-1- wrote: ↑May 30th, 2018, 7:46 am
Chewybrian, you are too much in haste and don't follow through the logic.
Please bear with me. Please put your anger aside for a second, or come back to this when you are less upset. Because this makes sense what I say, but it won't if you don't slow down.
I must assume from your response that you mistake my honest assessment for hyperbole. I'm not impatient or angry. I have not failed to consider the issue fairly. I only disagree with the presumption and, more importantly, the conclusions that naturally follow. I see it as a very dangerous position. I won't go quietly to a world where Darwin tells us all we need to know, and there is nothing to learn from Orwell.
-1- wrote: ↑May 30th, 2018, 7:46 amDeterminism is the cause of no free will.
The determinating factors will make a person behave the way s/he behaves.
One of the determinating factors is the knowledge that if someone commits a crime, for instance, a murder, then likely the murderer will be punished and punished brutally.
Therefore the person will stay away from murder.
----------------------
This above mechanism can't be divorced from placing the blame on the murderer.
So a lot of people will NOT commit murder, for fear of punishment; and a lot of people are PUNISHED because they committed murder. It is true that that was their only choice at the time; but they still get punished, and that action alone, the act of punishment, will make a lot OTHER people's only choice to be not to commit murder.
Therefore the one choice that many will follow is not to commit murder.
This is not a difficult argument to follow. Every action in the past accumulates to result in one and only one option in the present. Socrates, Joan of Arc, Frank Zappa and Martha Stewart all had no choice but to become exactly who they were. None ever acted on their own impulse, but only on the weight of their DNA, and the accumulated experiences of their lives. Noble or ethical action is not and never was possible. People can only see better or worse and always take better, as seen through their expectations based on experience. So, any system of ethics is a waste of time, and only deterrence (or rewards) can affect outcomes.
I don't see that position as proven. One independent act in course of human history knocks it down, and there are certainly acts that seem to point to independence, even though many people operate on auto-pilot much of the time. It seems neither side can point to hard proof.
My informal survey at work yesterday found 10 of 10 regular folks who think they have free will. But here it seems opinion tilts the other way. And, my gut tells me that views expressed here reflect informed opinion, and therefore future opinion in the wider world. So, my fear is that this view will gain traction, and ethics will lose.
Now, you can't tell me my position is any more difficult to fathom than yours. I believe in free will, which implies ethics are critical. I believe in it because I experience it every waking moment, and I accept it despite the terrific burden it imposes. I want freedom for myself and others, and I want to try to make the right choices and to encourage others to do the same. Success in my world is not a perfect prison system, but a lack of a need for prisons (not because penalties are high enough to discourage evil, but because people want to be good). I don't see perfection on the horizon, though. It's a war which must be fought by the inch. But I think people can stay away from murder because they don't want to be murderers, no matter the perceived reward or punishment.
You can form an idea in your mind of the person you wish to become, and take positive action to work toward your goal. You can alter your own personality through hard work, and to a lesser extent you can impact your environment and others through your efforts, as circumstances allow. This is my not so radical stance, and it is shared by most people, and has been the prevailing view for a long time, so it can hardly be difficult to see, even if you disagree.
-1- wrote: ↑May 30th, 2018, 7:46 amOkay, okay, okay.
While the murderer is not liable for his only choice, the system only works if he is treated as if the murderer was fully liable.
This is the inevitable footnote to all these discussions. "Of course, as a practical matter, we must pretend that we have free will." To me, it shows a need to reconsider the position and the conclusions. I have no need to pretend I am a giraffe while arguing that I am not a giraffe.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."