compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

So, what is so important about knowing whether determinism or free will is the case? If someone could show how in their own lives, perhaps using Iambiguous' Mary case or something else knowing which is true is important and how?

A few people have said it is important, one implied strongly that nothing else could be more important. So, how so?

What would it change in you? And why is this the reactions other should have if you think they should?

For me, I see sort of one moral consequence of all of this quite consistently (though not with perfect consistency):

A determinists (or compatibilists) view of justice and punishment rarely includes punishment for its own sake.

I don't think free will entails punishment for it's own sake, but it's possible there would be correlation. I'd actually want to test those people claiming to believe in free will if they do.

Would it change it for you? You find out free will is the case. Are you into punishment more?

I am interested in the kind of answer you gave here. But I am also interested in the 'finding out is important' consequences also. It seems like it is important, for imbiguous, personally.

and, of course, finding out could then be bad. If the difference is important, then everyone finding out one of them is true might be disastrous (if inevitable lol).

Also, it seems to me one can feel more vindictive against a determined person. That is what they are. That may well be their essence. Yes, determinists can look at nurture as opposed to nature, but they also should have, it seems to me, less hope than free willers when it comes to people changing.

So, take a murderer. What do I do with him to reduce harm in the future? Should we kill him? Should we imprison him? Should we try to rehabilitate him? The determinist and compatibilist mindset focuses on this.

Whereas other visions of justice are very revenge based a lot of time. He caused us pain, so how can we cause him pain? At this point, the pain itself that we inflict on him becomes valuable in it's own right for this type of justice.

But is this inherent in free will or is this baggage from Abrahamism?

[Flannel Jesus]

Would it change it for you? You find out free will is the case. Are you into punishment more?

I am interested in the kind of answer you gave here. But I am also interested in the 'finding out is important' consequences also. It seems like it is important, for imbiguous, personally.

But is this inherent in free will or is this baggage from Abrahamism?

As I said at the end of my post, this is a pattern I've noticed in people who think along these lines. It's not a universal, it's not an inherent and necessary consequence of either line of thought.

I wouldn't promote torment for torments sake as revenge punishment no matter what the case on free will, personally. I can't see a way that that could possibly make the world better. Which is part of why I can reject out of hand any vision of God who has such a policy - it's absurd, it's a terrifyingly cruel God, and if such a God exists there's actually no way of predicting who he would aim his terrifying cruelty at. You think he won't aim it at you because you "believe the correct things"? His cruelty knows no bounds, fuck what you believe.

[Iwannaplato]

Would it change it for you? You find out free will is the case. Are you into punishment more?

I am interested in the kind of answer you gave here. But I am also interested in the 'finding out is important' consequences also. It seems like it is important, for imbiguous, personally.

But is this inherent in free will or is this baggage from Abrahamism?

As I said at the end of my post, this is a pattern I've noticed in people who think along these lines. It's not a universal, it's not an inherent and necessary consequence of either line of thought.

So, it might even itself out over time.

[Flannel Jesus]

Would it change it for you? You find out free will is the case. Are you into punishment more?

I am interested in the kind of answer you gave here. But I am also interested in the 'finding out is important' consequences also. It seems like it is important, for imbiguous, personally.

But is this inherent in free will or is this baggage from Abrahamism?

As I said at the end of my post, this is a pattern I've noticed in people who think along these lines. It's not a universal, it's not an inherent and necessary consequence of either line of thought.

So, it might even itself out over time.

Unless there's some reason why the pattern exists, and that reason continues into the future...

The direction of casualty in these situations can be reversed from what we intuitively think as well. So it's not necessarily that belief in libertarian free will trends to produce more acceptance towards pain for pains sake as punishment, there could be some external factor causing them both (like religion itself, for example)

[Iwannaplato]

Unless there's some reason why the pattern exists, and that reason continues into the future...

And we'd need to look at all patterns. Perhaps determinism leads to not criticizing science to technology patterns (iow anything resembling the precautionary principle is tossed out) because this kind of progress or 'progress' is seen as inevitable. (this is not entailed, but it might correlate in beliefs people develop)

We shouldn't look at just how to punish criminals or effects on consideration of individuals.

The direction of casualty in these situations can be reversed from what we intuitively think as well. So it's not necessarily that belief in libertarian free will trends to produce more acceptance towards pain for pains sake as punishment, there could be some external factor causing them both (like religion itself, for example)

Certainly: you have the ultimate role model in Christianity of a deity who creates a permanent Hell. That's punishment beyond all possible human punishment and presented as one of God's acts.

Perhaps there's correlation but not cause between free will and punishment based systems.

[BigMike]

People who reject the concept of free will often believe that individuals do not have complete control over their thoughts, decisions, and actions. Instead, they see these factors as the result of various environmental, social, and biological factors beyond an individual's control. As a result, these individuals are less likely to hold others solely responsible for their actions and are more inclined to view wrongdoing as a collective problem that requires collective responsibility.

When a person rejects free will, they often recognize that people's behavior is shaped by a complex set of factors, including their upbringing, social conditioning, genetics, and environmental factors. This understanding can make them more empathetic towards others and more likely to consider the societal factors that contributed to a person's actions. They may also be more inclined to address the underlying causes of wrongdoing rather than simply punishing the individual who committed the act.

Moreover, people who reject free will may see the punishment of individuals for wrongdoing as unjust, as they do not believe that the individual had complete control over their actions. Instead, they may view collective responsibility as a more appropriate response, holding institutions or societal factors accountable for creating an environment that enabled the wrongdoing to occur. By recognizing that individual actions are influenced by external factors, these individuals may be more likely to focus on structural solutions to prevent future wrongdoing.

So, people who reject free will tend to view wrongdoing as a collective problem that requires collective responsibility. By recognizing the complex factors that contribute to individual behavior, they may be more empathetic towards others and more inclined to address underlying societal factors. This understanding can help create a more just and equitable society that prioritizes prevention and rehabilitation over punishment.

[popeye1945]

BigMike,

Excellent!!

[Immanuel Can]

People who reject the concept of free will often believe that individuals do not have complete control over their thoughts, decisions, and actions.

Well, that's what they say. I don't think they believe it, because they never live like they do.

Instead, they see these factors as the result of various environmental, social, and biological factors beyond an individual's control. As a result, these individuals are less likely to hold others solely responsible for their actions and are more inclined to view wrongdoing as a collective problem that requires collective responsibility.

That also makes no sense, Mike.

If people are not individually responsible, they can't be collectively responsible either. There's nothing inherent to the "having more of them" that makes moral obligation or capacity for moral responsibility magically appear.

When a person rejects free will, they often recognize that people's behavior is shaped by a complex set of factors, including their upbringing, social conditioning, genetics, and environmental factors.

They don't have to "reject free will" in order to do this. People who believe in free will all recognize that such factors CAN play a role in shaping options, and DO play a role in our decisions. Nobody even questions that.

The disagreement between them appears only at the final millisecond: and it's over what is going on when the decision is finally made -- is it TOTALLY the product of those factors you mention, or is it decided by human volition. And that's where the real controversy starts.

This understanding can make them more empathetic towards others...

This, it can never do. If environmental and physical factors are the totality of the decision's causes, then one can only be as "empathetic" as one is fated to be already. There is no improvement in "empathy" possible, in that case, since there was no way the person ever could have had any other quantity of empathy but that which he/she was already fated to have. Moreover, since Determinists do not include "feelings" as causes of things, since that would require volition to be employed, the alleged "empathy" has to be viewed by Determinists as a mere "epiphenomenon" or illusion that happens when certain fated processes take place...and nothing more.

...and more likely to consider the societal factors that contributed to a person's actions. They may also be more inclined to address the underlying causes of wrongdoing rather than simply punishing the individual who committed the act.

Actually, according to Determinism, they can't be made "more" or "less" anything. There was never any other state but the one they find themselves in that they could have been in at all. So there's nothing to which the comparatives "more" and "less" could even refer.

But I see what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that you think free-willians don't take environmental and social factors into consideration AT ALL (which is, unfortunately for your point, untrue) and that taking such things into consideration might make them compassionate about those who, so to speak, "couldn't help themselves" when they did evil.

But it won't, because, again, emotions like "empathy" do not cause things in a Determinist scheme of belief, and mental conditions are all strictly products of prior forces, and are fated to be whatever they are, not to be "made more" of anything than they would otherwise be.

...these individuals may be more likely to focus on structural solutions to prevent future wrongdoing.

They can't do this, either. They have no volition. They can't "may" anything. They are whatever they are fated to be by prior forces.

In order to think about "structural" forces or "social" arrangements, and to make that thinking into action, a person would have to have volition. But Determinists say that volition can't be part of any chain of events that actually makes things happen. They can only be an illusion floating non-causally around predetermined, physical processes, not the actual propulsion for an action.

This understanding can help create a more just and equitable society that prioritizes prevention and rehabilitation over punishment.

I see what you're aiming for, but you can't get it the way you're trying to get it, rationally speaking.

Determinism says that there's no possible "can" and "more" situations, no moral compulsion around "just" or "equitable," and nothing is ever going to be anything except exactly what the prior physical forces were going to make it to be anyway.

So in order to get people to "understand" and thus "create" a "more just an equitable" arrangment, you're going to have to attribute to them free will. As a Determinist, you cannot. They don't have any mental capacities that are related to causal chains. Their actions are all products of other things, not of them or their "understanding" of anything.

So really, if that's your goal, then you have to be an advocate of free will. Free will can include things like environment, socialization, and so on in its reckoning, and act so as to change social arrangements to be more comparable to its abstract moral values like "justice" and "equality" than they would otherwise be; but Determinism can't.

[BigMike]

Fatalism is the belief that all events are predetermined and that human beings have no control over the future. This belief often leads to a sense of hopelessness and resignation, as individuals feel powerless to change their circumstances. However, this perspective fails to recognize the role that learning, memory, and sharing ideas can have in altering the future.

Firstly, learning and memory are crucial factors in shaping the future. Through learning, individuals can acquire new knowledge and skills, which can have a significant impact on their behavior and the choices they make. Memory allows individuals to remember past experiences and learn from them, making them more informed and better equipped to make decisions that can influence the future. These changes can be permanent, altering not only the human brain but also behavior.

Secondly, sharing ideas is an important way to propagate new views and different priorities. By sharing knowledge and ideas with others, individuals can inspire and motivate them to take action, which can result in positive changes in society. This can lead to the formation of social movements, the creation of new laws and policies, and the development of new technologies that can have a significant impact on the future.

Therefore, fatalists who believe that nothing can be done to affect the future fail to recognize the power of learning, memory, and sharing ideas. These factors can create permanent alterations in the human brain and behavior, and can lead to new views and priorities that can shape the future in positive ways. By recognizing the potential for change, individuals can take action to improve their lives and the lives of others, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges.

[Belinda]

People who reject the concept of free will often believe that individuals do not have complete control over their thoughts, decisions, and actions.

Well, that's what they say. I don't think they believe it, because they never live like they do.

Instead, they see these factors as the result of various environmental, social, and biological factors beyond an individual's control. As a result, these individuals are less likely to hold others solely responsible for their actions and are more inclined to view wrongdoing as a collective problem that requires collective responsibility.

That also makes no sense, Mike.

If people are not individually responsible, they can't be collectively responsible either. There's nothing inherent to the "having more of them" that makes moral obligation or capacity for moral responsibility magically appear.

When a person rejects free will, they often recognize that people's behavior is shaped by a complex set of factors, including their upbringing, social conditioning, genetics, and environmental factors.

They don't have to "reject free will" in order to do this. People who believe in free will all recognize that such factors CAN play a role in shaping options, and DO play a role in our decisions. Nobody even questions that.

The disagreement between them appears only at the final millisecond: and it's over what is going on when the decision is finally made -- is it TOTALLY the product of those factors you mention, or is it decided by human volition. And that's where the real controversy starts.

This understanding can make them more empathetic towards others...

This, it can never do. If environmental and physical factors are the totality of the decision's causes, then one can only be as "empathetic" as one is fated to be already. There is no improvement in "empathy" possible, in that case, since there was no way the person ever could have had any other quantity of empathy but that which he/she was already fated to have. Moreover, since Determinists do not include "feelings" as causes of things, since that would require volition to be employed, the alleged "empathy" has to be viewed by Determinists as a mere "epiphenomenon" or illusion that happens when certain fated processes take place...and nothing more.

...and more likely to consider the societal factors that contributed to a person's actions. They may also be more inclined to address the underlying causes of wrongdoing rather than simply punishing the individual who committed the act.

Actually, according to Determinism, they can't be made "more" or "less" anything. There was never any other state but the one they find themselves in that they could have been in at all. So there's nothing to which the comparatives "more" and "less" could even refer.

But I see what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that you think free-willians don't take environmental and social factors into consideration AT ALL (which is, unfortunately for your point, untrue) and that taking such things into consideration might make them compassionate about those who, so to speak, "couldn't help themselves" when they did evil.

But it won't, because, again, emotions like "empathy" do not cause things in a Determinist scheme of belief, and mental conditions are all strictly products of prior forces, and are fated to be whatever they are, not to be "made more" of anything than they would otherwise be.

...these individuals may be more likely to focus on structural solutions to prevent future wrongdoing.

They can't do this, either. They have no volition. They can't "may" anything. They are whatever they are fated to be by prior forces.

In order to think about "structural" forces or "social" arrangements, and to make that thinking into action, a person would have to have volition. But Determinists say that volition can't be part of any chain of events that actually makes things happen. They can only be an illusion floating non-causally around predetermined, physical processes, not the actual propulsion for an action.

This understanding can help create a more just and equitable society that prioritizes prevention and rehabilitation over punishment.

I see what you're aiming for, but you can't get it the way you're trying to get it, rationally speaking.

Determinism says that there's no possible "can" and "more" situations, no moral compulsion around "just" or "equitable," and nothing is ever going to be anything except exactly what the prior physical forces were going to make it to be anyway.

So in order to get people to "understand" and thus "create" a "more just an equitable" arrangment, you're going to have to attribute to them free will. As a Determinist, you cannot. They don't have any mental capacities that are related to causal chains. Their actions are all products of other things, not of them or their "understanding" of anything.

So really, if that's your goal, then you have to be an advocate of free will. Free will can include things like environment, socialization, and so on in its reckoning, and act so as to change social arrangements to be more comparable to its abstract moral values like "justice" and "equality" than they would otherwise be; but Determinism can't.

Immanuel Can does not see there is a difference between , on the one hand, the feeling most people have that they are in control of their choices; and on the other hand, the religious doctrine that a man originates his choices and is to blame if he does wrong.
Whether or not so-called Free Will pervades entire voluntary action or the "final millisecond" is irrelevant.
The only being that originates His choices is God.

[Immanuel Can]

Fatalism is the belief that all events are predetermined and that human beings have no control over the future.

So is Determinism.

...this perspective fails to recognize the role that learning, memory, and sharing ideas can have in altering the future.

That's all "free will" stuff. Determinism denies that any of that can have a causal role at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can does not see there is a difference between , on the one hand, the feeling most people have that they are in control of their choices; and on the other hand, the religious doctrine that a man originates his choices and is to blame if he does wrong.

It's not a "religious" doctrine. It can be put that way: it usually isn't.

Most people who believe in free will are secular, and there are completely secular reasons for being a free-willian. One is that Determinism simply doesn't work. Ever.

The only being that originates His choices is God.

If that's so, then He's the only Being that has freedom, choice and responsibility. That's a convenient belief for those who don't want to take responsibility; but it has an inconvenient dark side...namely, that it means you have no freedom, no volition, no specific idenitity and no choices of your own.

If it were true, then "Belinda" would be simply a label for a non-functional entity in a causal chain, a dead "cog" in the cosmic "machine," pushed around by prior forces and incapable of other action.

Is that what Belinda is?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can does not see there is a difference between , on the one hand, the feeling most people have that they are in control of their choices; and on the other hand, the religious doctrine that a man originates his choices and is to blame if he does wrong.

It's not a "religious" doctrine. It can be put that way: it usually isn't.

Most people who believe in free will are secular, and there are completely secular reasons for being a free-willian. One is that Determinism simply doesn't work. Ever.

The only being that originates His choices is God.

If that's so, then He's the only Being that has freedom, choice and responsibility. That's a convenient belief for those who don't want to take responsibility; but it has an inconvenient dark side...namely, that it means you have no freedom, no volition, no specific idenitity and no choices of your own.

If it were true, then "Belinda" would be simply a label for a non-functional entity in a causal chain, a dead "cog" in the cosmic "machine," pushed around by prior forces and incapable of other action.

Is that what Belinda is?

I don't believe in that sort of God but if He existed then He would be the only supernatural creator and He would have that power to originate.

It's not always recognised that religious ontology is deeply interfused into modern secular cultures. Neither is it widely recognised that religion, despite the honesty and sincerity of prophets such as Jesus, are mechanisms for social control by elites. Naturally the Doctrine of Free Will is to the advantage of the elite authorities. You should come down to Earth and see men as political animals.

The question of personal responsibility is important, as you mention.
The answer to the question is that he who shoulders responsibility is more free than he who shrugs it off and behaves irresponsibly. The good Samaritan behaved responsibly so he was a free man despite the general unpopularity of Samarians. The builder who builds earthquake-proof blocks of flats behaves responsibly. NB freedom is very different from so -called Free Will.You are a free man because you make yourself responsible for doing good not because you believe in some religious doctrine

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can does not see there is a difference between , on the one hand, the feeling most people have that they are in control of their choices; and on the other hand, the religious doctrine that a man originates his choices and is to blame if he does wrong.

It's not a "religious" doctrine. It can be put that way: it usually isn't.

Most people who believe in free will are secular, and there are completely secular reasons for being a free-willian. One is that Determinism simply doesn't work. Ever.

The only being that originates His choices is God.

If that's so, then He's the only Being that has freedom, choice and responsibility. That's a convenient belief for those who don't want to take responsibility; but it has an inconvenient dark side...namely, that it means you have no freedom, no volition, no specific idenitity and no choices of your own.

If it were true, then "Belinda" would be simply a label for a non-functional entity in a causal chain, a dead "cog" in the cosmic "machine," pushed around by prior forces and incapable of other action.

Is that what Belinda is?

I don't believe in that sort of God

You don't have to believe in any "god" at all, in order to believe in free will. You just have to believe that Belinda is person, and that she can decide some things for herself. That's an extremely modest requirement, but all that's necesssary.

...the Doctrine of Free Will is to the advantage of the elite authorities.

Oh, quite the opposite. It's Social Constructionism that serves the totalitarians. That explains why every Communist is also a Social Constructionist. They have to believe that the problems with society are not inherent in human nature, and not individual; they have to see them as issues of mass-management, issues for which Communism is supposed to provide the ultimate management program.

The answer to the question is that he who shoulders responsibility is more free than he who shrugs it off and behaves irresponsibly.

"Responsibility" is only possible if you can make choices. If you can choose the good, or choose the bad, then you can be made responsible for what you choose. If you can't, then you have no "responsibility" at all. You can't be "responsible" for things over which you have absolutely no control at all.

Is that Belinda?

[Belinda]

It's not a "religious" doctrine. It can be put that way: it usually isn't.

Most people who believe in free will are secular, and there are completely secular reasons for being a free-willian. One is that Determinism simply doesn't work. Ever.
If that's so, then He's the only Being that has freedom, choice and responsibility. That's a convenient belief for those who don't want to take responsibility; but it has an inconvenient dark side...namely, that it means you have no freedom, no volition, no specific idenitity and no choices of your own.

If it were true, then "Belinda" would be simply a label for a non-functional entity in a causal chain, a dead "cog" in the cosmic "machine," pushed around by prior forces and incapable of other action.

Is that what Belinda is?

I don't believe in that sort of God

You don't have to believe in any "god" at all, in order to believe in free will. You just have to believe that Belinda is person, and that she can decide some things for herself. That's an extremely modest requirement, but all that's necesssary.

...the Doctrine of Free Will is to the advantage of the elite authorities.

Oh, quite the opposite. It's Social Constructionism that serves the totalitarians. That explains why every Communist is also a Social Constructionist. They have to believe that the problems with society are not inherent in human nature, and not individual; they have to see them as issues of mass-management, issues for which Communism is supposed to provide the ultimate management program.

The answer to the question is that he who shoulders responsibility is more free than he who shrugs it off and behaves irresponsibly.

"Responsibility" is only possible if you can make choices. If you can choose the good, or choose the bad, then you can be made responsible for what you choose. If you can't, then you have no "responsibility" at all. You can't be "responsible" for things over which you have absolutely no control at all.

Is that Belinda?

If I behave that I have enough control to shoulder responsibility, then I have that control. I may not succeed in the endeavour but I did the right thing
so I am free of apathy.
Please stop using the word 'choice' when you obviously mean free choice. Every sentient animal chooses but not all sentient animals are free.