Trekkie With a Phaser

I'm not sure if these questions have been asked before but if they have I apologize for being redundant.

My first question is to confirm that the definition of determinism that I use is accurate. As I understand it, determinism is the idea that everything has a causal relationship and, therefore, there isn't actually free will. Everything we do is because of other influences that cause us to make those choices. Ultimately we only have the illusion of free will. Is this accurate?

Assuming that is accurate, my next question is how can anyone be held responsible for their actions? For instance, it is generally accepted that Hitler was a horrible man because of what he did to the Jews and because of the war. If we assume that we don't have free will, isn't it wrong to consider Hitler to have been an evil man? He didn't actually make a choice to carry out those atrocities. He couldn't make a choice because he had no free will. Is this also accurate or am I completely wrong?

Any answers and/or corrections would be appreciated.

DRFseven

This is accurate for phychological determinism.

Hitler made the choices he was bound to make, given his mind-state at any given time. Most of us are bound to hate that choice. People like Hitler are bound to be destroyed and that tendency toward annihilation of that which seems evil, acts as another causation against Hitler-type behavior.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>

Kip

<strong>As I understand it, determinism is the idea that everything has a causal relationship and, therefore, there isn't actually free will. Everything we do is because of other influences that cause us to make those choices. Ultimately we only have the illusion of free will. Is this accurate?</strong>

You are half-right. Determinism is the idea that everything has a cause. There are determinists, however, who also claim we have free will (of course this depends upon how you define free will). These are compatibilists. Compatibilism is suprisingly popular among academics. I agree with you, however, that compatibilism is false.

<strong>Assuming that is accurate, my next question is how can anyone be held responsible for their actions? For instance, it is generally accepted that Hitler was a horrible man because of what he did to the Jews and because of the war. If we assume that we don't have free will, isn't it wrong to consider Hitler to have been an evil man? He didn't actually make a choice to carry out those atrocities. He couldn't make a choice because he had no free will. Is this also accurate or am I completely wrong?</strong>

The answer to your question is simply that Hitler, according to determinism, would not be accountable for his actions. Hitler simply acted and to say "Hitler could have not killed Jews" requires the premise "if Hitler had been naturally kinder or conditioned to be more compassionate, he could have not killed the Jews". But of course, that premise is denied and therefore Hitler could not have done otherwise and is consequently not accountable for his actions.

Spinoza, Einstein, Clarence Darrow, and Laplace were determinists and many or most philosophers, such as Augustine, have felt the need to argue against incompatibilism. If you truly accept these claims, as I do, you must recognize that we are entirely passive observers of an amoral existence.

Laurentius

AVE

The answer to your question is simply that Hitler, according to determinism, would not be accountable for his actions. Hitler simply acted and to say "Hitler could have not killed Jews" requires the premise "if Hitler had been naturally kinder or conditioned to be more compassionate, he could have not killed the Jews". But of course, that premise is denied and therefore Hitler could not have done otherwise and is consequently not accountable for his actions.


Hitler is a petrified concept only for us, now that he's dead. At the time, Hitler's personality was a living process, a progress to which Hitler the person could have given a different shape. For the fact that he didn't Hitler must be held responsible (and his genuine free will), alongside with other factors such as his genetic baggage, the environment he grew up in, the European political context, and so on. That's what compatibilism is basically about.

AVE

snatchbalance

Trekkie,

I guess, everthing can be traced back to a cause(from a god's eye view). I think the problem comes into play when one consideres that humans have the ability to wiegh different courses of action. Hence, the talk of free will.

The paradox is that given a certain background, one is incapable of reaching any other conclusion than one finaly come to. For example, I guess Hitler had the human capacity to wiegh his alternatives, but given the totality of his experience and situation, could he have actually come to different conclusions? Appreantly not.

SB

tronvillain

Depends on what you mean by "free will." If you think about it, exactly how your will lacking causal explanation is supposed to make it "free" is not clear. Such "free will" is not anything anyone really wants, and as such it is the illusion.

Now, how can someone be held responsible for their actions? They can be held responsible for their actions because they are the human link in the causal chain. We condemn Hitler as an "evil" man because he chose to have acts we consider "evil" carried out, not despite the fact that his choice has a causal explanation, but because of the fact that his choice has a causal explanation. If there was no explanation for his choice, how could he be held responsible? It would just be bad luck - something that could have happened to anyone.

Kip:
Ah, but when we humans access accountability we only care about "could have done otherwise" externally, not internally. If Hitler could have done otherwise if Hitler had been naturally kinder or more compassionate then we hold him accountable.

Trekkie With a Phaser

Thanks for your responses, everyone.

Isn't it a wrong to hate him or anyone else for the atrocities they commit? If determinism is correct, hating Hitler for carrying out the holocaust would be like hating your computer because you downloaded a virus. It's not the computer's fault, it's the environment it was exposed to. Similarly, I can't understand why anyone could get angry at Hitler when it was actually his environment that's at fault.

From what Kip posted, it seems that this is an accurate observation. If determinism holds true, the concept of morality is useless.

I'd never really given any of the claims that the fundies have made any thought, but this one is starting to make me wonder. They constantly make the claim that it's impossible to be moral without a god and, while I don't agree with that in the slightest, if determinism is right it's impossible to be moral at all.

Trekkie With a Phaser

So, compatiblilism is the idea that we have free will within the bounds of our personal reality? For instance, to continue the Hitler analogy, he had the choice to either lead Germany out of the depression and be a peaceful nation or to make it into the war machine that he did (obviously he would have more choices available to him than that, but it can be simplified this way). He was constrained by the reality of the situation, but he could make choices within those constraints. Is that accurate?

Trekkie With a Phaser

That's another question I have. Is it possible that anyone would have come to a different conclusion than the one that they actually made? Is everything already decided ahead of time or does weighing a decision actually have an effect on the outcome? If thinking about the possible outcomes is one of the causes that shapes the ultimate decision, then what was the cause that made you think about the outcomes in the first place? (So...confusing... )

I suppose there's no definite answers to any of these questions. Even the question of determinism or compatibalism is impossible to answer with any level of certainty. *sigh*

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Trekkie With a Phaser ]</p>

Kip

<strong>Depends on what you mean by "free will." If you think about it, exactly how your will lacking causal explanation is supposed to make it "free" is not clear. Such "free will" is not anything anyone really wants, and as such it is the illusion.</strong>

I am not sure the concept of free will (choice radically free of contraint) is undesirable, so much as simply incoherent and impossible. If there are no rules to dictate how a person acts, how does one act? Giving our ignorance of the rules involved the label "free will" does not answer the question and neither does redefining free will.

<strong>Now, how can someone be held responsible for their actions? They can be held responsible for their actions because they are the human link in the causal chain. We condemn Hitler as an "evil" man because he chose to have acts we consider "evil" carried out, not despite the fact that his choice has a causal explanation, but because of the fact that his choice has a causal explanation. If there was no explanation for his choice, how could he be held responsible? It would just be bad luck - something that could have happened to anyone.</strong>

By asking "how" a person can be held accountable you are implying that Hitler must be held accountable. But that is to beg the question. Nor does appealing to the fact that "we condemn Hitler" help you. What we do and what we should do are not equivalent. That we do not behave towards criminals as we do towards malfunctioning computers is no argument that we should.

<strong>Ah, but when we humans access accountability we only care about "could have done otherwise" externally, not internally. If Hitler could have done otherwise if Hitler had been naturally kinder or more compassionate then we hold him accountable.</strong>

Who cares what "we humans" do? We are only interested in what humans should do. We humans also believed that world was flat and that African Americans should be slaves. Any moral argument from human behavior is necessarily flawed.