I see it as no more than an unexamined prejudice to insist that blame requires control over more than just the outcome in question.Not just blame, deserved blame. We can only justify blaming when it has good consequences. What people think is we can deserve the blame seperate to consequential reasons to blame. That's what is impossible since its just a question of who gets the distant past that leads to being blamed.
I see it as no more than an unexamined prejudice to insist that blame requires control over more than just the outcome in question.Not just blame, deserved blame. We can only justify blaming when it has good consequences. What people think is we can deserve the blame seperate to consequential reasons to blame. That's what is impossible since its just a question of who gets the distant past that leads to being blamed. Yes, I know it is possible to distinguish between deserved blame and consequence-based blame, but I'm saying that we can simply choose to see normal control as sufficient for both kinds if we like. I think my above point holds against deserved blame as well. You don't need uber-super-control to deserve the blame that can also be justified on a consequence-based view, so I think this distinction cuts across the point I am making.
Yes, I know it is possible to distinguish between deserved blame and consequence-based blame, but I'm saying that we can simply choose to see normal control as sufficient for both kinds if we like. I think my above point holds against deserved blame as well.We can but we would be wrong, which is the point.
Yes, I know it is possible to distinguish between deserved blame and consequence-based blame, but I'm saying that we can simply choose to see normal control as sufficient for both kinds if we like. I think my above point holds against deserved blame as well.We can but we would be wrong, which is the point. Wrong in what sense? Not factually or logically wrong, for it is not a factual or logical matter. And to describe it as morally wrong is just to restate the prejudice I am questioning. What greater basis is there for saying that deserved blame requires super-control rather than saying it requires only normal control? I see no basis for this at all.
Spacemonkey,
One reason for blaming is deterrent.
Look at these two sentences:
- I’m blaming you because you deserve it.
- I’m blaming you because it will deter others.
These are different. We don’t deserve to be used to deter others, some of us just do get used for those purposes.
It’s pretty nasty and yet if we have no better option we are forced into it. This is way different than the concept that people deserve it.
Wrong in what sense? Not factually or logically wrong, for it is not a factual or logical matter. And to describe it as morally wrong is just to restate the prejudice I am questioning. What greater basis is there for saying that deserved blame requires super-control rather than saying it requires only normal control? I see no basis for this at all.Wrong factually, morally and logically. Morally wrong is particularly important. We should acknowledge that what choices we get to make is luck as I described. It does make a difference.
Spacemonkey, One reason for blaming is deterrent. Look at these two sentences: 1) I'm blaming you because you deserve it. 2) I'm blaming you because it will deter others. These are different. We don't deserve to be used to deter others, some of us just do get used for those purposes. It's pretty nasty and yet if we have no better option we are forced into it. This is way different than the concept that people deserve it.I'm fully aware of the distinction, and have already explained that I consider my point to hold against both kinds of blame. Again, I see no reason to insist that deserved blame should require super-control.
Wrong in what sense? Not factually or logically wrong, for it is not a factual or logical matter. And to describe it as morally wrong is just to restate the prejudice I am questioning. What greater basis is there for saying that deserved blame requires super-control rather than saying it requires only normal control? I see no basis for this at all.Wrong factually, morally and logically. Morally wrong is particularly important. We should acknowledge that what choices we get to make is luck as I described. It does make a difference. It can't be factually wrong, for it is not a factual matter (but rather a value judgment). It cannot be logically wrong, for there is no entailment from an absence of super-control to an absence of deserved blame. And to say it is morally wrong is again just to repeat the prejudiced in question. So again, what greater basis is there for saying that deserved blame requires super-control rather than saying it requires only normal control? I am saying that there is no reason for insisting that being a matter of 'luck' (as you use the term) proscribes deserved blame. At best, this is an unreasoned fundamental moral judgment.
It can't be factually wrong, for it is not a factual matter (but rather a value judgment). It cannot be logically wrong, for there is no entailment from an absence of super-control to an absence of deserved blame.It can be impossible to deserve blame and is.
And to say it is morally wrong is again just to repeat the prejudiced in question.It isn't. It's a logical fact that nobody deserves blame. And an empirical matter whether thinking people do does moral harm. I think we unfairly justify suffering as a result of choices due to belief it is deserved.
It can be impossible to deserve blame and is.Only according to the unreasoned presupposition I'm calling into question.
It isn't. It's a logical fact that nobody deserves blame.It cannot be a logical fact, for there is no formal contradiction in maintaining deserved blame in the absence of super-control. It is therefore a value judgement, and it is one you have no more reason for holding than for rejecting.
This is equivocation over control. The point is it's 100% luck which choice we make. We can't have control that would overcome any of that luck at all.I am not equivocating. I am pointing out that we can have control over events without having control over their distal causes. This is true in the only sense that 'control' has any real meaning. The kind of 'control' that would also require control over all antecedent causes all the way back to the Big Bang is as useless and preposterous as the libertarian conception of free will. But that's what would be required to deserve blame. We don't have the right sort of opportunity to do what we ought to do (in cases in which we don't) Because the opportunity is would if we'd been lucky enough to have different causal antecedents stretching back to the big bang. What would be required to deserve praise? IMO, laying blame and bestowing praise are absolutely necessary in a dynamic emotional system. If our inate drive is to seek satisfaction (desire) and we must choose the most rewarding course is it sufficient to say "he was responsible" or is the additional gratuitous comment of "In my 20 years I have never seen such fine work"? If we are allowed to heap praise, we must also be allowed to say, "he was responsible" and the gratuitous comment, "In my twenty years I have never seen such savagery". IMO, regardless of determinism and/or ultimate accountability, our emotional make-up requires expression. Please, do nit misunderstand, I am not advocating for lynch-mobs, nor do I approve of inappropriate worship. It seems odd that those two seem to go hand in hand. Thus humankind can definitely stand improvement in the practice of excess desire for gratification. Again, it is odd that the 7 deadly sins address such aberrant behaviors and the 7 virtues identify the desired qualities in humans. We hate Hitler. We adore Paul McCartney. They are both "responsible for something", but not worthy of emotional contempt or emotional embrace? IMO, emotional identification (rejection, acceptance) is a function of the mirror neural network. Empathy! peacegirl admitted it would take a long time, but that encouraging movements are afoot. And that is true. But note that these movements are already taking place without the need for a revolutionary new philosophy, resurrected from the past. And peacegirl is right, it will take a long, long time before we can call ourselves "civilized". Right now our behavior is not much different from our distant cousin the chimo, except we are much better at it in most respects, including warfare, the ultimate insult to human life.
What would be required to deserve praise? IMO, laying blame and bestowing praise are absolutely necessary in a dynamic emotional system. If our inate drive is to seek satisfaction (desire) and we must choose the most rewarding course is it sufficient to say "he was responsible" or is the additional gratuitous comment of "In my 20 years I have never seen such fine work"? If we are allowed to heap praise, we must also be allowed to say, "he was responsible" and the gratuitous comment, "In my twenty years I have never seen such savagery".I recognise praise and blame are needed to guide behaviour. It's just they are not deserved because it's a lottery who gets to be blamed and who gets to be praised.
It cannot be a logical fact, for there is no formal contradiction in maintaining deserved blame in the absence of super-control.Can I deserve blame for what my grandfather did? I'd say that's impossible. And I think if that can be impossible then in principle deserved blame can be impossible in all circumstances.
It cannot be a logical fact, for there is no formal contradiction in maintaining deserved blame in the absence of super-control.Can I deserve blame for what my grandfather did? I'd say that's impossible. And I think if that can be impossible then in principle deserved blame can be impossible in all circumstances. You can think whatever you like, but it doesn't make it a logical fact, and it doesn't address the point I've been making.
You can think whatever you like, but it doesn't make it a logical fact, and it doesn't address the point I've been making.I'm trying to work out what point you are addressing. Can a girl deserve to be treated badly because she was born ugly? Are you saying that is possible?
Free will states that we can choose A or B equally even if B is not preferable in comparison to A. That is why in any comparison where there is a meaningful difference, desire is compelled to choose that option which is most desired, or which gives the greatest satisfaction in the continual weighing of the pros and cons of each choice.I think you make the same error as Stephen. If option A gives immediate satisfaction, and B is more in your long term interest, then many people have difficulties to choose B. There are good grounds to say that somebody who can easier decide for his long time interests is freer than somebody who always gets himself in trouble because he always chooses for immediate satisfaction: the first person can easier move between the available options. There are other examples, e.g. that somebody gives up some of his own interests for the greater good of others, because of ethical reasons. So I would amend your 'statement of free will' that a person is freer when he can choose B even if A is immediately preferable. But if you define everything a person does: following his immediate lust, looking for his long time interest, looking for the interests of others, as 'determined by his own satisfaction', then your definition is as hollow as it can be. It has no meaning anymore. Which I think was already noticed by some of your 'followers'.
I'm trying to work out what point you are addressing.I am addressing your point that deserved blame requires super-control. My point is that this is a value judgment, and one that is no better supported than my opposing judgment that deserved blame requires only normal control.
Can a girl deserve to be treated badly because she was born ugly?No. A person has neither super nor normal control over that.
Stephen, I suggest you read the Chapter Ten to the Swartz book that I linked upthread. Then read chapter 11, here.] It might put the conversation on an interesting new course. I know peacegirl won't read anything, and that's OK because I don't read her posts; but maybe Stephen, GdR, and others might like to read these chapters and discuss them. Even if Stephen, GdR and others do not agree with Swartz, I think the discussion of his views on causal determinism and free will can be very interesting and productive.GdB, please. Stephen and I discussed Swartz already (here], here], here], etc. You can try the search function of the forum (try if this link] works)), but only based on his shorter online articles, especially his Laws of Nature] article at IEP and his article about modal fallacies. I think I agree with nearly all Swartz says, so there is not so much to discuss for me. The pdf-book you linked is very interesting, but I think it might be a tough read, rather technical. So until it somehow becomes very important in the discussion here, I leave it for the moment. And of course, my list of 'want-to-read's is much longer than the 'I have time to read's... PS I would like to know how you defend libertarian free will. Use the other thread]. Or are you still offended because of my hard statements?
@ peacegirl, Assigning responsibility is a two way street. If you remove the subset "blame", you also remove the subset "praise". Who do we blame for this mess (assigning responsibility), the Universe or the individual person?Why do we have to blame anyone or anything? Blaming doesn't help; it just provides a temporary stopgap to a overarching problem. We work toward improvement by searching for the root of the problem.
Who do we praise for this excellent work (assigning responsibility), the Universe or the individual person? You cannot have one without the other. This is how Nature has figured it out for us and it has worked well from an objective and unemotional standpoint. The human race is one of the two most succesful species on earth, in great part due to our ability to blame and praise. We try to avoid being blamed, instead we try to earn praise. What better incentive is there? Bad behavior is discouraged, good behavior is rewarded. Which is the more desirable?Both are the opposite sides of the coin. Blame and praise have been a necessary part of our development. Let's start with praise. Trying to get praise is not an intrinsic motivation; it is extrinsic. In the new world people will not be looking for extrinsic validation because they will not need it since they will not be criticized for anything they do. They will aspire to achieve based on a different motivation entirely. We will still enjoy our accomplishments and the accomplishments of others, but knowing that man's will is not free, and that we don't author ourselves, removes the pride that we did anything of our own free will. This is a good thing. Blame, on the other hand, has been a partial deterrent for "bad" behavior (behavior that hurts others, but just as there will be a different motivation to achieve other than praise, there will be a different motivation not to hurt people other than blame.
I'm trying to work out what point you are addressing.I am addressing your point that deserved blame requires super-control. My point is that this is a value judgment, and one that is no better supported than my opposing judgment that deserved blame requires only normal control.
Can a girl deserve to be treated badly because she was born ugly?No. A person has neither super nor normal control over that. So does not having normal control make it impossible to deserve it? Or is that a value judgement?