Oh my god, this meme. Its like a fine wine, Ive gotta appreciate it a little more.
This is one of those memes that I hope will have a longer lifespan than usual
@Swolekage, I feel like the lifespan of memes has less to do with the majority that enjoy them and more to do with the loud minority that scream every time they see it that it is old and how much they hate it and it goes away to quiet them just a little
@FreeKing , Yep. And those people do not no de way.
After studying free will, I can concur that there is no coherent version of it that allows for moral responsibility
@Monad Vairocana, where have you been studying free will? On its own it doesn't require moral responsibility, but being that we are not isolated and must interact within society, even worldviews that I disagree with assert that moral responsibility is necessary. Unless you have decided to live completely autonomously with no regard for anyone but yourself. In which case you would likely be a sociopath.
@smittyspitoon, moral responsibility doesn't mean you don't hold people accountable. You can still have a legal system and rehabilitation and the sort. It's just wrong to blame that person for being a bad person, because ultimately they are not individually responsible for their actions. In this view the legal system and rehabilitation is utilitarian in nature, not penal.
@Monad Vairocana, Why is a person is ultimately not individually responsible for their actions? I'm not saying that a person's actions necessarily makes them a bad person, but you can only have rehabilitation if the person is actually responsible. Otherwise there is no reason for penalization or rehabilitation. If they aren't responsible, why hold them accountable instead of the exterior forces which actually are, e.g. society, parenting, peers and the like?
@smittyspitoon, Free will is defined as the ability to do otherwise, and it seems wrong to hold someone accountable for acting in a way when they could not have done otherwise. If the world behaves in a completely orderly way, determinism, things happen necessarily because of this order and only one possible future can ever come about. If this is true, you nor I cannot do otherwise. Alternatively, if some things behave randomly and indeterminism is true this is still not good for free will as what is allowing us to do otherwise is ultimately attributable to luck. If there is causality, then everything I was when I came into being was not up to me, nor my environment, and yet that sets a chain reaction that is everything I will ever become. Ultimately a series of forces I had no influence on that began long before me decided what I am now. Also I don't see how this is problematic for rehabilitation; we rehabilitate trauma victims, and yet we do not blame them for their trauma.
@Monad Vairocana, Free will is not defined as the ability to do otherwise. Free will is the ability to act according to one's discretion. As Stephen Hawking put it, "I think we are determined, but since we don't know what is determined, We may as well not be." You can't say that only one future can be possible because any number of options are available to anyone at any time. Only one future does come about, because of physics (we can't live two lives simultaneously), but that sides not mean it's determined and no other choice is available. To say that everything you were when you came into being was not up to you is fair, but to then say that everything you now are is a predestined path from which you can not deviate is simply and utterly false. living this way essentially passes the buck to everyone around you and makes you innocent of every action you commit. It is an irresponsible and ultimately catastrophic worldview.
@smittyspitoon, yes but ultimately all decisions I make are decided before I make them. You make choices, but those choices you make are inevitable for you to make. And were I born differently or in a different environment I might have acted in more morally acceptable ways. This does not mean you cannot change for the better, or should be complacent, or shouldn't make a better world. And yes, free will is defined that way by philosophers who have tackled the question for millennia. There is also the revisionist definition of free will, which is what you are discussing, but is not compatible with moral responsibility for the reasons I have just discussed. The reality is that everything that is and will be has responsibility that traces back to the first cause. And yes, you are innocent, but that does not entail that you won't become a better person, whatever that might mean. You misrepresent my view in the way religious people misrepresent atheists as immoral.
@Monad Vairocana, I don't think I'm misrepresenting your view at all. You're saying that all actions are decided before you choose them and there is no way to deviate from that determination, that ultimately there is no real responsibility, and this is all determined by environment and culture. But if you change for the better, become a better person, are you not deviating from your supposed determination, thereby acting outside the environment and culture foisted upon you from your beginning? Your argument seems incoherent when you say that free will is not compatible with moral responsibility, but that everything has a responsibility that traces back to the first cause. My view simply put, is that if you have a will of your own, then you have responsibility. If, as you say, there is no free will and every action you take is only a predetermined reflex, then responsibility passes to those who came before you and any choice you make is inconsequential, regardless of moral standing.
@smittyspitoon, Sort of, yes. Ultimately the question is do you think that things behave in regular ways, and if so it is inevitable that you will make certain decisions when confronted with certain situations, and ultimately who are you now that makes that decisions is as such in virtue of who you were before and that environment, which eventually traces back to not you. This does not make everything reflexive or automatic, believe it or not things can still be well thought out even if that process follows an inevitable course. Your alternative is to say that things do not behave in regular ways, at least sometimes, but adding randomness hardly seems to improve things. Certainly when you make a choice, you make that choice because of who you are at that moment, and who you are at that moment has ultimate responsibility elsewhere if you continue to trace it back.
@smittyspitoon, the implication of the theory is that no one is objectively worthy of praise or blame. But praise or blame could hypothetically still be used as a means to create a better world, just as rehabilitation or other such means can. But know in your heart that people are who they are and could not be otherwise at that moment, do not hate them or idolize them. Just do what you can for the greater good, which the world will inevitably reach, one way or the other, and certainly with many ups and downs.
@Monad Vairocana, I appreciate your sentiment, I really do. But no matter how you swing it, the practical application of what you're saying is this: when you claim that every decision made is but an unavoidable byproduct of everyone and everything that came before, you are stripping people of their responsibility, even if you say you aren't. When you take responsibility away from people, and tell them essentially that nothing is their fault, then whatever choices they make, good or bad, become null. You are also stripping meaning from life, and with it any incentive to change behavior for the better (or worse) except for pragmatic urges moment to moment. I think if you play that scenario out you'll find it becomes unlivable, especially within societies as complex as we have.
@smittyspitoon, I never said I wasn't stripping responsibility, and i'm also just reporting what appears to be the natural result of determinism. And i'm not certain meaning is derived from ultimate moral responsibility, in fact I find all things meaningful including the small portion of existence I account for, even with all of my folly.
@Monad Vairocana, Fair enough. I would modify your statement just a bit, and say that I don't think ultimate meaning comes from moral responsibility. And I would say that I too find significant meaning in all things, regardless of any relation to morality. In that, I believe, We agree. As for your folly, I've yet to find anyone without it. I think if I were to find a man who claimed as such I wouldn't trust him, nor devote much time to discourse on any topic. You've made my day by challenging my intellect and perception, and I appreciate your willingness to chat with civility. I relish good conversation, and appreciate your time and candor.
@smittyspitoon, I do love a good philosophical talk. It's been a pleasure.
We have free will because we are God, that’s a spiritualist belief anyway.
Why does god look like an iron