CC,
A question for you.
We often judge people as if they could have done, what they should have done, without the need for there to have been differences in the universe, stretching back to before they were born, for them to have done it. We judge them as if there only needed to be differences within them.
Do you agree or disagree?
Stephen, Having read many, many of your posts on this subject, I believe that your pervasive underlying theme is that:
There is a certain irrationality in believing that anyone is ultimately responsible for their actions.
I agree with that statement and I think that it is important to know and consider, when we find ourselves assigning blame to others, or even to ourselves.
OTOH, our society would likely devolve horribly, if no one was assigned, and no one accepted, personal responsibility (even though personal responsibility does not really exist, except as a concept, in our physical universe).
Stephen, Having read many, many of your posts on this subject, I believe that your pervasive underlying theme is that: There is a certain irrationality in believing that anyone is ultimately responsible for their actions. I agree with that statement and I think that it is important to know and consider, when we find ourselves assigning blame to others, or even to ourselves.Right, belief in ultimate moral responsibility is a terrible thing. Bottom line is we just get the experiences we are given and to believe any of us can deserve to suffer under such circumstances is absurd, but worse than absurd, very harmful.
OTOH, our society would likely devolve horribly, if no one was assigned, and no one accepted, personal responsibilityI agree.
My position is that we MAY be influenced by our beliefs and desires but we can't tell which beliefs and desires might become determining factors. Everything we experience goes into the big pot of determining influences and we can't consciously separate them out. We have no control over which beliefs and desires will be determining influences and which will not. Not everything we believe or desire becomes a determining influence. Sometimes they are superseded by other factors. LoisExercising CFW, according to its definition, as I understand it, does not require that we predict which beliefs and/or desires impact our subsequent actions. Exercising CFW does not rely on a claim that our actions are determined exclusively by our beliefs and/or desires. It does not claim or require that we be able to ferret out all of the various and sundry factors that determined our actions. It does not require that we have control over which beliefs and/or desires will be determining influences in our actions. Exercising CFW, according to its definition, as I understand it, does require that one can become aware of one's beliefs and/or desires, and that one can, act in a way that is consistent with their beliefs and/or desires. (If the action is consistent with the person's beliefs and/or desires, and was not compelled by an outside agent, then that person exercised CFW.) So it appears to me that most of your position is based on erroneous assumptions. I'll add CFW does not require us being in control of our beliefs and desires.
Tim,
Thing is there is a very odd attitude about LFW amongst most skeptics.
Either they believe in it despite all the evidence against and none for.
Or they say no we don’t have it but it doesn’t matter much. Well they don’t usually take that attitude to erroneous beliefs and this one is particularly important because it’s 1) All pervasive and 2) Influences our moral judgments. So why is it likely not to matter much?
I do think it’s important to recognise CFW. Usually it’s best if we put people in a position in which they have it and don’t take it away and to do that we need to be clear on what it is.
The only issue I have with compatibilists is they are usually way too quick to breeze past the fact we don’t have LFW and the implications of that before moving on to CFW.
Tim, Thing is there is a very odd attitude about LFW amongst most skeptics. Either they believe in it despite all the evidence against and none for. Or they say no we don't have it but it doesn't matter much. Well they don't usually take that attitude to erroneous beliefs and this one is particularly important because it's 1) All pervasive and 2) Influences our moral judgments. So why is it likely not to matter much?Perhaps it has to do with our individual and collective need to believe in personal responsibility. We have to believe that people are responsible for, at least, some of their actions, else human society, as we know it could not function. It seems to me a bit like our collective belief in the value of currency. e.g., a hundred dollar bill essentially has little real intrinsic value. It is just a piece of paper with finely designed engravings. But if we suddenly, collectively, believed that it had no other value than a piece of paper (and believed that about currencies, in general) societies could no longer function. Currencies do have value, beyond what they are intrinsically, but only because we collectively believe that they do, and most of us would not survive, if we all suddenly no longer believed that they have value. Similarly, we have to believe in the concept of personal responsibility, even though, ultimately, the reality is that our personal actions are a product of factors that generally go far beyond our individual sense of personhood. Most of us humans would not survive if we, collectively, decided to abandon belief in personal responsibility. Is there a middle ground that we should try to pursue? Something like, oh I don't know, perhaps something like determining when someone's actions align with their personal beliefs and desires, and then determining how that aligns with societal laws? Probably so.
Perhaps it has to do with our individual and collective need to believe in personal responsibility. We have to believe that people are responsible for, at least, some of their actions, else human society, as we know it could not function.Yes we do but what this means changes for the better when we move from ultimate responsibility to real responsibility. We should grant that those responsible are merely fortunate or unfortunate to be responsible. That makes us fairer about it.
Perhaps it has to do with our individual and collective need to believe in personal responsibility. We have to believe that people are responsible for, at least, some of their actions, else human society, as we know it could not function.Yes we do but what this means changes for the better when we move from ultimate responsibility to real responsibility. We should grant that those responsible are merely fortunate or unfortunate to be responsible. That makes us fairer about it. People who make great personal gains, or achieve intense personal desires, to the detriminate of others, are fortunate, indeed, if they get to continue doing so unchecked. I would like to see them become less fortunate. I think that is fair.
Perhaps it has to do with our individual and collective need to believe in personal responsibility. We have to believe that people are responsible for, at least, some of their actions, else human society, as we know it could not function.Yes we do but what this means changes for the better when we move from ultimate responsibility to real responsibility. We should grant that those responsible are merely fortunate or unfortunate to be responsible. That makes us fairer about it. People who make great personal gains, or achieve intense personal desires, to the detriminate of others, are fortunate, indeed, if they get to continue doing so unchecked. I would like to see them become less fortunate. I think that is fair. Yes, this is a good case in point. Why are the gainers behaving like that? Because they believe they are doing nothing morally wrong. Why do they believe that? Because they believe they deserve their good fortune because they believe in LFW. Why dont they sympathise and empathise with the losers? Because they believe they are ultimately responsible for the position they are in. Belief in LFW allows us to tolerate nasty zero sum games. It holds us back morally.
Perhaps it has to do with our individual and collective need to believe in personal responsibility. We have to believe that people are responsible for, at least, some of their actions, else human society, as we know it could not function. It seems to me a bit like our collective belief in the value of currency. e.g., a hundred dollar bill essentially has little real intrinsic value. It is just a piece of paper with finely designed engravings. But if we suddenly, collectively, believed that it had no other value than a piece of paper (and believed that about currencies, in general) societies could no longer function. Currencies do have value, beyond what they are intrinsically, but only because we collectively believe that they do, and most of us would not survive, if we all suddenly no longer believed that they have value. Similarly, we have to believe in the concept of personal responsibility, even though, ultimately, the reality is that our personal actions are a product of factors that generally go far beyond our individual sense of personhood. Most of us humans would not survive if we, collectively, decided to abandon belief in personal responsibility.Very good parallel, TimB. It is indeed an error that people that use the definition of LFW for free will (people who believe in it and those who don't) that they think that free will is some metaphysical category, which must be based in physics. It isn't, as you make very clear here.
Is there a middle ground that we should try to pursue? Something like, oh I don't know, perhaps something like determining when someone's actions align with their personal beliefs and desires, and then determining how that aligns with societal laws? Probably so.I do not quite understand what you mean here. Middle ground between what and what? LFW and determinism? LFW and CFW?
...A middle ground between a pervasive public perception of the veracity of libertarian free will and more rational ideas that can promote more optimal societal functioning. IOW, basing the concept of personal responsibility on LFW, which most legislators and members of criminal justice systems, probably do, may very well, as Stephen always reminds us, promote a distortion of actual justice. CFW is one idea that can support the concept of personal responsibility without relying on the inaccurate belief in LFW.Is there a middle ground that we should try to pursue? Something like, oh I don't know, perhaps something like determining when someone's actions align with their personal beliefs and desires, and then determining how that aligns with societal laws? Probably so.I do not quite understand what you mean here. Middle ground between what and what? LFW and determinism? LFW and CFW?
A middle ground between a pervasive public perception of the veracity of libertarian free will and more rational ideas that can promote more optimal societal functioning.But why should we find a middle ground? Shouldn't we just go for the most rational ideas?
IOW, basing the concept of personal responsibility on LFW, which most legislators and members of criminal justice systems, probably do, may very well, as Stephen always reminds us, promote a distortion of actual justice. CFW is one idea that can support the concept of personal responsibility without relying on the inaccurate belief in LFW.You still confuse me, even that I think we are on the same page. Is CFW this middle ground?
A middle ground between a pervasive public perception of the veracity of libertarian free will and more rational ideas that can promote more optimal societal functioning.But why should we find a middle ground? Shouldn't we just go for the most rational ideas?
IOW, basing the concept of personal responsibility on LFW, which most legislators and members of criminal justice systems, probably do, may very well, as Stephen always reminds us, promote a distortion of actual justice. CFW is one idea that can support the concept of personal responsibility without relying on the inaccurate belief in LFW.You still confuse me, even that I think we are on the same page. Is CFW this middle ground? The middle ground is more rationality as opposed to pervasive irrationality. CFW is one rational idea that can be useful in our society being based on rational beliefs. Our societies are moved by many irrational beliefs, not just in the area of an understanding of free will. e.g., On the irrational to rational scales, you might have LFW vs. CFW, Non-theism vs. Theism; Creationism vs Evolution; Climate change is a hoax vs. Climate change is happening; Obama has failed the American economy vs. Obama has presided over the longest period in American history of consecutive months of job growth, unemployment rates also continue to go down, the stock market is at all time record highs, the rates of increase in cost of healthcare, that were threatening to crush the economy, have been effectively curbed, while more Americans have healthcare, all of this coming out of the great recession of'08 and despite record setting obstructionism by the opposing political party; extremist interpretatios of Islam as one's guiding principles vs humanistic beliefs as one's guiding principles, etc. (I could go on.)
The middle ground is more rationality as opposed to pervasive irrationality. CFW is one rational idea that can be useful in our society being based on rational beliefs. Our societies are moved by many irrational beliefs, not just in the area of an understanding of free will.OK. I just don't see why you call this 'middle ground'.
BTW
It seems Lois has left the thread she began herself. Of course she will say that she did because it is not possible to have an intelligent discussion about free will. The reality is obvious: she is not able to do it, and retracts from the discussion when she sees she cannot hold her standpoint.
It would be nice if she could give some good reasons why she always leave questions unanswered, but I am afraid she will not do that, except maybe with a sneer. I think she treats the topic of free will in the intellectual most dishonest way: suggesting to have a rational discussion, but bail out when she sees she cannot give satisfactory reactions on the problems and questions that are posed to her.
BTW It seems Lois has left the thread she began herself. Of course she will say that she did because it is not possible to have an intelligent discussion about free will. The reality is obvious: she is not able to do it, and retracts from the discussion when she sees she cannot hold her standpoint. It would be nice if she could give some good reasons why she always leave questions unanswered, but I am afraid she will not do that, except maybe with a sneer. I think she treats the topic of free will in the intellectual most dishonest way: suggesting to have a rational discussion, but bail out when she sees she cannot give satisfactory reactions on the problems and questions that are posed to her.The reason I give up, which I thought I had made clear, is that I can't accept he notions of LFW or CFW. When that is thrown into the conversation it stops me cold because it's like arguing with someone who answers every question with a reference to god. I know I am never going to get through to a true believer and I see no reason to beat a dead horse. It's not necessary for me continue on a thread just because I started it. If your points are making sense to anyone else he or she will join the conversation. If no one does it must be because no one here is interested in discussing LFW or CFW any more than I am.
Perhaps CFL is a latent emergent property in the more active, engaged mind -
And perhaps Lois’ experiences are overwhelming with the vast majority of sheople that seem to make up our population
and who live purely by religious dogma and all the media signals they are fed, without ever giving it another thought.
Her experiences dictate her thinking.
just a thought :coolsmirk:
GdB, thanks for engaging this thread, between you and other participants it turned into quite the informative thread
worthy of it’s title and I’ve enjoyed watching it’s evolution.
{oops forgot that key element,
although the modern revival of religious fundamentalism, founded by power-political interests,
is driven by mass media.}
The reason I give up, which I thought I had made clear, is that I can't accept he notions of LFW or CFW.That is clear. But that does not make a rational discussion. You have not given one single argument against CFW. On the other side, I gave many in favour of it, but instead of understanding, and maybe countering them, you say:
When that is thrown into the conversation it stops me cold because it's like arguing with someone who answers every question with a reference to god.That shows that you have not understood it at all. I do not argue from some 'this-answer-it-all-position'. And really, Lois, it is very clear that you always stop discussing free will when critical questions are asked and/or good arguments are given. You did that in also in other free will threads. I repeatedly asked you to react on arguments and questions I have given before; you never did. You do nothing else than trying to save your face now.
Perhaps CFL is a latent emergent property in the more active, engaged mind - And perhaps Lois' experiences are overwhelming with the vast majority of sheople that seem to make up our population and who live purely by religious dogma and all the media signals they are fed, without ever giving it another thought. Her experiences dictate her thinking. just a thought :coolsmirk: GdB, thanks for engaging this thread, between you and other participants it turned into quite the informative thread worthy of it's title and I've enjoyed watching it's evolution. {oops forgot that key element, although the modern revival of religious fundamentalism, founded by power-political interests, is driven by mass media.}Actually CC you've really not understood this subject. And youve done far worse than Lois at responding to questions. When GdB says we do have CFW that doesnt mean we have Free Will full stop. . What Lois, I and GdB argue against is LFW, something you still obviously firmly believe in, how ever much you dislike me saying that