Jamie_L

In freewill arguements, sometimes quips get thrown out about how it would be bad "if your spouse was programmed to love you" or something similar. The general implication: it is better for people to do good things freely than to be programmed to do them.

Often, no one wants to challenge this notion, so the arguement turns to challenging the notion that programming is required.

But is it really bad to be programmed to do something good?

Would anyone be outraged if they found out tomorrow that they were programmed by means of a chip in their heads to be incapable of raping children?

If you found out that you were likewise programmed to love your wife/lover/children/etc., would you want to have that programming removed? Suppose if they told you there was good evidence that if the programming was removed, you would immediately stop loving them? Would hate them? Would you insist on having the programming removed?

I'm not really talking about programming that forces you to do something you don't like. I'm talking about programming that is transparent to you, because it defines what you like. If you are happy liking those things, would it really be bad?

We're all just complex, organic robots, aren't we? If a lack of free will makes us "robots", would that really be bad?

Jamie

Keith Russell

Jamie:

The assumption is that if I have to be programmed, or 'forced' to do something good, that I am incapable of doing 'good' of my own volition.

That concept is rather abhorrent, at least to me.

(It also violates the legal principle of the presumption of innocence.)

Keith.

Jamie_L

If you think about it in terms of having an established personality, to which programming is added, that certainly would be disturbing. Like an external alteration of your existing personality.

However, if the programming were established prior to the development of your personality, does that make it different? If the person you have always been was the result of programming, and you liked who you were, would you be displeased about the programming.

I'm generalizing an arguement that specifically comes out of the free will defense against the arguement from evil. The idea being if a creator God made people incapable of doing evil, would that be bad? The usual arguement is "we'd all be robots!" But if we were, in that sense, programmed to be good. Would it really be bad?

Jamie

bd-from-kg

Keith Russell:

You say:

I think you’re misinterpreting Jamie’s basic idea. (Jamie, correct me if I’m wrong.) “Programming” is perhaps an unfortunate name for it, since it suggests something like brainwashing - that is, a compulsion “superimposed” on a personality to which it is basically foreign; that is contrary to the agent’s “natural” inclinations.

But suppose that the brain architecture were designed from the start in such a way that certain kinds of acts were simply unthinkable – for example, that no one had the slightest inclination, at any level, to rape young children. There would be nothing in the moral code “forbidding” the raping of children, because it would never occur to anyone to do such a thing in the first place. It would be like eating rotten eggs when you’re already stuffed. No one has to be told not to do this; there are no punishments for it; it’s simply that no one does it.

Now obviously our brains must be “designed” in such a way that we are inclined to act more or less morally (that is, tolerably enough to allow some degree of social stability). And in fact, for most of us some kinds of acts are pretty much unthinkable, not only in the sense that we think they’re immoral, but in the sense that we have no desire to do them and in fact are naturally repulsed by the thought. Few Christians would argue that in designing us this way God deprived us of “free will” in any meaningful sense. The question is, why didn’t He design us in such a way that a much larger class of actions is similarly unthinkable for the vast majority of us? And for that matter, why did He allow some exceptions to the general rules that He did “design in”, like the general abhorrence of raping young children?

Suppose, in fact, that we were all so “designed” that we always tried to avoid hurting other people (physically, psychologically, economically, or any other way) unnecessarily. How would this deprive us of “free will”? There would still be a vast variety of choices available to us within these parameters; isn’t this enough for free will? For that matter, suppose that we all had an irresistible inclination to “serve God”; we would still be completely free to decide how to serve Him. How is this different (free-will-wise) from being designed with an irresistible inclination to serve ourselves? Either way, we do what we do because of our inborn predispositions and environmental influences.

P.S.: Jamie posted his latest while I was preparing this. Please excuse the overlap.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

Keith Russell

bd from kg said:
"Now obviously our brains must be “designed” in such a way that we are inclined to act more or less morally..."

I disagree. I think our brains evolved to be able to imagine almost any scenario (thus, nothing is really 'unthinkable') and recognize which are desirable. I don't think we are 'designed to act correctly', but that most of our brains 'evolved to think correctly'.

And, correct thinking--again, usually--leads to correct action.

Keith.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

bd-from-kg

Keith Russell:

You're crediting people with being far more rational than they really are. In the real world reason plays a rather small role in our decision-making. Our actions spring far more from our natural instincts and inclinations than from any kind of reasoned analysis of what's in our "enlightened best interests" (or for that matter, from our moral beliefs).

And our natural inclinations clearly include a desire to "get along", to conform to what's expected of us, to be sociable, to treat other people (or at least other members of our "social group") decently, etc. All of these things can perhaps be justified rationally as being ultimately in our self-interest, but that's not why most of us act in these ways.

And there are some things that we seem to be naturally inclined to do which are clearly[/i] not[/i] in our self-interest. For example, mothers will die to save their children without having to be "socially conditioned" to do it. Most people will try to save a drowning child without having to be promped. Most of us will share food with a starving stranger without thinking about what's in it for us. We'll even try to comfort a dying stranger knowing that there's nothing in it for us.

I'm not saying that people are "naturally" altruistic in general, just that we are naturally inclined to act in certain specific ways that would normally be considered altruistic. And we don't do so because such behavior is altruistic, but becaue it happens to be in accord with our natural inclinations.

bd-from-kg

Keith Russell:

On further reflection I see that you're missing the point in a more important way. You say:

Ok, let's suppose that our brains worked far more rationally than they really do, so that we really did tend to "think correctly" and "act correctly" more than we do now. But what does it mean to "act correctly"? After all, there's no transcendent standard of "correctness" to compare our actions to. Clearly, it can only mean that we act in a way best calculated to fulfill our desires. So when you say that are brains tend to "recognize what is desirable", all that you mean is that they tend to recognize what course of action is most likely to achieve our aims - i.e., to get what we desire.

The clear implication of this is that we would act quite differently if we had different desires. In particular, if we desired the good of others as much as we desire our own, this would have a dramatic impact on our behavior.

Thus, to the extent that our actions are determined by our natural instincts and predispositions, it would be dramatically different if we had different natural instincts and predispositions. And to the extent that it is determined by rational calculation, it would be dramatically different if we desired different things. Neither of these would have any impact on our "free will"; we would simply freely choose to act differently than we do now.

Beoran

We've all been "programmed" in this way. And most of us are quite happy about our "program". It's called "education", and it's essential. I am grateful to my parents for "programming" me so well.

As for human nature, the natuure of all life is to strive for life, the will to life. To empower and perpetuatte life, self-preservation of an individual organism is helpful. This is, the will to power, or self-interest. However, Sometimes it is better for perpetuation of life for an organism to act in a way that is dretrimental to itself, but beneficiary to other lifeforms (of it's own species). That is the will to share, or benevolence.

Both wills, benevolence and self-interest are the same in origin, rooted in the will to life, but become differentiated as the organisms and life evolve. In each species, there is a distinct balance between these two wills that is optimal for the species. The problem with humankind seems to be that we're unbalanced, and focused too much on the self-interest.

Oh, bd-from-kb, you should read Mencius once. He uses much the same arguments as you do, though I guess his conclusions are more optimistic than yours.

Keith Russell

bd-from-kg said, to me:
"You're crediting people with being far more rational than they really are."

BD: that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me in a long time.

(Keep in mind, I never expect more from others, than I expect from myself...)

Keith.

Definitely Maybe

Jamie, this is something I've questioned as well as far as an afterlife and human existence on Earth. If God didn't just put us in heaven in the first place programmed not to sin, then how would things in heaven be different AFTER living as a human on earth? I mean, if there really is a God and Christians go there, will they be "automatons" once in heaven? If so, then why an earthly life? If not, then can't someone screw up in heaven?

I don't get this.