There are two meanings of ‘could have done otherwise’:
- Under exactly the same circumstances, including your brain, you could have done otherwise.
- There was a moment you stood for a choice between several options.
On 1. we agree, this is impossible.
I think we agree on 2. too.
I say that 2. is the basis for our praxis of blaming, praising and assigning responsibility: in the situation in the cantina ‘I could not have done otherwise’ is a valid excuse for you eating white beans, in the situation in the restaurant it is not. There was a moment of choice between several options, which means you ‘could have done otherwise’. Therefore ‘I was determined’ does not work as excuse for you eating white beans.
Having a choice means being responsible. So there is all reason to call this ‘free will’.
And I told you, being compelled by your own reasons means you act from your free will. The word ‘compelled’ looses its meaning, when every action of mine is ‘compelled’. Maybe you should give an example of an action that is not compelled. If you can’t, then the word has become meaningless. It is just rhetoric.
See e.g. Spinoza (Ethics, Definition VII):
That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action.
Lois, btw has the same problem with this context switching. You both don't see that I agree that we are determined, but that that has nothing to do with free will.
The opposite of determined is random.
The opposite of a free action is a coerced action.
The first belongs to a physical discourse, the second to the human discourse, in which options, choices, reasons etc have clear meanings. So in some sense Lois is right that we are determined to believe in free will and responsibility, and that these beliefs have impact on our behaviour. So we find them back in our daily use of these concepts. And funny enough, Lois uses these concepts in other contexts
without any problem]. She likes to be free, sees how humans are freer than animals, claims people could have done otherwise, and assigns responsibility to people. But she denies that free will exists.
Stephen’s fine example works fine 
You see, we agree that people should not dangerously speed, so we made this system of fines (and worse!). It is based on a kind of social contract: we want to discourage speeding by making speeding unattractive. Now everybody who knows what speeding is, and what the rules are, can anticipate the possibility to be fined. These are the conditions that we can speak of responsibility:
- Knowledge of the matter (knowing what speeding is in this case)
- Knowledge the acceptability of action
- Being able to see possible consequences
- Being able to act according above insights.
But when responsibility is given, then it presupposes free will is given, i.e. you can choose to drive too fast or not. And these are possible options indeed.
And that is all there is to free will.
Nothing more (no metaphysical ‘could have done otherwise’), but also nothing less (no ‘we are determined and therefore I am not responsible’).
Nothing more (no metaphysical 'could have done otherwise'), but also nothing less (no 'we are determined and therefore I am not responsible').
Yes................. but :-)
It seems almost everybody thinks in terms of the wrong version of CHDO. I think we must be wired up like it. It takes effort to adjust. And many just won't, they either cling on to the wrong version convinced that gives them free will or disbelieve in free will.
This situation wouldn't even come up in the new world. Do you see what you are doing? If you would just stay with me you would begin to understand why you cannot project your thoughts based on the vantage point of a free will society, which is not going to be accurate.
So you're saying in the new world we won't need rules with penalties. I can see that might be possible. But compatibilists are dealing with things as they are now, how do we decide who pays the fines?
This discovery is not dealing with the environment we're now living in. It is dealing with what can be accomplished once this natural law of man's nature is applied on a global basis. In the new world we will need guidelines in order to know what could be a potential hurt to another, but we won't need punishment (or a penalty for doing the wrong thing) when no one will be doing those things that cause the need to punish.
Exactly, so how can their will be free to choose other than what they are compelled to choose given their environment, circumstances, and heredity. IOW, their biology and biography?
Some will say free will is freedom of action, so as long as the action depends upon our will that's fine. But we are interested in what restricts us from having a different will too. So someone with a fear of confined spaces is unable to get in a lift, she could do it if she didn't have a fear of confined spaces but that wouldn't count as free will not just because the action is restricted by the will but the will is also restricted in a particular way. So will free from certain restrictions.
This fear is causing a restriction just as someone who has a drug addiction is restricted from doing certain things. Even a belief that you can't do something is restrictive in the sense that you won't do that thing not because you can't, but because you believe you can't. These type of situations make it harder to choose another option, but that doesn't mean it can't be done if the alternative is considered worse. In other words, if I knew that my child was in danger unless I went on an elevator even though in any other situation my fear would get the best of me, in this situation it would take a backseat. This leads to his other principle that nothing (not my heredity, environment, my past, or even God) can cause me to do anything against my will. And nothing can cause me to not do something I want to do. I'm not referring to physical force since that would be someone else's will being imposed.
This is why the concept of "greater satisfaction" is valid and sound yet no one seems interested. I will elaborate if people have questions but they are so convinced that their own analysis is correct that they aren't hearing me.
You have no idea how significant these findings are. I just hope you bear with me.
I think it's a pretty big deal perhaps we could get to where we don't need to blame or punish at all eventually. But no I can see I don't think it's as big a deal as you do.
You don't think it's as big a deal yet because you don't see how this knowledge has the power to prevent war and crime. If you did, you would see why it's a big deal.
No definition is wrong. You can define something in any way you choose, but this doesn't mean it is accurate when it comes to reality.
What I'm saying is the compatibilist version of CHDO does seem to have it's uses when it comes to working out who should pay the fine in my example.
But this definition is no different than the legal system's definition regarding culpability. I am referring to something much deeper than who is judged accountable according to a prescribed definition (i.e., whether a person knew the difference between right and wrong) in a free will society.
Stephen's fine example works fine ;-)
You see, we agree that people should not dangerously speed, so we made this system of fines (and worse!). It is based on a kind of social contract: we want to discourage speeding by making speeding unattractive. Now everybody who knows what speeding is, and what the rules are, can anticipate the possibility to be fined. These are the conditions that we can speak of responsibility:
1. Knowledge of the matter (knowing what speeding is in this case)
2. Knowledge the acceptability of action
3. Being able to see possible consequences
4. Being able to act according above insights.
But when responsibility is given, then it presupposes free will is given, i.e. you can choose to drive too fast or not. And these are possible options indeed.
And that is all there is to free will.
Nothing more (no metaphysical 'could have done otherwise'), but also nothing less (no 'we are determined and therefore I am not responsible').
But what if the knowledge that we will not be blamed causes the thought of hurting another through speeding or any careless action intolerable? I'm trying to show you that this knowledge does not condone actions that hurt; it prevents them.
But what if the knowledge that we will not be blamed causes the thought of hurting another through speeding or any careless action intolerable? I'm trying to show you that this knowledge does not condone actions that hurt; it prevents them.
Perhaps you over estimate this effect.
But that aside yours is a very important point. Once we see that nobody deserves to suffer we are much less inclined to cause suffering.
This goes right over almost everybody's heads.
But what if the knowledge that we will not be blamed causes the thought of hurting another through speeding or any careless action intolerable? I'm trying to show you that this knowledge does not condone actions that hurt; it prevents them.
Perhaps you over estimate this effect.
But that aside yours is a very important point. Once we see that nobody deserves to suffer we are much less inclined to cause suffering.
This goes right over almost everybody's heads.
I am not overestimating this effect. It is true that there are other conditions that must be in place before this principle can work. For example, if the only way I can feed my family is through stealing (assuming there is no other way to get food), then this principle will have no effect whatsoever because self-preservation is the first law of nature and if I have to hurt someone in order to survive, then this is what I will be compelled to do. But when the hurt done to me is removed (e.g. the fact that I can now find gainful employment), this law will prevent me from striking a first blow.
It seems almost everybody thinks in terms of the wrong version of CHDO. I think we must be wired up like it. It takes effort to adjust. And many just won't, they either cling on to the wrong version convinced that gives them free will or disbelieve in free will.
I think it is not so difficult to understand why this is. It makes it easier to imagine. Call it a 'regulative idea'. We can do '
as if' it is real, as long as we do not forget that it
is not real.
But what if the knowledge that we will not be blamed causes the thought of hurting another through speeding or any careless action intolerable? I'm trying to show you that this knowledge does not condone actions that hurt; it prevents them.
Does this idea also says you are not responsible for you eating white beans in the restaurant? And that you therefore don't do it?
But what if the knowledge that we will not be blamed causes the thought of hurting another through speeding or any careless action intolerable? I'm trying to show you that this knowledge does not condone actions that hurt; it prevents them.
Does this idea also says you are not responsible for you eating white beans in the restaurant? And that you therefore don't do it?
This law can only prevent a person from striking a first blow. Eating white beans does not fall into this category.
I am not overestimating this effect.
Well if you are or you aren't we agree belief in contra causal free will is a very nasty piece of fiction and this is the point to get across,most people seem to think it's fairly benign sadly.
It is true that there are other conditions that must be in place before this principle can work. For example, if the only way I can feed my family is through stealing (assuming there is no other way to get food), then this principle will have no effect whatsoever because self-preservation is the first law of nature and if I have to hurt someone in order to survive, then this is what I will be compelled to do. But when the hurt done to me is removed (e.g. the fact that I can now find gainful employment), this law will prevent me from striking a first blow.
OK I agree I think. What you're saying is we'll not think anybody deserves to be struck so that motivation will be removed. Is that it?
It seems almost everybody thinks in terms of the wrong version of CHDO. I think we must be wired up like it. It takes effort to adjust. And many just won't, they either cling on to the wrong version convinced that gives them free will or disbelieve in free will.
I think it is not so difficult to understand why this is. It makes it easier to imagine. Call it a 'regulative idea'. We can do '
as if' it is real, as long as we do not forget that it
is not real.
Well perhaps we disagree a little. I think we really need to point out there is an illusion. It's not a small change when the meaning of CHDO is straightened out. When we get CHDO right we see it was the luck of the draw in an important sense and this makes a big difference in how we feel we should treat each other, what we feel is fair, how blaming we should be and so on.
So I accept neuroscientists shouldn't go around saying free will is an illusion. But we need to be able to say there is an illusion and things
change for the better when we straighten it out.
I am not overestimating this effect.
Well if you are or you aren't we agree belief in contra causal free will is a very nasty piece of fiction and this is the point to get across,most people seem to think it's fairly benign sadly.
Many people think the whole issue is nothing more than what came first, the chicken or the egg. They don't think it means much or will ever be resolved. It just so happens that with this knowledge we can actually achieve world peace. I know how this sounds, but it's actually true.
It is true that there are other conditions that must be in place before this principle can work. For example, if the only way I can feed my family is through stealing (assuming there is no other way to get food), then this principle will have no effect whatsoever because self-preservation is the first law of nature and if I have to hurt someone in order to survive, then this is what I will be compelled to do. But when the hurt done to me is removed (e.g. the fact that I can now find gainful employment), this law will prevent me from striking a first blow.
OK I agree I think. What you're saying is we'll not think anybody deserves to be struck so that motivation will be removed. Is that it?
The desire to strike a
first blow (gaining at someone else's expense) is prevented because, under the changed conditions, it cannot be justified. If it is a retaliatory blow, it can be justified.
Many people think the whole issue is nothing more than what came first, the chicken or the egg. They don't think it means much or will ever be resolved. It just so happens that with this knowledge we can actually achieve world peace. I know how this sounds, but it's actually true.
So you know it sounds way over the top. Maybe people will take you less seriously because of that, mind you most people don't get it what ever you do.
It is true that there are other conditions that must be in place before this principle can work. For example, if the only way I can feed my family is through stealing (assuming there is no other way to get food), then this principle will have no effect whatsoever because self-preservation is the first law of nature and if I have to hurt someone in order to survive, then this is what I will be compelled to do. But when the hurt done to me is removed (e.g. the fact that I can now find gainful employment), this law will prevent me from striking a first blow.
The desire to strike a first blow (gaining at someone else's expense) is prevented because, under the changed conditions, it cannot be justified. If it is a retaliatory blow, it can be justified.
Yes, it can only be justified for consequential reasons and you're saying they could be removed somehow.
But what if the knowledge that we will not be blamed causes the thought of hurting another through speeding or any careless action intolerable? I'm trying to show you that this knowledge does not condone actions that hurt; it prevents them.
If you can formulate this idea without this whole free will discussion, then go ahead. But you seem to say that it is essential, and if I see errors in an essential cornerstone (which happens to be one of my favourite philosophical playgrounds), then I react on it. Maybe you should just give your idea, instead of saying 'buy the book'. Maybe we see that the idea is not so much dependent on the concept of free will as you think.
The desire to strike a first blow (gaining at someone else's expense) is prevented because, under the changed conditions, it cannot be justified. If it is a retaliatory blow, it can be justified.
This makes me so suspicious: people do things that cannot be justified all the time. So intellectually removing justification will not affect many people.
You did not react on
this ]posting, in which I gave a short repetition of my main argument
here]. The point is that the reactions you gave on my main argument (that you use 'could have done otherwise' in 2 different meanings) have nothing to do with the structure of the argument, and I want this clarified: don't you see that the 'could have taken dish 7' can be read as just the past tense of 'can take dish 7'? This meaning is absolutely unproblematic in a determinist universe.
And you did not answer one of my crucial questions: is 'but I was determined!' a valid excuse for you having eaten white beans in the restaurant?
This makes me so suspicious: people do things that cannot be justified all the time. So intellectually removing justification will not affect many people.
Well, this is an important disagreement between those like peacegirl, Sam Harris, Tom Clark, myself and I guess most compatibilists.
It's an empirical matter, so it needs to be tested.
I think most people think they are good people doing good things, even the "bad" people.
People justify harming others by it being their fault, they deserve it. And it's not just an intellectulal justification, it's a felt justification. The feeling weakens and lasts less time when we accept it's the luck of the draw, there but for cirumstances go I.
If I had been born one minute later I'd have a very different life for better or for worse. Sheer luck. This reasoning can be applied to the outcome of every choice because that's what free will is compatible with, I would have made a different choice if circumstances not of my choosing had been appropriately different. That's compatibilist CHDO.
Once our feelings change we are much less likely to want to harm others. Much less likely to want to control behaviour using harsh deterrents.
The philosophy that we don't have CCFW does require us to be much fairer, kinder, less brutal.
Why start out thinking such a big mistake over such an important matter is likely to be fairly benign, it's just not how we ordinarily think about erroneous beliefs. We think they do harm and that's why it's worth arguing against them.
Many people think the whole issue is nothing more than what came first, the chicken or the egg. They don't think it means much or will ever be resolved. It just so happens that with this knowledge we can actually achieve world peace. I know how this sounds, but it's actually true.
So you know it sounds way over the top. Maybe people will take you less seriously because of that, mind you most people don't get it what ever you do.
True, but there are people who will get it and will want to be instrumental in bringing this knowledge to light. It's been over 50 years and it has never been thoroughly investigated. Part of the prejudice is that the author didn't use empirical testing to come to his findings. That in itself does not prove him wrong. This knowledge is falsifiable.
It is true that there are other conditions that must be in place before this principle can work. For example, if the only way I can feed my family is through stealing (assuming there is no other way to get food), then this principle will have no effect whatsoever because self-preservation is the first law of nature and if I have to hurt someone in order to survive, then this is what I will be compelled to do. But when the hurt done to me is removed (e.g. the fact that I can now find gainful employment), this law will prevent me from striking a first blow.
The desire to strike a first blow (gaining at someone else's expense) is prevented because, under the changed conditions, it cannot be justified. If it is a retaliatory blow, it can be justified.
Yes, it can only be justified for consequential reasons and you're saying they could be removed somehow.
Yes.
But what if the knowledge that we will not be blamed causes the thought of hurting another through speeding or any careless action intolerable? I'm trying to show you that this knowledge does not condone actions that hurt; it prevents them.
If you can formulate this idea without this whole free will discussion, then go ahead. But you seem to say that it is essential, and if I see errors in an essential cornerstone (which happens to be one of my favourite philosophical playgrounds), then I react on it. Maybe you should just give your idea, instead of saying 'buy the book'. Maybe we see that the idea is not so much dependent on the concept of free will as you think.
The gateway to the discovery is the fact that man's will is not free so why shouldn't I talk about it? It has everything to do with our ability to achieve a world of peace, so why should this not be included in the conversation? The book gives a thorough blueprint as to how this can be accomplished, so why shouldn't I tell people to buy it? To find out how this knowledge can change our world for the better for $4.99 is a pretty good deal to me. :roll: Just because this is an extraordinary claim doesn't make it false. Srsly, the skepticism is so great I don't think I can get through to people how important this knowledge really is.
The desire to strike a first blow (gaining at someone else's expense) is prevented because, under the changed conditions, it cannot be justified. If it is a retaliatory blow, it can be justified.
This makes me so suspicious: people do things that cannot be justified all the time. So intellectually removing justification will not affect many people.
That's not true. If you look back at someone's life they always have a justification to hurt others, although the retaliation is often directed toward innocent people.
You did not react on this ]posting, in which I gave a short repetition of my main argument here]. The point is that the reactions you gave on my main argument (that you use 'could have done otherwise' in 2 different meanings) have nothing to do with the structure of the argument, and I want this clarified: don't you see that the 'could have taken dish 7' can be read as just the past tense of 'can take dish 7'? This meaning is absolutely unproblematic in a determinist universe.
When you say, "I had that option available", that is a true statement. But when you say, "I could have chosen dish 7 given the same exact circumstances", that is false.
And you did not answer one of my crucial questions: is 'but I was determined!' a valid excuse for you having eaten white beans in the restaurant?
No, it's not a valid excuse but who is asking for one? In the new world the question wouldn't even come up because we would already know you couldn't help yourself, so you're already excused. Please don't jump to the conclusion that without blame, it will cause you to become even less responsible. That's why I am asking you to be patient.
You still haven't gotten to the point. I managed to read part of the sample and almost fell asleep. I have little patience with authors who devote multiple pages telling me how revolutionary their idea is. Don't tell me how smart you are, tell me your idea, Mr. Author.
peacegirl, please post a short synopsis of what this Earth-changing idea includes and how it will save our civilization. I'm not going to buy the book to find out.
Really it's a very old idea Darron. The idea is if we accept determinism and don't believe people are magically free we don't think people deserve their good or bad fortune in the way we ordinarily do and how we feel about allowing or causing suffering changes.
Bottom line is to have done otherwise circumstances not of our choosing would have had to be different. That's what people generally don't accept.
peacegirl is basically right although she sees this as a complete cure to all our ills rather than just a very helpful change.
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html
When asked to write short essay on "the ethical significance of Spinoza's philosophy," Einstein replied:
I do not have the professional knowledge to write a scholarly article about Spinoza. But what I think about this man I can express in a few words. Spinoza was the first to apply with strict consistency the idea of an all-pervasive determinism to human thought, feeling, and action. In my opinion, his point of view has not gained general acceptance by all those striving for clarity and logical rigor only because it requires not only consistency of thought, but also unusual integrity, magnamity, and — modesty.
bold by me.
If you can formulate this idea without this whole free will discussion, then go ahead. But you seem to say that it is essential, and if I see errors in an essential cornerstone (which happens to be one of my favourite philosophical playgrounds), then I react on it.
Peacegirl is talking about Contra causal free will. There is no error. This is the thing, she needs to be able to use the label free will for that. It's no good you insisting she can't use it. And it's no good her insisting you can't either.