compatibilism

[phyllo]

But for a discussion of compatiblism and responsibility it's a poor choice, because it can easily distract from the 'are we responsible for our acts in a determinist universe' precisely because it is a moral issue with such strong divisions. It begs for tangents.

I'm not distracted. Are you distracted?

Consider "moral responsibility" in any context.

He won't discuss what it means. He won't discuss any alternate ideas about moral responsibility.

He has one idea about it and that's it.

Click.

It never ceases to amaze me just how preposterous he can be here. Over and again, I discuss moral responsibility given what "I" construe "here and now" a determined and a free will world to be. I'm mostly curious to explore the thinking of those who reconcile their own understanding of determinism with moral responsibility given the manner in which they understand compatibilism in turn.

Re Mary, her friend and Jane...or a different context of their own choosing.

If only -- of necessity? -- in taking that leap of faith to human autonomy.

But what else is there here given all that we do not know about the evolution of biological life here on Earth? What or who is behind it? And [perhaps] most crucially of all, is there a teleological component embedded in the "human condition"?

Or are we all just "somehow" embedded in the "brute facticity" of an essentially meaningless and purposeless universe?

So what is "moral responsibility" in down to earth terms?

[Advocate]

[quote=phyllo post_id=631448 time=1679673002 user_id=9495]
So what is "moral responsibility" in down to earth terms?
[/quote]

We may only have moral responsibility to the extent we understand causality, and we may only accept responsibility to the extent we consent without ignorance or duress.

[iambiguous]

Freedom: An Impossible Reality by Raymond Tallis
This issue we consider ultimate human realities as Raymond Tallis has the intention of proving free will.
Book Review
Jonathan Head

In the subtitle of his highly intriguing new book, Prof. Raymond Tallis calls free will ‘an impossible reality’. Though presumably somewhat tongue-in-cheek, this phrase is appropriate in capturing something of what has fascinated philosophers about free will over the centuries: it seems it cannot be, and yet nevertheless it must be.

Exactly.

Or, rather, if it actually is.

But isn't that how many of us react to it? Deep down inside, intuitively, viscerally we "just know" that we have free will. There is no way I can really believe that I am not choosing these words to type here and now. That, instead, it's all just my brain doing its thing such that there was never a possibility I could have opted to choose different words. Or chose to do something other than to read and react to the author's words above. I'm convinced that "as I decide" I can stop typing here and go fix myself a sandwich or drive to the grocery store or watch a movie. Or plan something for a tomorrow that is still hours and hours away. How can the laws of matter possibly come to grasp a thing like "the future"?

On the other hand...

Given that all events in the natural world seem to follow the unbreakable patterns which we call ‘laws of nature’, it might appear that our actions could not be free, at least in the significant sense of having genuine alternative options for action available to us. If all natural events follow natural laws without exception, our actions could never have been otherwise, and thus cannot be freely chosen.

Now, of course, there is how we struggle to reconcile this with autonomy "philosophically" and how those in the scientific community actually attempt to explore the human brain experientially/experimentally in the act of actually choosing/"choosing" itself. Here we tell each other what the words we use in our arguments mean and then combine them into "theoretical" deductions regarding what we think is true. There, however, it's approached more, well, scientifically.

But, either way, nothing has been pinned down yet. From neither community has there actually come the definitive conclusion. Or, rather, not that I am aware of.

Then back to this...

Such a conclusion, though, is antithetical to our cherished self-image as beings with genuine agency, and thus it seems to many to be unacceptable. If philosophy declares human beings to be unfree, then so much the worse for philosophy.

Yes, we cherish our autonomy, our genuine agency. Determinism is clearly deemed unacceptable. Particularly by those who are sustaining a successful and rewarding life filled with great accomplishments. No one is more responsible for that outcome than they themselves.

As though this too cannot be a wholly determined outcome. Simply because we don't want it to be doesn't make it an autonomous frame of mind. Not if we can't want what we want.

[iambiguous]

I'm mostly curious to explore the thinking of those who reconcile their own understanding of determinism with moral responsibility given the manner in which they understand compatibilism in turn.

In my experience, you are very much not curious. Every time people try to talk to you about it, you change the subject, put up barriers, and shit all over the conversation.

You should read a bit about active listening.

Note to nature:

Look, I need to know for sure. Is he off the hook here or not?

[Flannel Jesus]

All these notes to nature, has nature ever read them? Does she leave notes for you too? Does she reply "note to biggy: not only is he off the hook, he's getting extra credit!"

[iambiguous]

Tell me if I'm interpreting all those words correctly: yes, I, iambiguous, agree that talking about the Christian beliefs of other users of this forum is contextually irrelevant here.

Click.

That's not the point [mine].

This thread revolves around the extent to which in a determined universe as you understand it, I can or cannot be held responsible for talking about the beliefs of anyone regarding anything. Given any context.

Also, in a determined universe as I understand it [maybe correctly, maybe not] I am compelled by my brain to tell you what I must regarding what your own brain compels you to interpret.

[iambiguous]

Part of why you don't get anywhere, biggy, is because you want to talk about too many things at once. You say you're curious about compatibilism and would like to understand it, but you don't seem to want to go through the step-by-step focused process of seeing the thought process, seeing where it starts, seeing each individual part of it and how that ends in compatibilism.

Click.

We've been here before. I asked you to take your own "step-by-step focused process of seeing the thought process, seeing where it starts, seeing each individual part of it and how that ends in compatibilism" to Mary.

To explain to her how, given your own understanding of determinism and compatibilism -- philosophically? -- she either is or is not morally responsible for killing Jane.

Instead, it's just more "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" back up onto the "ethical theory" skyhooks from you. From my frame of mind. Keeping the discussion up in the intellectual clouds...compatibilism and moral responsibility in a "world of words".

That's what talking to you is like. You're curious, allegedly, about compatibilism, but instead of engaging with a step by step process to understanding the thinking patterns, you interrupt with a barrage of questions like this little kid. "What about abortion? What about Mary? What about Jane? What about Benjamin button?. What about how human life gained autonomy?"

Okay, how about this...

With iwannaplato or someone else here more in sync with your own "serious philosophy" approach, you sustain this step by step "thought process" that is needed before taking it to Mary. Just so in the end the conclusions do actually pertain to human interactions pertaining to moral responsibility

Let's witness two minds here "focusing" as they must on the technical issues before anything relating to actual human interactions [in conflict] becomes applicable.

The "learning addition before becoming a rocket scientist" approach to moral responsibility.

Oh, and while you're at it, what is the step by step thought process philosophers must engage in in order to finally pin down what we don't understand about this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

[phyllo]

We've been here before. I asked you to take your own "step-by-step focused process of seeing the thought process, seeing where it starts, seeing each individual part of it and how that ends in compatibilism" to Mary.

To explain to her how, given your own understanding of determinism and compatibilism -- philosophically? -- she either is or is not morally responsible for killing Jane.

Does anyone here understand this game?

Mary is not here. We can't have a dialogue with her. So why would we be pretending to talk to her?

[iambiguous]

I'm not distracted. Are you distracted?

Consider "moral responsibility" in any context.

He won't discuss what it means. He won't discuss any alternate ideas about moral responsibility.

He has one idea about it and that's it.

Click.

It never ceases to amaze me just how preposterous he can be here. Over and again, I discuss moral responsibility given what "I" construe "here and now" a determined and a free will world to be. I'm mostly curious to explore the thinking of those who reconcile their own understanding of determinism with moral responsibility given the manner in which they understand compatibilism in turn.

Re Mary, her friend and Jane...or a different context of their own choosing.

If only -- of necessity? -- in taking that leap of faith to human autonomy.

But what else is there here given all that we do not know about the evolution of biological life here on Earth? What or who is behind it? And [perhaps] most crucially of all, is there a teleological component embedded in the "human condition"?

Or are we all just "somehow" embedded in the "brute facticity" of an essentially meaningless and purposeless universe?

So what is "moral responsibility" in down to earth terms?

First, in my view, even though neither you nor I are able to pin down definitively whether I am typing these words and you are reading them of our own volition, all I can do here [compelled by my brain or not] is to type "Click" and assume that we do have some measure of free will.

And, if we do have free will, moral responsibility revolves around the fact that in any human community [historically and culturally] there will be a need for "rules of behaviors". You can do this, you can't do that. Then rewards and punishments to enforce the rules/laws. Then one or another combination of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

I then suggest that, given free will in a No God world, moral and political value judgments revolve largely around dasein. Rooted historically and culturally in our indoctrination as children and in the experiences we have as adults out in a particular worlds understood in a particular way. And, in turn, in world awash in contingency, chance and change. The Bejamin Button Syndrome.

[phyllo]

And, if we do have free will, moral responsibility revolves around the fact that in any human community [historically and culturally] there will be a need for "rules of behaviors". You can do this, you can't do that. Then rewards and punishments to enforce the rules/laws. Then one or another combination of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

"Rules of behaviors", "rewards and punishments" ...

There is no reason why those would not exist in a deterministic world.

So there is moral responsibility for determinism, compatibilism and free-will.

Case closed.

[iambiguous]

All these notes to nature, has nature ever read them?

How the hell would I know? Like you, I take a particular existential leap to a frame of mind regarding these things that makes the most sense to me "here and now". Knowing that new experiences, new relationships, new information and knowledge, etc., may well result in my thinking something else instead. Over and over and over again, I have changed my thinking about all sorts of things. I just surmise that in regard to both value judgments and the Big Questions, it's all embedded largely in dasein. We think what we do because our individual lives predisposed us to one set of prejudices rather than another.

Here we need God for the objective answers.

Beyond that is "the gap" and "Rummy's Rules". Going back to how the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself.

Which is why, give or take particular moods, I almost never allow myself to become another's Stooge here.

Try that yourself.

[Flannel Jesus]

Click.

We've been here before. I asked you to take your own "step-by-step focused process of seeing the thought process, seeing where it starts, seeing each individual part of it and how that ends in compatibilism" to Mary.

To explain to her how, given your own understanding of determinism and compatibilism -- philosophically? -- she either is or is not morally responsible for killing Jane.

Yes, that's right, you asked me to take my thoughts to a person that isn't in this thread. You haven't given me her phone number or her email address. I'm not sure that that's a good example of you engaging in a conservation in good faith...

You can't follow a one step at a time conservation to make any progress in understanding ideas, but you can make meaningless impossible requests that serve no purpose other than to deflect. Not a good look. Unless you're a stooge of course, then it looks great.

[iambiguous]

We've been here before. I asked you to take your own "step-by-step focused process of seeing the thought process, seeing where it starts, seeing each individual part of it and how that ends in compatibilism" to Mary.

To explain to her how, given your own understanding of determinism and compatibilism -- philosophically? -- she either is or is not morally responsible for killing Jane.

Does anyone here understand this game?

Mary is not here. We can't have a dialogue with her. So why would we be pretending to talk to her?

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Like there are not hundreds upon hundreds of actual flesh and blood women around the globe confronting an unwanted pregnancy at any given time.

I bring Mary up because she was an actual factor in my own life pertaining to abortion and moral responsibility. Only back then I was firmly committed to free will.

And, along with William Barrett, Mary and John were instrumental in yanking objective morality out from under me...all of my own objectivist assumptions. God and then No God.


Again, what the hell happened to you? Back in the day when you and I and moreno and D63 and Mo and faust and Only_Humean and others explored these things when ILP still revolved around philosophy, I don't recall these pint-sized posts from you.

[Flannel Jesus]

We've been here before. I asked you to take your own "step-by-step focused process of seeing the thought process, seeing where it starts, seeing each individual part of it and how that ends in compatibilism" to Mary.

To explain to her how, given your own understanding of determinism and compatibilism -- philosophically? -- she either is or is not morally responsible for killing Jane.

Does anyone here understand this game?

Mary is not here. We can't have a dialogue with her. So why would we be pretending to talk to her?

Apparently by pointing out that we literally cannot talk to her, that amounts to "wiggling" somehow.

Somehow he's convinced himself it's not HIM wiggling by asking people to "tell that to" a person they literally cannot speak with. No, it's not him wiggling, it's everyone else.

Bizarre

[phyllo]

We've been here before. I asked you to take your own "step-by-step focused process of seeing the thought process, seeing where it starts, seeing each individual part of it and how that ends in compatibilism" to Mary.

To explain to her how, given your own understanding of determinism and compatibilism -- philosophically? -- she either is or is not morally responsible for killing Jane.

Does anyone here understand this game?

Mary is not here. We can't have a dialogue with her. So why would we be pretending to talk to her?

Apparently by pointing out that we literally cannot talk to her, that amounts to "wiggling" somehow.

Somehow he's convinced himself it's not HIM wiggling by asking people to "tell that to" a person they literally cannot speak with. No, it's not him wiggling, it's everyone else.

Bizarre

It's some sort of rhetorical device but with what aim?

To pull on our heartstrings ? ... poor Mary, poor Jane

To remind us to speak plainly and without abstract philosophical ideas? I been trying.

Don't know.