Kip

There are two libertarian vs. determinist threads. This is not one of them. I have not seen any positive arguments towards the existence of (properly defined) free will ("metaphysical free will" or "freedom of spontaneity") and the arguments towards determinism are very compelling. So, the further question is not "do we have free will" but "what are the consequences of lacking free will"?

I am starting the thread because others, such as Bill, have asserted a compatiliblist position. However, I have always felt that compatibilism, or weak determinism, is a "cop out". Most every compatibilist argument I have studied confuses "is" with "ought". For example, Daniel Dennett attempts to show that humans only give moral responsibility to those who have a mental ability to deny impulses or those who have "meta desires". For example, a man who denies the impulse to cheat on his wife because he desires the safety and security of his wife's love to the momentary please would be demonstrating free will. Dennett argues that humans only imply this "freedom" as a requirement for moral responsibility and therefore that this *should* be the only requirement.

However, the argument has slipped into the "human" domain again and human prejudices have returned. Instead of humans, whose robotic nature is misleadingly complex and organic, imagine instead metal androids. Now imagine the android husband choosing not to commit adultery on his android wife. Is it not obvious that there is no sense of moral responsibility here, no matter what the android does, because he is just a robot determined by his program and environment?

The compatibilist argument seems to have forgotten the strong determinist argument, which must always "have the last word":

1. We only hold a person morally responsible if he or she could possibly have done otherwise
2. Robots have only one possible response to any given situation

Now that I have criticized the compatibilist position, let me say that I would not do away with all punishment and law. In a determined world, there remains a real need for deterrents. The distinction is one between prevention and "blame" or bad and "evil". In the same way, humans dam a river to prevent the river from spilling onto the village. But no one *blames* the river. There is no moral responsibility, as the compatibilist would assert, but there is the need for law and deterrents. The people are just as amoral as the river.

Indeed, I suspect that the reason ideas of moral responsibility, free will, "evil" and "blame" were invented is because these concepts are very successful deterrents. A "evil", "demonized" person is much less likely to commit another murder that a person who is a subject of fate and had no other choice. So the "free will" meme has infected the human race because the idea is advantageous to society. Compatibilists are people who are intelligent enough to recognize our determined nature but unwilling to give up the deterrent of "moral responsibility".

Does anyone agree with this strong determinist position?

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kip ]</p>

sweep

speak for yourself- pretty polly!

Keith Russell

Greetings:

These questions are asked as if the askers have no knowledge of human consciousness(es).

Have you ever looked inside your own mind, to examine the reasons behind your own actions?

Does anyone here truly (honestly) believe that we have no control over the things we do? Has everyone examined the contents of their own minds, and honestly concluded that they truly could not have chosen otherwise?

(Or is the evidence provided by introspection somehow exempted from the discussion of these things?)

Keith.

sweep

greetings keith- i was thinking today about what a real *buzz* (reward) i would have got if i had pushed three impudent boys in the canal. They were spitting on ducks. I think they 'know' the difference between right and wrong- they just don't care.

They spit at ducks, i push people in the canal.

c'mon i dare all of you- will yourself to do something out of the ordinary- throw peas at someones head, streak down a highway, smash your computer- do you know what that feels like?

NialScorva

Could you somehow relate this back to the original topic a bit more directly, please? Let's try to stay on topic.

sweep

do i have to spell it out for you- i'm trying to be creative here

WJ

Kip!

Perhaps you have slightly overlooked the obvious. "How Can We Be Morally Responsible In A Deterministic World?"

In a word, conscience.

snatchbalance

I think that the only real mistake that most determinists make is to view actions in terms of cause-effect.

I think thigs are more like causeeffecteffecteffectcausecauseeffect, etc.

In other words, there are events that lead to other events; but cause/effect are not really seperable.

sb

sweep

more like 'conned by science' WJ

*ahem* science builds the maze- and we all run down the same old alleys-myself included

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: sweet as a nut ]</p>

Liquidrage

Morals and determinism have nothing to do with each other.
People need to stop thinking they do.

I believe in strict determinism. Does this mean people shouldn't go to jail? No.

I write computer code all day. When my code doesn't do what I want it to, do I leave it there because it didn't have a choice to do otherwise? No.

There's no reason to flip out and do a,
"OMG, the world is deterministic. Lets all kill each other because we cannot do otherwise."