
Despite that there is no such thing as absolute Free Will, we need to act as if there is such a thing. Many of life's decisions are ad hoc.
I am unsure whether we should act as though we have free will. In fact, I believe that the illusion of free will is directly responsible for harsh and terrible behavior toward others. Particularly when we fault someone for actions over which they had no control, we engage in unjust and frequently heinous acts of vengeance. Understanding that we lack free will necessitates reevaluating the foundations of our legal and moral systems. Only then will the world become a better place to live, in my opinion. Unfortunately, our belief in free will is so ingrained that it is difficult for us to abandon it and perceive a more rational, civil, and decent way forward. But that road is there, right in front of us.
Understanding that we lack free will necessitates reevaluating the foundations of our legal and moral systems.
What would the new legal and moral systems look like?
Good question. Clearly, we would need to cease punishing people just because "they deserve it". This does not imply that all forms of punishment should be eliminated; rather, they should be administered with a different justification and objective in mind.
I am unsure whether we should act as though we have free will.
If you're not a free will: then you have no choice at all. That is: you'll act as you're determined to by cause & effect. Your choice -- to be naughty or nice -- is fiction.
Understanding that we lack free will necessitates reevaluating the foundations of our legal and moral systems.
What would the new legal and moral systems look like?
If none of us are free wills, then any choices we seem to make about anything, includin' the structure and foundations of a moral or legal system, are fictional.
Clearly, we would need to cease punishing people just because "they deserve it". This does not imply that all forms of punishment should be eliminated; rather, they should be administered with a different justification and objective in mind.
If none of us are free wills, if each of us is bound up in cause & effect, then we're not free to do anything. Punishing, rewarding, bein' indifferent: all just dominoes fallin'. All this talk about reforming the legal system: meaningless. We'll reform nuthin'. The meaningless collision of particles, the mindless transfer of energy, undergirds our choices.
If we're not free wills: we're meat machines, robots.
Understanding that we lack free will necessitates reevaluating the foundations of our legal and moral systems.
What would the new legal and moral systems look like?
Good question. Clearly, we would need to cease punishing people just because "they deserve it". This does not imply that all forms of punishment should be eliminated; rather, they should be administered with a different justification and objective in mind.
The justification would be public security. If someone can't control himself and he is a danger to people, then he has to be locked up. And while he is locked up, he is taught how not to be a danger to others.
That's how the system is supposed to be working now.
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:07 pm
What would the new legal and moral systems look like?
Good question. Clearly, we would need to cease punishing people just because "they deserve it". This does not imply that all forms of punishment should be eliminated; rather, they should be administered with a different justification and objective in mind.
The justification would be public security. If someone can't control himself and he is a danger to people, then he has to be locked up. And while he is locked up, he is taught how not to be a danger to others.
That's how the system is supposed to be working now.
Admittedly the results seem less than stellar.
Your outline resembles my own concept closely. I would add, though, that as part of the social contract, every citizen has a "contractual" obligation to begin the education process (teaching him "how not to be a danger to others") well before he does the wrongdoing or displays the unwanted conduct. We all need to pitch in. It takes a village to raise a child.
Your outline resembles my own concept closely. I would add, though, that as part of the social contract, every citizen has a "contractual" obligation to begin the education process (teaching him "how not to be a danger to others") well before he does the wrongdoing or displays the unwanted conduct. We all need to pitch in. It takes a village to raise a child.
If Joe is not a free will, then any choice he makes -- to rape a woman, or to simply hold the door open for her -- is fiction. He does what he does as he is determined to by cause & effect, just as you guys are determined by cause and effect to wonder about social/legal/moral reformation, just as I'm determined by cause & effect to point out if we're not free wills we're meat machines who choose nuthin' becuz choice, for a meat machine, is fiction.
Your outline resembles my own concept closely. I would add, though, that as part of the social contract, every citizen has a "contractual" obligation to begin the education process (teaching him "how not to be a danger to others") well before he does the wrongdoing or displays the unwanted conduct. We all need to pitch in. It takes a village to raise a child.
We have that now.
Obviously it fails in a certain number of cases.
How would it be different in the future?
We currently do not have it. We must stop assigning blame and recognize that we are all complicit by our actions and inactions. It is foolish to assign all blame or praise to the last link in an infinite chain of events.
Your outline resembles my own concept closely. I would add, though, that as part of the social contract, every citizen has a "contractual" obligation to begin the education process (teaching him "how not to be a danger to others") well before he does the wrongdoing or displays the unwanted conduct. We all need to pitch in. It takes a village to raise a child.
We have that now.
Obviously it fails in a certain number of cases.
How would it be different in the future?
We currently do not have it. We must stop assigning blame and recognize that we are all complicit by our actions and inactions. It is foolish to assign all blame or praise to the last link in an infinite chain of events.
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:53 pm
We have that now.
Obviously it fails in a certain number of cases.
How would it be different in the future?
We currently do not have it. We must stop assigning blame and recognize that we are all complicit by our actions and inactions. It is foolish to assign all blame or praise to the last link in an infinite chain of events.
We have education and socialization of children.
Yes, with the philosophy of free will as its foundation. It has to go wrong.
