compatibilism

[Alexiev]

Of course compatibilism can be justified. Suppose someone said, "Of my own free will, I went to the store yesterday." The sentence is coherent and meaningful. It means nobody forced the man to go to the store, but he decided to go and he went.

That accounts for free will. It doesn't account for Determinism. So it doesn't account for Compatiblism. It doesn't show the two are in any way "compatible."

Now let's posit an omniscient God who can see the future as well as we can see the past. He would know whether we will make a trip to the store tomorrow. But he won't force us to do so, any more than the man who went yesterday was forced to make the trip.

That won't do. To "know" is not the same verb as to "make." Determinism would require that this God had to "make" one go to the store, not merely "know" he would choose to go.

If I "know" (and it turns out, rightly) that you will respond to this message, that doesn't even remotely suggest I'm "making" you respond.

The 'freedom" of the act is not constrained by the knowledges.

This is precisely the problem with your example. "Knowledge" does not "make" things happen. So it's not Deterministic.

When was the last time you "made" a cake simply by "knowing" how to make one?

As I understand it, there are many varieties of "determinism", and only one of them is "causal determinism". My point was that other forms (predestination) do not conflict with free will.

IN addition, as discussed elsewhere, "cause' is such a tricky word and concept that the distinction between "causation" and "predetermination" is a dubious one. What "causes" the ace of spades to be dealt off the top of the deck (if it's dealt off the bottom, we have a different "cause")? Is it the shuffle? The cut? The deal? Or the confluence of events that has continued ever since the big bang, has given rise to life, to humankind, and has been determined from the beginning of time?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course compatibilism can be justified. Suppose someone said, "Of my own free will, I went to the store yesterday." The sentence is coherent and meaningful. It means nobody forced the man to go to the store, but he decided to go and he went.

That accounts for free will. It doesn't account for Determinism. So it doesn't account for Compatiblism. It doesn't show the two are in any way "compatible."

Now let's posit an omniscient God who can see the future as well as we can see the past. He would know whether we will make a trip to the store tomorrow. But he won't force us to do so, any more than the man who went yesterday was forced to make the trip.

That won't do. To "know" is not the same verb as to "make." Determinism would require that this God had to "make" one go to the store, not merely "know" he would choose to go.

If I "know" (and it turns out, rightly) that you will respond to this message, that doesn't even remotely suggest I'm "making" you respond.

The 'freedom" of the act is not constrained by the knowledges.

This is precisely the problem with your example. "Knowledge" does not "make" things happen. So it's not Deterministic.

When was the last time you "made" a cake simply by "knowing" how to make one?

As I understand it, there are many varieties of "determinism", and only one of them is "causal determinism". My point was that other forms (predestination) do not conflict with free will.

Well, what are these "other forms." Let's be specific, so we can see what we're addressing here.

[Atla]

A psychological perspective? Okay, note for us how human psychology is somehow exempt from the laws of matter.

...

No, human psychology is NOT exempt from the laws of matter. Why can't you just respond to what was actually said? Let me guess, you'll ask me next why I'm a compatibilist. I'll copy two comments I wrote in response to IWP:

Right, so I use two layers of philosophy (not just here but in all of philosophy, this is of course inescapable). The first layer is the absolute/universal/ultimate layer of philosophy, here is the philosophical free will vs determinism debate located. Here is where I said that compatibilism is by definition an impossibility, and 60% of philosophers are nuts. Okay so we have no evidence for free will in our 4D world, so I'm a determinist in 4D philosophy.

And the other layer of philosophy is the relative/everyday life layer. Here is where we discuss the philosophy of everyday human life. Though everything is ultimately deterministic, this is only loosely relevant to our everyday life because we are such complex beings in such a complex environment, with such specific psychological behaviours etc. For most practical purposes, we do have a free will of a different kind, a psychological/legal/everyday life free will. For most practical purposes we can make choices (and whatever choice we make is also part of the universal determinism). Maybe this is what should be called 'compatibilism' although even the name of the position annoys me.

I don't know if I said anything new above, or am just stating the obvious.

When it comes to an abortion for example, which is a relative/everyday life issue, we look at the psychological ability to choose. It is basically irrelevant that we have determinism on the absolute level. We look at that woman's psychology (including her psychological inclination to make difficult decisions and go through with them), her life circumstances, whether she wants the man who made her pregnant etc. so all the usual everyday issues. In this sense she usually has enough control over her actions to choose.

----------------------------

Responsibility is also an everyday world issue just like abortion, so the 'free will' in the psychological sense applies, so of course he was responsible. The absolute level deterministic consideration is basically irrelevant.

Which is of course already the practice in court, they know to skip philosophical considerations largely irrelevant to everyday life.

[Atla]

And, LOL
...

Why do you keep replying to my comments Age? I don't read them. Is this some kind of grudge, are you pissed that I was right about your character all along?

FYI, not only do we not read your comments now, but people won't read them in the future either. You're not showing anything to anyone here, nor in the future, you're just wasting your time. (Not that you could do anything more useful with it.)

[henry quirk]

you are using "liberty" as a vague, meaningless term freighted with emotional connotations.

No, I'm not.

The problem between us, I think, is you're using freedom and liberty interchangeably. In day-to-day conversation this is fine. We all interchange the two. But freedom and liberty, while related, are not synonymous.

Freedom is doing what you want. I have a right to swing my fist.

Freedom is amoral.

Liberty is freedom tempered by responsibility (to one's self and one's fellows). My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

Liberty is moral.

Henry, you're making that up, or using some Quirkian idiosyncrasy.

Not at all.

We can start with T Jefferson: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

He went on to say I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Shall I post others?

Here's another: *Give me liberty or give me death! not Give me freedom or give me death!

*If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! -Patrick Henry, delegate from Hanover County, The Second Virginia Convention

Anyway, with the distinction between liberty and freedom in mind, mebbe you'll look more kindly on...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

[phyllo]

Jefferson owned more than 600 slaves.

[henry quirk]

Jefferson owned more than 600 slaves.

Yep. He was a hypocrite. I won't toss the baby out with bathwater becuz of it.

'nuff said.

[phyllo]

Maybe the baby isn't viable.

[Alexiev]

you are using "liberty" as a vague, meaningless term freighted with emotional connotations.

No, I'm not.

The problem between us, I think, is you're using freedom and liberty interchangeably. In day-to-day conversation this is fine. We all interchange the two. But freedom and liberty, while related, are not synonymous.

Freedom is doing what you want. I have a right to swing my fist.

Freedom is amoral.

Liberty is freedom tempered by responsibility (to one's self and one's fellows). My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

Liberty is moral.

Henry, you're making that up, or using some Quirkian idiosyncrasy.

Not at all.

We can start with T Jefferson: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

He went on to say I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Shall I post others?

Here's another: *Give me liberty or give me death! not Give me freedom or give me death!

*If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! -Patrick Henry, delegate from Hanover County, The Second Virginia Convention

Anyway, with the distinction between liberty and freedom in mind, mebbe you'll look more kindly on...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

I'm aware that there are two different definitions of liberty: one synonymous with freedom, the other being "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

The problem with this second definition is that it is (as I stated earlier) vague and meaningless. You, for example, can claim that taxes are "oppressive", and thus a restriction on "liberty". So the "right to liberty" simply means the "right to do things that I, Henry Quirk, deem morally acceptable." Of course we all agree (while changing the name of the person who gets to decide).

What constitute "oppressive restrictions"? Making abortions illegal? Speeding tickets? Property rights? Taxes? Property places "restrictions" on -people. Whether those restrictions are "oppressive" depends on the situation and on the opinions of the people involved. Since we can (and do) differ on what restrictions are "oppressive", this definition becomes so vague as to be almost meaningless, as I suggested earlier. So simply repeating that one has a natural right to life, liberty and property becomes meaningless, since both "liberty" and "property" are defined differently by different people and in different cultures. "Oppressive" means "unjust". But justice (like causation) is a difficult concept, and simplistic bromides do not do it justice.

[henry quirk]

I'm aware that there are two different definitions of liberty: one synonymous with freedom, the other being "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

There is a third: Liberty is freedom tempered by responsibility to one's self and one's fellows.

I won't be goaded into defending either of the others.

[phyllo]

There is a third: Liberty is freedom tempered by responsibility to one's self and one's fellows.

Your examples don't show responsibility.

Where is the responsibility in this :

No, that's not true. Different legislative schemes are used to blunt and violate person's natural rights. There's where your differing definitions come into play. Joe buys a building. He's met Stan's asking price and he owns the building. The gov wants its cut: taxes, licensing fees, business or residential fees, various mandatory insurances. On top of that he has to ask permission, and pay for the privilege, to use his property. If the space isn't zoned for the bookstore he wants to open, well, there won't be a bookstore. So, on top of fairly and voluntarily transacting with Stan, Joe is also robbed and and defrauded by people supposedly working for him, people he may have never consented to be ruled by. Those folks work hard, under the cover of democracy, to steal from and slave Joe.

[henry quirk]

Seems obvious to me: Joe fairly transacted (he respected the property rights of the original owner and met his price) instead of just taking what he wanted. Joe was responsible, he exercised his liberty (acted morally).

[phyllo]

But he doesn't want to pay for upkeep of sidewalks, roads, sewers, police, fire department, etc.

And he wants to do whatever he desires with his property without any regard to the impact on his neighbors.

[henry quirk]

But he doesn't want to pay for upkeep of sidewalks, roads, sewers, police, fire department, etc.

Folks generally pay for what they want and need. Joe needs those roads (well, he did till he was told he couldn't open a bookstore). He'll pay his share. What he objects to, mebbe, is being taxed for roads that never see repair or maintenance. He was told that money would go to the streets and it obviously hasn't.

And he wants to do whatever he desires with his property without any regard to the impact on his neighbors.

Joe is not a moron. Why would he buy a building in a place where a bookstore would be unwelcome? He'd be out of business in a month. No, if he's done his leg work, he knows his neighbors would welcome a bookstore, for themselves and their kids. But the zoning commission sez nope, not gonna happen simply becuz of a reg, written 25 years earlier at the behest of a fat cat who could buy commissioner votes. Had to keep down town historically pristine, don't you know. The fat cat's wife liked it that way.

[iambiguous]

Criticising Strawson’s Compatibilism
Nurana Rajabova is wary of an attempt to dismiss determinism to keep free will

In the first scenario I’ll refer to death caused by non-living beings, such as natural events (e.g. earthquakes) or inanimate objects (e.g. water).

One thing seems reasonable. This: That the laws of matter are such that almost no one will argue that the earthquake has free will.

Then all the animals that, like human beings, are conscious. But to what extent can it be said that they are autonomous? Instead, most of them are driven by deep-seated biological imperatives, instincts, drives, libidos.

With human consciousness, however, it comes to revolve more around the assumption that "somehow" as biological life evolved on Earth, we hit the jackpot. We became self-conscious. Then over time this permitted us to invent language. Then the creation of science and philosophy.

But then those who believed that between philosophy and science mere mortals were within reach of truly understanding...everything?

And then those who scoff at that and insist everything always comes back to God.

I will take the case of a child drowned at sea. The sorrow caused as the result of this incident will undoubtedly be beyond description for people related to the child, and may well also raise other emotions, such as anger and hatred. It is possible for the mother to hate the sea for taking her child away from her. But despite the extremity of the pain, and the anger and hatred, no one will be able to hold the sea morally responsible, because the sea has no agency.

Okay, I'm the first to admit that when contemplating something like this it seems impossible -- preposterous? -- that it all really does come back to the "brute facticity" of nature unfolding only as it was ever able to unfold. But until it is determined how -- why? -- human brain matter itself actually accomplished this task...?

The part about "agency" for example:

"Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment. It is independent of the moral dimension, which is called moral agency. In sociology, an agent is an individual engaging with the social structure." Wikipedia

How does this not rest on the assumption that all of it does unfold given human autonomy? I just find it easier to imagine "here and now" that a God, the God created us rather than bringing it all back to the...Big Bang?

On the other hand, what God?



Just out of curiosity, what are we to make of God's agency, of Mother Nature's agency, as Milton barrels down on Florida?