Free will deniers

[Koldo]

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

Great. So we agree that we don't choose what we want to want, and that our choice is determined by what we want.

The next part is: We wouldn't be able to choose otherwise, exactly because of the things we agreed with.

 

[Koldo]

You're simply begging the question.
What if it's not?

I am not begging the question. I am asking you to consider the alternative. Why do you think that human minds are exempt from the causal chain?

 

[Nakosis]

I am not begging the question. I am asking you to consider the alternative. Why do you think that human minds are exempt from the causal chain?

Simple, because the actual past does not have to be causal for us.

 

[Trailblazer]

Great. So we agree that we don't choose what we want to want, and that our choice is determined by what we want.

The next part is: We wouldn't be able to choose otherwise, exactly because of the things we agreed with.

Are you saying that we would not have been able to choose anything except what we chose at the time we chose it?

 

[Koldo]

Simple, because the actual past does not have to be causal for us.

Why not? And how not?
If our will decides our choices and our will is forged by our past...

 

[Koldo]

Are you saying that we would not have been able to choose anything except what we chose at the time we chose it?

Exactly. Because what determined our choice was what we wanted at the time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly. Because what determined our choice was what we wanted at the time.

So what's your point?

 

[Left Coast]

Must our belief that it is just and reasonable to hold people morally accountable for what they do be based on facts?

What else would it be based on?

What if we are wrong? Can't we be wrong?

You can say this about literally anything.

It definitely sounds like you are accepting free will because of what rejecting it would entail.

It's reasonable to reject something when it leads to absurd conclusions. This is commonplace when evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of various arguments in philosophy.

Putting that side aside for a moment, I don't really think that moral responsibility depends on free will.

How can you hold someone morally responsible for something they can't control?

 

[Nakosis]

Why not? And how not?
If our will decides our choices and our will is forged by our past...

Nope.

Humans have the ability to imagine a different past and different possible futures. So what motivates you might never have happened. Or could could be a possible future which has yet to happen which motivates you. Sure it is possible that the past is the motivation for your decision but it is not the only possible motivation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How can you hold someone morally responsible for something they can't control?

.perhaps they are pleading insanity..

 

[Koldo]

So what's your point?

If "we would not have been able to choose anything except what we chose at the time we chose it", then we don't have free will. That's it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If "we would not have been able to choose anything except what we chose at the time we chose it", then we don't have free will. That's it.

State the obvious, why don't you..
..but that is not the case.

People are held responsible for their actions.
It's known as reality .. if you cannot make decisions, you can plead insanity..
..but I doubt whether you would succeed .. you don't appear to be insane.
..just delusional, imo.

 

[Trailblazer]

If "we would not have been able to choose anything except what we chose at the time we chose it", then we don't have free will. That's it.

Bzzzzt! The mere fact that we chose between x and y means that we had free will to choose between x and y.

 

[Koldo]

What else would it be based on?

A misconception. A mistake.

You can say this about literally anything.



It's reasonable to reject something when it leads to absurd conclusions.

Quantum mechanics leads to absurd conclusions. This doesn't mean we should reject it.

This is commonplace when evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of various arguments in philosophy.



How can you hold someone morally responsible for something they can't control?

By holding them responsible for their willed actions where no coercion was involved.

 

[Koldo]

Nope.

Humans have the ability to imagine a different past and different possible futures. So what motivates you might never have happened. Or could could be a possible future which has yet to happen which motivates you. Sure it is possible that the past is the motivation for your decision but it is not the only possible motivation.

And how would something motivate us without us being prone to being motivated by it in the first place?

 

[Koldo]

Bzzzzt! The mere fact that we chose between x and y means that we had free will to choose between x and y.

No. This is what I have been trying to clarify since the start of this topic. I can grant you that's not how free will is understood in the philosophical debates. The simple 'choice, therefore free will' is how laymen understand free will.

 

[Left Coast]

A misconception. A mistake.

So you think ethics are a misconception or mistake? This seems to concede my point.

Quantum mechanics leads to absurd conclusions. This doesn't mean we should reject it.

No, it doesn't. Some interpretations probably lead to absurd cconclusions. And QM, as I understand it, leads us to question some of our prior assumptions in physics. But it doesn't lead to anything obviously absurd or incoherent.

By holding them responsible for their willed actions where no coercion was involved.

What does "hold them responsible" even mean in such a scenario? How can you be responsible for something over which you have no control?

 

[Willamena]

I had a mentor in the past whom I met again after 10 years. A philosophy professor. He told me something about free will: there are several kinds of people. Those with enormous volition that use their willpower to do either good things or bad things; and there are people with scarce volition who are too scared to use their own free will, for they don't want to commit mistakes. There are so many shades of individualistic cases inbetween.
He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.
They deny free will exists because admitting it does exist would make them feel guilty of all that they have done unto others.
It's a self-defense mechanism not to feel guilty.
What do you think, guys?

I think that I don't know what free will is, or even will for that matter.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's not that the consequences of denying human agency is just something we don't like or wouldn't prefer. It's that it makes ethical discussion incoherent. If you don't believe ethical discussion is incoherent - if you believe it's just and reasonable to hold people morally accountable for what they do - then you know there must be some problem with the premise that we have no agency.

I tend to think of actions in terms of cause and effect as well as the material conditions that have led to them, not ethical terms per se. My primary ethical principle is not to unnecessarily harm any conscious creatures (e.g., without needing to do so for self-defense, food, etc.).

We could talk about whether some random tribe's practice of animal sacrifice is arguably unethical, but that, by itself, would largely be a pointless discussion: I think a more relevant and useful question would be how that practice ended up arising within the tribe and why they still practice it. Merely telling someone that what they're doing is unethical is unlikely to change their actions or beliefs, whereas material conditions such as education, economic status, place of upbringing or residence, etc., all have an effect on people's beliefs and actions.

So, due to practical considerations and the usefulness of the concept of ethics in everyday life, I don't regard it as pointless. However, if you ask me why a murderer should be prosecuted, my answer wouldn't be, "Because he's immoral!" since a lot of immoral things are neither illegal nor even possible to outlaw. It would be because of the sheer harm to others that a murderer's actions cause.

It's similar to why I would support locking up a crocodile roaming the streets of some town despite not believing the crocodile has any free will or even a conception of morality; its mere presence would pose a risk to the residents of the town and therefore be enough to justify locking it up or releasing it elsewhere it couldn't cause harm to people.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. This is what I have been trying to clarify since the start of this topic. I can grant you that's not how free will is understood in the philosophical debates. The simple 'choice, therefore free will' is how laymen understand free will.

I have no idea what you are talking about.