compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

If people have free will, why don't they just make all the annoying users on philosophy forums disappear, or see the light?
You have free will, all you have to do is want it and it happens.

How could you make someone disappear or see the light if they have free will?

Don't know, by being quicker than them? Rewriting their minds before they get the idea to rewrite yours.

Then maybe we all had free will, but there's only one person left who has it...he or she outgunned us all.
So, both determinism and free will are the case. It's just most of us don't have the latter.

[phyllo]

Free-will sounds like some kind of magic power.

Do you have it?

[promethean75]

"You have free will, all you have to do is want it and it happens."

"I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill" - Atla

[promethean75]

"Free-will sounds like some kind of magic power. Do you have it?"

It's like this. I'm gonna act like i have freewill, even tho I don't think i do; how can one act like they don't? It's impossible.

Well what use is it to me to believe that i (we) don't have freewill? It's useful becuz it helps me be more sympathetic and tolerant of others actions.

When i see a very angry dude who just murdered someone, i immediately set ta lookin for reasons that made him want to do that. Then i find out his pops beat em when he was a kid. I find out he lived in poverty. I find out he was an alcoholic. Etc., etc.

Now if i insisted that this guy had freewill and that we just decide to do shit out of the blue, I would have far less sympathy for em.

[iambiguous]

It's like this. I'm gonna act like i have freewill, even tho I don't think i do; how can one act like they don't? It's impossible.

Yeah, sort of. Maybe.

Most of what we do here involves the brain. But the brain discussing itself here -- through my mind? -- can only be described as surreal:

Yo, Biggie, it's your brain here. Let me ask you something. How did non-living matter evolve into living biological matter evolve into mindful matter evolve into us? It ain't God, right? So, it must be you who grasped how the human condition itself fits into the explanation for the existence of existence itself.

And then after "how?" there's "why?".

[phyllo]

It's like this. I'm gonna act like i have freewill, even tho I don't think i do; how can one act like they don't? It's impossible.

You don't need free-will.

You're reacting. So are the free-willers.

[Iwannaplato]

"Free-will sounds like some kind of magic power. Do you have it?"

It's like this. I'm gonna act like i have freewill, even tho I don't think i do; how can one act like they don't? It's impossible.

Well what use is it to me to believe that i (we) don't have freewill? It's useful becuz it helps me be more sympathetic and tolerant of others actions.

When i see a very angry dude who just murdered someone, i immediately set ta lookin for reasons that made him want to do that. Then i find out his pops beat em when he was a kid. I find out he lived in poverty. I find out he was an alcoholic. Etc., etc.

Now if i insisted that this guy had freewill and that we just decide to do shit out of the blue, I would have far less sympathy for em.

Wow. Then you'd really, really judge and have no sympathy for people who believe in free will if you believed in free will.

If u can give an example of something you've ever done that was preceded with a moments hesitation wherein u asked yourself 'do i have freewill', I'll believe there is some other use for the idea.

But u cannot becuz you never have. Nobody has. The idea is used as a weapon only against others. If u want to find weakness and the underhandedness it produces, find someone who believes in freewill.

Now they may tell u they believe it exists becuz they want to take responsibility for themselves, to have pride in themselves. But wait; does this mean u wouldn't take responsibility for yourself if you didn't have freewill? Ah. Of course not. U are responsible in any case, whether your actions spring from your own choice or from a determination of events.

The strong couldn't care less whether or not they or anyone else has freewill.

[promethean75]

"Wow. Then you'd really, really judge and have no sympathy for people who believe in free will if you believed in free will."

No, you're undercomplicating the matter again.

[phyllo]

When i see a very angry dude who just murdered someone, i immediately set ta lookin for reasons that made him want to do that. Then i find out his pops beat em when he was a kid. I find out he lived in poverty. I find out he was an alcoholic. Etc., etc.

Now if i insisted that this guy had freewill and that we just decide to do shit out of the blue, I would have far less sympathy for em.

People with free-will don't do things "out of the blue". They are affected by events in their lives.

The difference is that, supposedly, if determinism is true, the guy was compelled or forced by the events to murder and if free-will is true, the guy is not compelled or forced to murder ... even though the events are exactly the same.

That's the free-will magic power : being able to act in contradiction to how events are shaping a person.

That's where the soul gets introduced ... good,bad, evil souls are ultimately making the decision. Right?

So in a free-will world we are punishing someone because he has a bad soul.

Now, nobody actually gets to pick his soul. IOW, the quality of his soul is out of his control.

[Iwannaplato]

"Wow. Then you'd really, really judge and have no sympathy for people who believe in free will if you believed in free will."

No, you're undercomplicating the matter again.

Yeah, whatever.

[phyllo]

Why do I think that this :

In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, someone decapitates kittens because they were never able not to. Someone says what they do about that because they were never able not to. You and I react as we do to this because we were never able freely to react otherwise.

is trivial?

It doesn't say anything interesting.

A person is looking at a completed act and saying it had to happen that way no matter what occurred.

You got an abortion, you were never able not to.

You gave birth, you were never able not to.

It can even be applied in a free-will world.

You got an abortion, you were never able not to because your soul, character values produced a specific personal choice.

You gave birth, you were never able not to because your soul, character values produced a specific personal choice.

What is the value in saying this?

[Iwannaplato]

Why do I think that this :

In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, someone decapitates kittens because they were never able not to. Someone says what they do about that because they were never able not to. You and I react as we do to this because we were never able freely to react otherwise.

is trivial?

It doesn't say anything interesting.

A person is looking at a completed act and saying it had to happen that way no matter what occurred.

You got an abortion, you were never able not to.

You gave birth, you were never able not to.

It can even be applied in a free-will world.

You got an abortion, you were never able not to because your soul, character values produced a specific personal choice.

You gave birth, you were never able not to because your soul, character values produced a specific personal choice.

What is the value in saying this?

When I have seen similar statements in this thread, it has often been used in a response to someone else. It seems to include some implicit, but not stated conclusion. So, therefore, we shouldn't blame people or have prisons or think that anyone is bad or.....
I don't know what the implicit conclusion is, but given that I have seen it used in response to positions the writer is disagreeing with, it seems like it is a conclusion somewhere in that family. I may have missed it but I never see the argument laid out. Though it's usually accompanied by an expectation that the other person will lay out all the steps of their argument. It seems like depression confused with philosophy OR some conclusion seems just so self-evident to the writer that they think there is no need to show the steps of the argument.

[phyllo]

A conclusion he has sometimes stated, is that unless there is free-will, there are no distinctions between true/false, good/bad, pleasure/pain ... everything is the same ... irrelevant, pointless, meaningless.

That is my interpretation of what he has said. Unless I am wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

A conclusion he has sometimes stated, is that unless there is free-will, there are no distinctions between true/false, good/bad, pleasure/pain ... everything is the same ... irrelevant, pointless, meaningless.

That is my interpretation of what he has said. Unless I am wrong.

It's a bit hard to imagine someone asserting those things. I mean, why assert from the moment forward one has decided that. It certainly wouldn't make sense to argue in favor of anything (re: the true/false thing), even with qualifications. But I can imagine the way someone interacts with others might seem to imply all those things. I guess, I could also imagine it might mean that one cannot be sure one knows the difference between these things. Or demonstrate to others. I can't see ruling out those differences based on determinism - at least not the first and third pairs - but I could see argument that we can no longer sure of our conclusions.

[iambiguous]

Free will & Moral responsibility
AQA Ethics

Determinism on punishment

Determinists typically claim that punishment cannot be justified retributively because without free will and moral responsibility, there is no coherent sense in which a criminal can be said to ‘deserve’ the punishment.

You know what's coming...

It's one thing for determinists to make this claim while framing the claim itself as advocates of free will do. What I call the "free will determinists". It's another thing all together however to make this claim while acknowledging that they were never able not to make it.

Punishment occurs as it does because it was never able not to occur as it does. The justifications given are just one more component of the only possible reality. Same with attributing moral responsibility to the one being punished.

Although, again, I'm the first to admit I am not really understanding this distinction in the most rational manner.

The Supreme court of the USA: Free will is a ‘universal and persistent foundation stone in our system of law” and that therefore determinism is “inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system”.

Right, like the Supremes aren't in the same boat -- "the gap", "Rummy's Rule" -- all the rest of us are in.

On the other hand, point taken? We have to assume we have free will even if that assumption itself is compelled by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter. Ater all, how does one even begin to wrap their head around a world -- a human condition -- that really is just nature's very own equivalent of dominoes all toppling over onto each other autonomically. The brain interchangeable with all of the other organs in our body?

As this statement by SCOTUS shows, libertarians worry that without free will and moral responsibility, the idea of punishment will fail to make sense and we won’t be able to justify punishing criminals, which could make our society fall apart. If a criminal had no choice or control over their actions or even their intentions, as determinism claims, then it’s hard to see how we could justify putting them in prison. Some determinists conclude that punishment cannot be justified.

All of this fretting about something that really may well be completely beyond our control. Still, how many determinists who conclude that punishment cannot be justified are also willing to acknowledge that their own conclusion is just one more domino toppling over on cue like the criminal committing a crime that he or she was never able not to?