... My understanding is psychopaths arent morally responsible b.t.w.Some psychopaths have a firm understanding of societal concepts of "right and wrong". Did you ever watch "Hannibal"? He had marvelous mental faculties (superior to almost everyone), and a firm understanding of "right and wrong", yet he was a cold-blooded killer/cannibal. Regardless of what we deem "moral responsibility" to be, it would be a good idea, IMO, to put someone like Hannibal to death, ASAP (even though, in our deterministic universe, he cannot do otherwise than to serially kill people in the most intricate and devious of ways and then make aesthetically pleasing gourmet meals from their body parts). Perhaps but that's not the question. We sometimes have to put dogs down but we wouldnt hold a dog morally responsible for it's actions. You still havent answered what makes it right and fair to do so in some human cases and why.
... My understanding is psychopaths arent morally responsible b.t.w.Some psychopaths have a firm understanding of societal concepts of "right and wrong". Did you ever watch "Hannibal"? He had marvelous mental faculties (superior to almost everyone), and a firm understanding of "right and wrong", yet he was a cold-blooded killer/cannibal. Regardless of what we deem "moral responsibility" to be, it would be a good idea, IMO, to put someone like Hannibal to death, ASAP (even though, in our deterministic universe, he cannot do otherwise than to serially kill people in the most intricate and devious of ways and then make aesthetically pleasing gourmet meals from their body parts). Perhaps but that's not the question. We sometimes have to put dogs down but we wouldnt hold a dog morally responsible for it's actions. You still havent answered what makes it right and fair to do so in some human cases and why. Morality is a kind of rule governed behavior that develops and persists or changes within a particular group, society, culture, etc. because of its helping maintain the particular group, society, culture, in some way. In some cases, a particular moral might help expand the group's membership (e.g., "It is wrong to use condoms." can lead to more births in a particular group.) Or it may promote the health of the group's members (e.g., In olden days, "It is wrong to consume pork." may have helped particular groups avoid trichinosis or other nosocomial infections.) The moral "Thou shall not kill." helps maintain the lives of members within societies. I could go on, and on, and on, with examples, but the main point, relevant to your question is that morality is about maintaining and promoting a particular societal group. (As humanists, the particular societal group that is typically of most concern to us, is all of mankind.) Therefore, in order to maintain the most human lives among mankind, a moral such as "Immensely effective serial killer/cannibals must die ASAP" would, at least, be "right". Would it be "fair" considering that the killer could not have acted differently in a deterministic universe? It seems not. Life is not always fair. Should we strive for fairness, anyway. I think so, but I also think that sometimes what is "right" for society should take precedence over what is "fair" for an individual.
I was responding to Lois re: what I perceive to be a tendency to respond to many posts by saying something along the lines of "because it is determined", as if that is a complete enough response. (That is the sense, in which I used the term "ultimate answer", in that, ultimately speaking it is technically correct.) "Because it is determined." is an, "ultimately" accurate, but woefully inadequate response to many questions.Hmm. In one sense you are right, but it is not exactly what Lois means, I think. If you take LFW, or contra-causal free will, as the correct understanding of free will, then the observation that everything is determined does rule LFW out. But you are of course correct in the other sense: all processes (except QM) are determined. But as you show, they are determined in many different ways. One category of natural process are actions. Actions are processes that are determined by reasons. If you acknowledge for yourself and for others that you acted on basis of your own reasons, it was a free action. If you did because your were forced by the reasons of somebody else, then it was not a free action. Somebody is said to have free will when he normally can act according his own reasons. It has nothing to do with the above definition of a will without causes. But that is what Lois keeps hammering on. Yes, Lois, that is a dead horse. I agree. But now you should see if the above definition of free will covers more or less all the meanings we normally attach to having free will, and can bear the burden of our assigning praise, blame and responsibility to persons.
Perhaps but that's not the question. We sometimes have to put dogs down but we wouldnt hold a dog morally responsible for it's actions. You still havent answered what makes it right and fair to do so in some human cases and why.The difference between a dog and a normal human is that humans can evaluate moral reasons. A dog can't. We cannot expect from a dog that we show him why we abhor from his killing of innocent sheep, and therefore do not do it anymore. But humans can. Humans that show they are not able to follow moral reasoning are not culpable of their deeds, but exact for this reason they also cannot be full member of society. Maybe we close him in a clinic, maybe they can be healed, maybe not. A criminal defending himself that it is not fair that he will be convicted for his crime by saying that he could not help it, is in a Catch-22: he shows he is able to reason morally. The judge could give a simple answer: if the criminal was determined to his crime, then the judge is determined to his conviction. The judge would not need to be fair, because the category of fairness does not exist in a discourse of determinism. On the other side, if the criminal claims fairness with the judge, then the judge can expect the criminal that he himself can also judge his own deed as fair (or better, not fair...).
"You mean there's a catch?" "Sure there's a catch", Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy." There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.Joseph Heller, Catch-22
...One category of natural process are actions. Actions are processes that are determined by reasons...Just to, hopefully clarify, and to, also, show that I try to read your posts carefully, I would presume that in the statement above, you are using the word "actions" synonymously with the word "behaviors" (as in the behaviors of organisms). And I presume that when you used the word "reasons", and italicized it, you used it synonymously with the word causes. I say this because not all of our actions are ones that we, typically, reason about. e.g., autonomic and reflexive actions. Perhaps this is a superfluous distinction, but my first thought is that I don't think I would, typically, say, for example, that "I blinked, (or sneezed, or acted startled, etc) of my own free will.
...One category of natural process are actions. Actions are processes that are determined by reasons...Just to, hopefully clarify, and to, also, show that I try to read your posts carefully, I would presume that in the statement above, you are using the word "actions" synonymously with the word "behaviors" (as in the behaviors of organisms). Yes, more or less. 'Behaviour' is broader, I think. Behaviour can be studied independently of the question if the organism itself behaves because of reasons. But grosso modo you can equate them. (But just to be sure: there are fat books written about the question what actions (and reasons) are...)
And I presume that when you used the word "reasons", and italicized it, you used it synonymously with the word causes.Definitely not! In a determinate universe, every event has a cause. But only of a small subset of these causes these can be seen as reasons. And it is this subset we are looking at when we want to understand free will. The simplest, but hardest version of what CFW is, is to say that reasons are causes. However, I think this lays a burden on CFW that is too hard. It suffices that we can act according to our reasons, whatever the causal connection is. They might even include 'factors on which have no control'.
I say this because not all of our actions are ones that we, typically, reason about. e.g., autonomic and reflexive actions. Perhaps this is a superfluous distinction, but my first thought is that I don't think I would, typically, say, for example, that "I blinked, (or sneezed, or acted startled, etc) of my own free will.Yes. It depends on where you lay the border between 'real actions' and e.g. jerks, or reflexive actions. What is important that I acknowledge my action as according to my reasons. I might brake reflexively on a child running onto the street in front of my car, but when I recognise this as an action of mine, then it was done for a reason. (And because it was my reason, it was even an action of free will.)
Just came across this.
... My understanding is psychopaths arent morally responsible b.t.w.Some psychopaths have a firm understanding of societal concepts of "right and wrong". Did you ever watch "Hannibal"? He had marvelous mental faculties (superior to almost everyone), and a firm understanding of "right and wrong", yet he was a cold-blooded killer/cannibal. Regardless of what we deem "moral responsibility" to be, it would be a good idea, IMO, to put someone like Hannibal to death, ASAP (even though, in our deterministic universe, he cannot do otherwise than to serially kill people in the most intricate and devious of ways and then make aesthetically pleasing gourmet meals from their body parts). Perhaps but that's not the question. We sometimes have to put dogs down but we wouldnt hold a dog morally responsible for it's actions. You still havent answered what makes it right and fair to do so in some human cases and why. Morality is a kind of rule governed behavior that develops and persists or changes within a particular group, society, culture, etc. because of its helping maintain the particular group, society, culture, in some way. In some cases, a particular moral might help expand the group's membership (e.g., "It is wrong to use condoms." can lead to more births in a particular group.) Or it may promote the health of the group's members (e.g., In olden days, "It is wrong to consume pork." may have helped particular groups avoid trichinosis or other nosocomial infections.) The moral "Thou shall not kill." helps maintain the lives of members within societies. I could go on, and on, and on, with examples, but the main point, relevant to your question is that morality is about maintaining and promoting a particular societal group. (As humanists, the particular societal group that is typically of most concern to us, is all of mankind.) Therefore, in order to maintain the most human lives among mankind, a moral such as "Immensely effective serial killer/cannibals must die ASAP" would, at least, be "right". Would it be "fair" considering that the killer could not have acted differently in a deterministic universe? It seems not. Life is not always fair. Should we strive for fairness, anyway. I think so, but I also think that sometimes what is "right" for society should take precedence over what is "fair" for an individual. What you miss is that almost nothing would change if everyone in a society were to give up their belief in free will, for the simple reason that actions, behaviors and decisions are governed by unconscious determining influences that are not changed by conscious thought or analysis. The only thing that might change--and it would take decades, if not centuries, is that a society that has no fantasy of free will might start to act more humanely and without vengeance. But it's a toss up. Conscious thought can be influenced by the conscious thoughts of people around us. We just don't know when, how, how much or whether. It would be one factor in millions that might influence our determined actions. Lois
What you miss is that almost nothing would change if everyone in a society were to give up their belief in free will, for the simple reason that actions, behaviors and decisions are governed by unconscious determining influences that are not changed by conscious thought or analysis.That's just plain silly. We are conscious evaluating entities navigating in ever changing situations/circumstances. There is a dynamic flow of information in both… all, directions Our decisions are a combination of predetermining factors but also of totally unforeseen surprises, that we choose how to deal with… part of that is evaluating how your own actions are impacting the surrounding we modify behaviors to achieve the certain kinds of "feedback" from our surrounds. In your world that sort of interplay can't exist. Lois, the world is dynamic, this thing you envision is pure construct… it's no natural law, and it's blind to the infinitely complex realities of the moments of our day as we move from one place to the next, as time speed past.
... actions, behaviors and decisions are governed by unconscious determining influences that are not changed by conscious thought or analysis.Lois, it is a severe error to rule out an entire class of factors that can and often do impact behavior. i.e., all conscious thoughts.
Lois,
You need to re-think this one, you are jumping to conclusions. Being amongst those who don’t believe in libertarian free will, it’s easier to do. One of the numerous and tremendous benefits of disbelief in LFW.
Now according to you re-thinking wouldn’t change your behaviour, but of course you know it would, your posts would be quite different.
Our decisions are a combination of predetermining factors but also of totally unforeseen surprises,The unforeseen surprises are determined too.
that we choose how to deal with…And those choices are determined.
part of that is evaluating how your own actions are impacting the surrounding we modify behaviors to achieve the certain kinds of "feedback" from our surrounds. In your world that sort of interplay can't exist.No, that is possible assuming determinism, so can exist.
Lois, the world is dynamic, this thing you envision is pure construct… it's no natural law,Determinism is a construct, but as it happens it's also true at the macro level. But the most important point is it can't matter whether it's true or not, since indeterminism can't make any difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinism
and it's blind to the infinitely complex realities of the moments of our day as we move from one place to the next, as time speed past.No, complexity doesn't change anything.
Lois, You need to re-think this one, you are jumping to conclusions. Being amongst those who don't believe in libertarian free will, it's easier to do. One of the numerous and tremendous benefits of disbelief in LFW. Now according to you re-thinking wouldn't change your behaviour, but of course you know it would, your posts would be quite different.You can't know that they would be, or, if so, how they would be different. Whether I jump to conclusions or not has nothing to do with my disbelief in LFW. My beliefs or disbeliefs have no influence on my determining influences--and neither do yours. ;) Lois
Lois, You need to re-think this one, you are jumping to conclusions. Being amongst those who don't believe in libertarian free will, it's easier to do. One of the numerous and tremendous benefits of disbelief in LFW. Now according to you re-thinking wouldn't change your behaviour, but of course you know it would, your posts would be quite different.You can't know that they would be, or, if so, how they would be different. I know there is a correlation between what you think about this subject and what you write, so do you.
Whether I jump to conclusions or not has nothing to do with my disbelief in LFW.Slow down and think Lois, because if you don't every conversation becomes like groundhog day. You know I don't believe in LFW, you know I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about your belief that our conscious thoughts have no influence on our behaviour. That is you jumping to conclusions based on experiments that show decisions are made before we become conscious of the fact.
My beliefs or disbeliefs have no influence on my determining influences--and neither do yours. ;) LoisThat's correct because I know what you mean. But what you are doing here is saying beliefs don't have magical contra-causal power. Well we agree on that. But you switch from that to a much more controversial claim that beliefs have no influence at all, which is you going off the deep end without evidence.
CC,
From the link I gave you in my last post.
Galen Strawson's version[17] Strawson notes the argument is familiar and cites Henry Sidgwick's 1874 Methods of Ethics. Actually Sidgwick, who accepted the 19th-century view that freedom is metaphysical, is a firm determinist and only cites the Determinism Objection[34] to free will. It is a compelling objection. Surely we cannot be free agents, in the ordinary, strong, true-responsibility-entailing sense, if determinism is true and we and our actions are ultimately wholly determined by "causes anterior to [our] personal existence"* And surely we can no more be free if determinism is false and it is, ultimately, either wholly or partly a matter of chance or random outcome that we and our actions are as they are?So this is how we can know we don't have LFW. It's because indeterminism rules it out too. And since indeterminism can't gain us anything in terms of control/ influence or freedom we should just work with a deterministic model for practical purposes.
H. Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 66. This familiar objection to the claim that we can be truly responsible agents is of course disputed (and indeed scorned) by compatibilists, but it is entirely sufficient for establishing the structure of the present discussion.Now this is a mistake and important to highlight it. Compatibilists accept we are not ultimately responsible. What compatibilists do is define Free Will and Moral responsibility differently.
Just came across this. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/the-dark-side-of-free-will/Stephen, I think everybody has his/hers associations with free will, positive and negative. Take the following overview:
Free Will No Free Will
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive
Responsibility Ease of living
Morality No harsh accusations
Love
Open future
Negative
Punishment No reason to take responsibility
Existential fear No praise
Guilt Risk of fatalism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not aim for completeness. The idea is: both believe in free will and no free will have positive and negative associations. Jerry Coyne (and Sam Harris) is just very one-sided. It is obvious that Sam Harris introduces exactly the ideas of compatibilists in order to keep the positive aspects of believing in free will. He just refuse to call it so. I don't know what Jerry Coyne's stand is here, but I think he also will not give up on the idea of responsibility, free choice, etc. I am pretty sure if he fills in how he looks at such aspects of life, he will also end up with something that compatibilists are defending all the time, but just refuses to call it free will (CFW).
Just came across this. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/the-dark-side-of-free-will/Stephen, I think everybody has his/hers associations with free will, positive and negative. Take the following overview:
Free Will No Free Will
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive
Responsibility Ease of living
Morality No harsh accusations
Love
Open future
Negative
Punishment No reason to take responsibility
Existential fear No praise
Guilt Risk of fatalism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not aim for completeness. The idea is: both believe in free will and no free will have positive and negative associations. Jerry Coyne (and Sam Harris) is just very one-sided. It is obvious that Sam Harris introduces exactly the ideas of compatibilists in order to keep the positive aspects of believing in free will. He just refuse to call it so. I don't know what Jerry Coyne's stand is here, but I think he also will not give up on the idea of responsibility, free choice, etc. I am pretty sure if he fills in how he looks at such aspects of life, he will also end up with something that compatibilists are defending all the time, but just refuses to call it free will (CFW).
Well, as we know those who highlight that belief in LFW is harmful usually do believe in CFW. It's usually just a matter of semantics and emphasis.
I think we need people attacking LFW as well as affirming CFW. Anyhow little of it seems to work, people just seem to get utterly confused about the subject, what ever you do, sadly.
Lois, You need to re-think this one, you are jumping to conclusions. Being amongst those who don't believe in libertarian free will, it's easier to do. One of the numerous and tremendous benefits of disbelief in LFW. Now according to you re-thinking wouldn't change your behaviour, but of course you know it would, your posts would be quite different.You can't know that they would be, or, if so, how they would be different. I know there is a correlation between what you think about this subject and what you write, so do you.
Whether I jump to conclusions or not has nothing to do with my disbelief in LFW.Slow down and think Lois, because if you don't every conversation becomes like groundhog day. You know I don't believe in LFW, you know I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about your belief that our conscious thoughts have no influence on our behaviour. That is you jumping to conclusions based on experiments that show decisions are made before we become conscious of the fact.
My beliefs or disbeliefs have no influence on my determining influences--and neither do yours. ;) LoisThat's correct because I know what you mean. But what you are doing here is saying beliefs don't have magical contra-causal power. Well we agree on that. But you switch from that to a much more controversial claim that beliefs have no influence at all, which is you going off the deep end without evidence. Lois, your claim is nonsense. When you typed in the words: "My beliefs or disbeliefs have no influence on my determining influences--and neither do yours. ;)", your beliefs were part of the controlling factors that lead you to do so.
... actions, behaviors and decisions are governed by unconscious determining influences that are not changed by conscious thought or analysis.Lois, it is a severe error to rule out an entire class of factors that can and often do impact behavior. i.e., all conscious thoughts. Show me some evidence that conscious thoughts can overrule determining influences. Then we can debate it. Lois
Lois, You need to re-think this one, you are jumping to conclusions. Being amongst those who don't believe in libertarian free will, it's easier to do. One of the numerous and tremendous benefits of disbelief in LFW. Now according to you re-thinking wouldn't change your behaviour, but of course you know it would, your posts would be quite different.You can't know that they would be, or, if so, how they would be different. I know there is a correlation between what you think about this subject and what you write, so do you.
Whether I jump to conclusions or not has nothing to do with my disbelief in LFW.Slow down and think Lois, because if you don't every conversation becomes like groundhog day. You know I don't believe in LFW, you know I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about your belief that our conscious thoughts have no influence on our behaviour. That is you jumping to conclusions based on experiments that show decisions are made before we become conscious of the fact.
My beliefs or disbeliefs have no influence on my determining influences--and neither do yours. ;) LoisThat's correct because I know what you mean. But what you are doing here is saying beliefs don't have magical contra-causal power. Well we agree on that. But you switch from that to a much more controversial claim that beliefs have no influence at all, which is you going off the deep end without evidence. Lois, your claim is nonsense. When you typed in the words: "My beliefs or disbeliefs have no influence on my determining influences--and neither do yours. ;)", your beliefs were part of the controlling factors that lead you to do so. your claim that we have the ability to overrule detemining influences is more nonsensical. Please offer some objective evidence that it's possible. So far, all you've offered are empty claims that are on the same level as god claims--completely devoid of objective evidence and based on wishful thinking and fantasy. Lois