Hard Determinism: what's your opinion?

i know this is kind of long, but i'd appreciate no "TL;DR" statements as they're pretty rude.

recently i've become fascinated with the concept of hard determinism-- the concept that human beings have no free will. one of the argument's i've heard about it was that all human beings are controlled by their desires and we don't actually make any choices. the classic example used to support that agument is(not quoting btw):

if, walking in the desert, you are extremely dehydrated and thirstry, and you see a pitcher of water, your instant desire will be to satisfy your thirst. however, if at any time you learn that this pitcher of water is poisoned, you will stop yourself from drinking the water, because, generally speaking, your desire to live is greater than your desire to satisfy your thirst. this does not mean that your desire to satisfy your thirst is eliminated, all it means is that a desire greater than your previous one was a stronger force, and that is what determined your action. you did not make any choice, it was all made by desires.

so you might be thinking "uh...what does this have to do with religion?" So adam and eve were kicked out of eden because they ate the apple-- they made the choice with their own free wil...right? did they? my argument is that their desire, be it curiousity or any other desire, was powerful enough to blind them and prevent them from seeing the immediate consequences of their actions. but you might be thinking "oh it didn't happen that way, they were always completely in control" really? is that why laws have come to recognize this loss of free will in certain aspects? think about it. why do you get less time for premediated murder than for murder in "heat of passion"(EDIT: i meant why do you get less time for in heat of passion than premeditated )? because you termporarily lost control of your will and your desire to murder was a strong enough force to throw out any rational thinking you had. so if adam and even didn't really make any choices, but were just overcome by their desires, morally can they be held responsible?

the second argument was about character. our charater's are who we are. they are influenced by experience, perceptions, interpretations, environments, etc. all of which we have no control over. what makes one person jump out of an airplane and another reject out of fear? their characters. what makes one person homeless while another becomes a wealthy? it's their character. what makes a person hard working and another lazy? their character. what made adam and eve curious to try the apple? their character. so, since they had no control over their character, morally, can they be held responsible for any actions that they made? what made Judas betray jesus? did he make the choice to do so? oh did his desire actually make the choices/ or was it his character that did it? neither of which he has any control over.

it would be rather absurd for anyone to say that crimminals should not be jailed for commiting crimes because of their character because even if this is true, they have broken their societal contracts which is what is required for all human beings to enter into governments. so they should be punished, not because they deserve to be punished, but because they're a threat.

it will be interesting to get some insight on this, thanks for your opinions

Society as we know it cannot function with the theory of hard determinism, our legal system, our morality, cannot work if there is no free will. Every law we have barring people from doing certain things could not be enforced, because the actions of the people committing the crime would be pre-determined.

I think that, even if people do not have free will, the illusion of free will is required for societal function, else we would plunge into an abyss of moral decay.

TL? Too long? What's DR?

Just because someone desires something, doesn't mean they have to do it. They have the choice to do it or not do it. I have the choice to open a door in order to go into a building. I also have the choice of not opening the door but, there'd be consequences to that one, heh.

As for temporary insanity, or full blown schizophrenia, it's still a choice. I don't agree "Crime of passion" is a valid argument. John Nash (The famous mathematician) is schizophrenic, and sure, he had problems but, he was still logical enough to work through the schizophrenia enough to be able to function fairly normally.

You used an example of poisoned water. There was uhm, a military vessel that sank a bit ago. Sorry, I can't remember the details at this moment. Anyway, thousands? of Marines trapped in the ocean. They knew not to drink the water. Most of them did regardless.

Desire can lead us anywhere, doesn't mean we have to follow.

Added: Just dawned on me. USS Indianapolis.

Makaveli said:

Society as we know it cannot function with the theory of hard determinism, our legal system, our morality, cannot work if there is no free will.

Click to expand...

it can't?

let's say you want to steal money from a bank, kill someone you hate, or rape a woman. what prevents you from doing all of these things? several desires: your desire not to lose your freedom, your desire not to go to jail where you could face violence, death, or rape, or the face that you'd be socially ostracized. sounds like it could work to me, it makes us moral.

example two: women's sexual desires are similar to that of men's. in general, why don't women completely satiate their sexual desires? because their desires not to become pregnant are greater than their desires to have sex; their desire to not be socially ostracized/stigmatized is greater than their desire to have sex, also, in some countries, it could easily ruin a woman's life if she has premarital sex because she will not be able to marry. so in none of these cases are people making a choice, simply put, their desires not to do something is greater than their desire to do it because of the consequences given.

religiouc example: why don't, or why do people try not to anyway, violate the 10 commandments? because you'll go to hell(subjectively based on religion of course) this concept of action and consequence has been reenforced many times for the choices we make, but in reality we don't make these choices, we just have our desires that have a certain level of force, and one desire will always be greater than another, even if man must first deliberate because he doesn't know which one is greater than the other yet.

Makaveli said:

I think that, even if people do not have free will, the illusion of free will is required for societal function, else we would plunge into an abyss of moral decay.

Click to expand...

also, this thread really wasn't meant to be "does society need to have the illusion of free will?" it's more of a "does free will exist or not?"

Idiolatry said:

TL? Too long? What's DR?

Click to expand...

it's some internet thing that someone started, the proper use is "TL;DR" which is short for too long; didn't read.(which is kind of funny seeing as neither of which are independant clauses)

Idiolatry said:

Just because someone desires something, doesn't mean they have to do it. They have the choice to do it or not do it.

Click to expand...

no they don't, they have a desire to do it, and a desire NOT to do it. whichever desire is greater is the desire which will control the action the person takes, but the person does not make any decision, because no one controls their desires.

Idiolatry said:

I have the choice to open a door in order to go into a building. I also have the choice of not opening the door but, there'd be consequences to that one, heh.

Click to expand...

no, you have a desire to open the door, or to not open the door. either A) you'll open the door because you're curious enough/ have business in that place, or some other motivating factor, or B) you won't open the door because you'll be trespassing/ you have no business in the building and have no interest in being inside of it.

Idiolatry said:

As for temporary insanity, or full blown schizophrenia, it's still a choice. I don't agree "Crime of passion" is a valid argument. John Nash (The famous mathematician) is schizophrenic, and sure, he had problems but, he was still logical enough to work through the schizophrenia enough to be able to function fairly normally.

Click to expand...

Lol, i'd like to see some evidence on people choosing to become schitzophrenic. and temporary insanity itself proves by definition that it was not a choice. it's temporary, insanity itself implies not having control, so it's definition is, for a moment, you lost your control. also, whether you belive it's a valid argument isn't really relevant, it's a law and it's one for a reason(and a good one too, namely that there are cases where crime of passions actually happen). your John Nash thing is anecdotal, just because john nash did it doesn't mean everyone else can. there are varying levels of control, which differ from person to person, all that proves is that john nash had enough control, it doesn't mean that everyone does

Idiolatry said:

You used an example of poisoned water. There was uhm, a military vessel that sank a bit ago. Sorry, I can't remember the details at this moment. Anyway, thousands? of Marines trapped in the ocean. They knew not to drink the water. Most of them did regardless.

Click to expand...

that's because their desire to drink water, eventually, became a stronger force than the desire to stay dehydrated. originally, it was not however, and it never would have been if they would have had clean water to drink in the first place, your desires change as the situation alters itself.

if i can go to McDonalds for example or i can choose to be a canible and eat other human beings(let's say dead one's for example) in general most people would choose McDonalds. however, if i'm in a plane stranded on a mountain, and most of the other plane members are dead, i may not initially want to eat them because my desire of not eating them is greater than my desire to stay hungry, but eventually, with time, my hunger desire may overpower my taboo and i may eat them(there are documented cases of this, don't ask for a link though because i don't have one, try google )

Idiolatry said:

Desire can lead us anywhere, doesn't mean we have to follow.

Click to expand...

yes it does, if you choose not to do something, it's because you have a compelling reason for not doing it, and that desire has the most powerful force which is why you don't do it.

Idiolatry said:

Added: Just dawned on me. USS Indianapolis.

Click to expand...

cool.

Have you read any of Richard Taylor's defense(s) of libertarianism? They might enlighten you to some of the main weaknesses of both hard and soft determinism.

FerventGodSeeker said:

Have you read any of Richard Taylor's defense(s) of libertarianism? They might enlighten you to some of the main weaknesses of both hard and soft determinism.

Click to expand...

my text book has two defenses on libertarianism, one by William James and one by Richard Taylor; i've been meaning to get around to reading James's and Taylor's but haven't got around to it yet.

xenfreak said:

no they don't, they have a desire to do it, and a desire NOT to do it. whichever desire is greater is the desire which will control the action the person takes, but the person does not make any decision, because no one controls their desires.

Click to expand...

Desire can be learned or unlearned. Wouldn't that be control? A person quits smoking. They unlearned the desire to smoke. A person is against violence but, discovers it's fun to have rough sex. That'd be a learned desire.

xenfreak said:

Lol, i'd like to see some evidence on people choosing to become schitzophrenic. and temporary insanity itself proves by definition that it was not a choice. it's temporary, insanity itself implies not having control, so it's definition is, for a moment, you lost your control. also, whether you belive it's a valid argument isn't really relevant, it's a law and it's one for a reason(and a good one too, namely that there are cases where crime of passions actually happen). your John Nash thing is anecdotal, just because john nash did it doesn't mean everyone else can. there are varying levels of control, which differ from person to person, all that proves is that john nash had enough control, it doesn't mean that everyone does

Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't believe they're valid arguments. Whether the government has laws to protect the "Insane" and what not, it's not my belief and, that's what I'm arguing for--not the belief of others.

My example of John Nash is a valid point. Just because a lot of people commit murder out of rage or "Temporary insanity" or whatever, doesn't mean everyone does it. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that could've done something horrible, but didn't. It does show there are "levels of control" which you stated yourself. People control their desires--insane or not.

What you're describing is nothing more than the concept of "destiny" with a different wrapping. And, in fact, the case could be made that it is ALL of the above. It is choice/free-will, it is desire, it is "fate". Because, in the end, regardless how many times you "flip-flopped" in your decision making process, you are only able to take ONE course of action in any given situation. And sure, if you fail, you can try again, but that is a separate situation, with it's own circumstance. Each single moment in time, ANY single action cannot be undone or altered. Was it destiny that you make that choice? Was it the winning desire that made you do it? Did you really choose the path yourself?

In the end... it doesn't matter. It is only a variance in nomenclature.

In defense of hard determinism, it is a logical way of looking at how we make choices, and is hard to argue against.

Like anything that deals with the idea of the Self, Hard Determinism is true from a perspective. If desire is a part of the Self, then the will of the Self is desire, and is thus free to use the stronger desire for making a choice.

Everyone needs to read about "emergence"

Edge: BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACRED By Stuart A. Kauffman

rather than determined by the parts,

1 bird + 1 bird + 1 bird = 3 birds

emergence = interactions create entities not found in the parts... whole = greater than the sum of the parts

1 bird + 1 bird + 1 bird = 3 birds + babies + families + talking + singing + v formation flock + .....

you get the drift. Through interactions entities evolve that cannot be traced to the parts (one bird all on it's own will never reproduce, baby is a procuct of the interaction, not the part, as an example) there is weak emergence, then strong emergence... Anyways, read a bunch of Kaufman's stuff. It kills determinism, puts free agency back in the pict.

PS - above is just a random link, have to run, you have to google it for yourself, sory

idea said:

Everyone needs to read about "emergence"

Edge: BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACRED By Stuart A. Kauffman

rather than determined by the parts,

1 bird + 1 bird + 1 bird = 3 birds

emergence = interactions create entities not found in the parts... whole = greater than the sum of the parts

1 bird + 1 bird + 1 bird = 3 birds + babies + families + talking + singing + v formation flock + .....

you get the drift. Through interactions entities evolve that cannot be traced to the parts (one bird all on it's own will never reproduce, baby is a procuct of the interaction, not the part, as an example) there is weak emergence, then strong emergence... Anyways, read a bunch of Kaufman's stuff. It kills determinism, puts free agency back in the pict.

PS - above is just a random link, have to run, you have to google it for yourself, sory

Click to expand...

Yet even this can be viewed in a deterministic way. Rather than a linear string, we have a complex web of cause and effect relationships.

However, as I mentioned before, determinism is really just a viewpoint. Humans can be seen as agents of free will because of our egocentric and anthropocentric perspective.

I do like the idea that one bird is the product of multiple relationships! As a human, I view myself as a single entity in a relationship with everything else making choices that affect these relationships.

Indeed, the idea of free will is based--like everything else--on how we define things like "free," "will," and "choice."

I experience the act of choosing, therefore, I make a choice. I experience a will in a free way, therefore, I have free will.

I think that I have free will in some things and that in other things I do not. I believe I can exercise free will in areas not normally available to my consciousness through techniques like psychotherapy.

Does instinct fit in anywhere? If you are in a situation in which you may loose your life, then as with all living animals, it is instinctual to fight for it. Looking at the example of Adam and Eve and the concept of hard determinism, in the story they knew they would recieve punishment for eating the apple. They had an outside persuasion to change their desire, so this you think should make them morally unaccountable? Therefore if a criminal would persuade another person to conduct criminal activities they should not be held morally accountable? The law states that minors or persons with certain disabilities in certain circumstances are not held mortally unaccountable for their actions. (This is also the reason used for temporary insanity)

Idiolatry said:

Desire can be learned or unlearned. Wouldn't that be control? A person quits smoking. They unlearned the desire to smoke. A person is against violence but, discovers it's fun to have rough sex. That'd be a learned desire.

Click to expand...

ok, a person quits smoking--why do people quit smoking? because their desire to be healthy is greater than their desire to smoke, because their desires to keep their teeth clean, or prevent themselves from getting wrinkles is greater than their desire to smoke. it's still desires, which one is greater than another one is the one that will control your ultimate action(i.e. you'll either continue smoking or stop)

Idiolatry said:

Like I said, I don't believe they're valid arguments. Whether the government has laws to protect the "Insane" and what not, it's not my belief and, that's what I'm arguing for--not the belief of others.

Click to expand...

that's cool? i'm not trying to say that your beliefs are wrong or even imply that. but if we're going to go on the "that's subjective" road, i'm skipping this.

Idiolatry said:

My example of John Nash is a valid point. Just because a lot of people commit murder out of rage or "Temporary insanity" or whatever, doesn't mean everyone does it. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that could've done something horrible, but didn't. It does show there are "levels of control" which you stated yourself. People control their desires--insane or not.

Click to expand...

no it's not a valid point; an incredibly stressed point in psychology is correlation does not equal causation; as i said earlier, just because john nash does something doesn't mean everyone else can, just as you're saying that just because some do it doesn't mean everyone else has to do it.

also just because people didn't do something doesn't mean that they had control, all it means is that their desire not to do something was greater than their desire to not do something.

let me give a relevant example: if you reply to this post, it is because you have a desire to counter my statements; if you don't reply it is because you don't desire to reply. either way whichever desire is greater will ultimately decide your action.

What if desires are a manifestation of the will?

xenfreak said:

it can't?

let's say you want to steal money from a bank, kill someone you hate, or rape a woman. what prevents you from doing all of these things? several desires: your desire not to lose your freedom, your desire not to go to jail where you could face violence, death, or rape, or the face that you'd be socially ostracized. sounds like it could work to me, it makes us moral.

example two: women's sexual desires are similar to that of men's. in general, why don't women completely satiate their sexual desires? because their desires not to become pregnant are greater than their desires to have sex; their desire to not be socially ostracized/stigmatized is greater than their desire to have sex, also, in some countries, it could easily ruin a woman's life if she has premarital sex because she will not be able to marry. so in none of these cases are people making a choice, simply put, their desires not to do something is greater than their desire to do it because of the consequences given.

religiouc example: why don't, or why do people try not to anyway, violate the 10 commandments? because you'll go to hell(subjectively based on religion of course) this concept of action and consequence has been reenforced many times for the choices we make, but in reality we don't make these choices, we just have our desires that have a certain level of force, and one desire will always be greater than another, even if man must first deliberate because he doesn't know which one is greater than the other yet.

also, this thread really wasn't meant to be "does society need to have the illusion of free will?" it's more of a "does free will exist or not?"

Click to expand...

Whether you can and cannot do something is irrelevant. The point is, is that if you are pre-determined to do a certain action, morality and law cannot exist because how can you be prosecuted for something that you had no control over? If it was truly pre-determined, and you had no say over whether you did it or not, then the law cannot touch you. Society, morality, and all legal systems as they are would collapse. There would have to be a reinvention of morality as we know it.

And I told you that whether free will existed or not doesn't matter, as only the illusion is required.

Mister Emu said:

What if desires are a manifestation of the will?

Click to expand...

are you saying what if you can make yourself desire something? if so, i'd say it would be the result of your desire to want to desire something

the question here isn't do we have a will, or what are our desires, the question is do we have control of the choices we make, or are the choices we make the result of the desire that is most advantageous to us.

Makaveli said:

Whether you can and cannot do something is irrelevant. The point is, is that if you are pre-determined to do a certain action, morality and law cannot exist because how can you be prosecuted for something that you had no control over? If it was truly pre-determined, and you had no say over whether you did it or not, then the law cannot touch you. Society, morality, and all legal systems as they are would collapse. There would have to be a reinvention of morality as we know it.

And I told you that whether free will existed or not doesn't matter, as only the illusion is required.

Click to expand...

as i said, you're not punished because you're held responsible for your actions(at least i don't feel so) i feel your punished for a few reasons:

1) to set an example that actions will not go without punishment which will change the desire of some individuals(if nothing happens to me if i rob a bank, why shouldn't i do it? but if i go to jail because i rob a bank, i have a reason not to)

2) for justice, people have a need for justice that is provided with punishment. and without some punishment again people would do things like take the law into their own hands.

3) they've broken their contract with society which states that they are allowed to function with the rest of us as long as they don't break the rules(namely our laws) so they should be removed because if they're not punished there's no reason to restrict anyone else.

i feel that they can, and do, coexist. just because governments are currently functioning doesn't mean they're doing so because we have, or have the illusion of, free will.

horizon_mj1 said:

Does instinct fit in anywhere? If you are in a situation in which you may loose your life, then as with all living animals, it is instinctual to fight for it. Looking at the example of Adam and Eve and the concept of hard determinism, in the story they knew they would recieve punishment for eating the apple. They had an outside persuasion to change their desire, so this you think should make them morally unaccountable? Therefore if a criminal would persuade another person to conduct criminal activities they should not be held morally accountable? The law states that minors or persons with certain disabilities in certain circumstances are not held mortally unaccountable for their actions. (This is also the reason used for temporary insanity)

Click to expand...

instinct is a perfect example, biologically most people have the desire to stay alive, however if you have a desire that's greater than the one to continue living(such as depression which may lead to suicide) your rationality may be suspended.

well with the adam and eve argument, it's that if people are governed by their desires they don't actually make choices. if we don't actually make choieces, then we can't be held accountable for the things we do because we had no influence on them in the first place.

your desires are something you have no control over, just like ideas, perceptions, etc. so if your desire made you do something, and you didn't choose to do it, then you shouldn't morally be held accountable for it. notice they i put emphasis on morally. this doesn't mean that you should be punished, it just means that people shouldn't judge you morally for an action you've made because you have no control; even with the mentally disabled, they are punished (sent to mental facilities) and so are teens (sent to Juvenal hall) but they are not morally held accountable for their actions.