compatibilism

[phyllo]

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.

"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.

Click!
Click!!
Click!!!

Determinism as I understand it here and now:

"Somehow" matter came into existence. "Somehow" it configured into biological matter on Earth. "Somehow" conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" self-conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" that evolved into us.

So, disregarding what we still don't -- can't? -- know about how or why this happened...

Mary aborts Jane because her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compels her to. Some hold her morally responsible and others do not. Why? Because their brains too, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compel them to.

Jane is no more.

Free will as I understand it here and now:

"Somehow" -- God or No God -- human brains acquired autonomy. Mary, re dasein, re an accumulation of her own personal experiences, gets pregnant and chooses to abort the unborn baby. Her friend, however, of her own volition, persuades Mary not to have the abortion.

Jane is still among us.

If, on the other hand, Mary [re dasein] had aborted Jane of her own volition, some, of their own volition [re dasein], would insist that she behaved immorally. Others, of their own volition [re dasein], would insist she had not behaved immorally.

Okay, Mr. Philosopher and Mr. Ethicist, deontologically, given a free will world, which is it?

Compatibilism as I understand it here and now:

Mary aborted Jane because her brain compelled her to. She was never able to opt not to abort her. But "somehow" she is still morally responsible for doing so.



Here, however, I always acknowledge that, given free will, I may not be understanding determinism, free will and compatibilism correctly. But noting in turn that going back to the birth of philosophy and science there does not appear to be an argument able to be demonstrated experientially/experimentally/existentially etc., establishing the One True Path to understanding it objectively.

And that for those who insist human autonomy is linked to a God, the God, their God, not a single solitary God has ever [to my knowledge] been shown to exist.


Now, how about you? In regard to Mary and Jane, or given your own context, how do you construe determinism, free will and compatibilism?

I asked you "what is moral responsibility".

You replied that "... 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."

I pointed out that rules or behavior, rewards and punishments exist within determinism, compatibilism and free will.

And you come back with this response that in no ways deals with what you just wrote and what I just wrote. It doesn't talk about rules of behavior, rewards and punishments at all.

Do you see that it doesn't deal with my point?

It's just a repeat of your position. It's Page 1 again.

[iambiguous]

"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.

Click!
Click!!
Click!!!

Determinism as I understand it here and now:

"Somehow" matter came into existence. "Somehow" it configured into biological matter on Earth. "Somehow" conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" self-conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" that evolved into us.

So, disregarding what we still don't -- can't? -- know about how or why this happened...

Mary aborts Jane because her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compels her to. Some hold her morally responsible and others do not. Why? Because their brains too, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compel them to.

Jane is no more.

Free will as I understand it here and now:

"Somehow" -- God or No God -- human brains acquired autonomy. Mary, re dasein, re an accumulation of her own personal experiences, gets pregnant and chooses to abort the unborn baby. Her friend, however, of her own volition, persuades Mary not to have the abortion.

Jane is still among us.

If, on the other hand, Mary [re dasein] had aborted Jane of her own volition, some, of their own volition [re dasein], would insist that she behaved immorally. Others, of their own volition [re dasein], would insist she had not behaved immorally.

Okay, Mr. Philosopher and Mr. Ethicist, deontologically, given a free will world, which is it?

Compatibilism as I understand it here and now:

Mary aborted Jane because her brain compelled her to. She was never able to opt not to abort her. But "somehow" she is still morally responsible for doing so.



Here, however, I always acknowledge that, given free will, I may not be understanding determinism, free will and compatibilism correctly. But noting in turn that going back to the birth of philosophy and science there does not appear to be an argument able to be demonstrated experientially/experimentally/existentially etc., establishing the One True Path to understanding it objectively.

And that for those who insist human autonomy is linked to a God, the God, their God, not a single solitary God has ever [to my knowledge] been shown to exist.


Now, how about you? In regard to Mary and Jane, or given your own context, how do you construe determinism, free will and compatibilism?

I asked you "what is moral responsibility".

You replied that "... 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."

I pointed out that rules or behavior, rewards and punishments exist within determinism, compatibilism and free will.

And you come back with this response that in no ways deals with what you just wrote and what I just wrote. It doesn't talk about rules of behavior, rewards and punishments at all.

Do you see that it doesn't deal with my point?

It's just a repeat of your position. It's Page 1 again.

Now, how about you? In regard to Mary and Jane, or given your own context, how do you construe determinism, free will and compatibilism?

As they pertain to moral responsibility.



Note to others:

Click.

You tell me how my post above does not pertain to his question, "what is moral responsibility?"

[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?

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

Okay, in regard to how you understand determinism, free will and compatibilism, what would tell phyllo if he asked you if he was responsible for posting what he does here?

[phyllo]

Now, how about you? In regard to Mary and Jane, or given your own context, how do you construe determinism, free will and compatibilism?

As they pertain to moral responsibility.



Note to others:

Click.

You tell me how my post above does not pertain to his question, "what is moral responsibility?"

Have you read what I have written, in this thread, about moral responsibility?

Have you read what Iwannaplato has written?

Have you read the Dennett quote that Iwannaplato posted?

I pretty much agree with Iwannaplato and Dennett.

[phyllo]

Okay, in regard to how you understand determinism, free will and compatibilism, what would tell phyllo if he asked you if he was responsible for posting what he does here?

I'm responsible for all my actions.

[iambiguous]

What are some of the consequences of 'being held morally responsible'? What are the attitudes towards those 'held morally responsible'?
Punishment - socially, by the state, by employers - can be loss of freedom, economic, social punishments
Avoidance - socially, I am thinking of mainly here, people avoid you, break up with you, shun you
Judgement - generally thinking social here: you are considered an X person, X being a negative adjective or you get put in a negative noun category.
Emotional reactions: Rage & and Fear (possibly grief and disgust depending on the act and how it is viewed - generally thinking social here

These categories overlap.

So, let's say determinism is the case. How does it/should it affect our responses?

Well, speaking personally, a murderer, especially one with a pattern of violence, I still want incarcerated, thus 'loss of freedom'.
If they murdered someone I care about, I might feel rage. Fear would likely still continue to be part of any interaction, should I have one with this person.
I would avoid them.
My judgment of the person might be mitigated in some way - as it already is in cases where I know the background of the person has been terrible, especially if they were victimized violently. I suppose I might increase the range of murderers where my judgment is mitigated. I might categorize them differently.

1 Because acts can tells us about future acts - I see nothing hypocritical in reacting in many of the ways we tend to react. Perhaps the idea 'responsibility' has a problem. But my behavior and my tendencies for requests from society would not change much.

2 Because negative or unpleasant responses can inhibit repetition of certain act (or protect me from them), again I see no reason for certainty about determinism to eliminate the main reactions we have to acts we hate.

3 Because our responses would be determined also and I am incarnate on earth, there's no reason for me to give someone a pass on their actions, while deciding the undermine my own.

4 Because I already tend to feel sympathy/empathy for people's past's affecting their behavior, it is not like finding out determinism is the case means I reevalutate my whole schema.

5 Because the person is the person who did that, it makes sense that I and others have these kinds of reactions. If I find out there is determinism I am not going to put beef jerky in my mouth and get on all fours and growl at pit bulls. I am still going to take steps to navigate the world, keep safe, and due to empathy want others to be safe, generally.

Yes, I can imagine some people finding out everything is determined, feelings like nothing matters, deciding not to judge anyone. But that's not my reaction. Even though it's determined I'll still take steps to feed myself, have shelter, connect to people, decide not to connect with others. Similarly I'll have reactions and measure taken in relation to other humans. Just as I will continue to avoid starvation, I will also avoid murderers and want those with the money and means to do it to make that easy.

There are many defniitions of responsible:

being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

The murderer, in determinism, could be viewed as NOT the primary cause. Nevertheless they are still that person. My reactions make sense in focusing on that person. I will also have reactions to sociological level patterns that make murder more likely. Determinism, if demonstrated to be the case, might make me even more focused on the sociological patterns. But I wouldn't just focus there, not would I go after the Big Bang. I can't affect the latter and focusing on the former doesn't solve the problem of a dangerous violent problem.

I would be stunned if other people didn't react to me murdering someone in these ways. Sure, there would be a wide range of prioritization, specific treatments, degrees of the various responses...but in general I would understand that from such a list most people are going to choose each one to some degree.

In a way, the way Iambiguous is framing the issue with Mary and Jane, it almost seems like the focus is on guilt. Should Mary feel guilty. Should we think she is a bad person.

I think the abortion issue is a terrible one for this discussion - in any case, it's a terrible one for me. But if we focus on murder: should the murderer feel guilty in a deterministic universe. Well, I would really hope the murderer regrets what they did. That guilt moves to regret and horror. These reactions make it less likely they will murder again. Should we think the murderer is a bad person? Is this still a meaningful judgment?

Regardless of whether we have free will or all is determined I already feel like people are not final-programmed things. They can change. They are also complicated. Not binarily good or bad. So, free will, not free will, I am not a fan of finally and simply categorizing people this way. That said, the feelings that get batched into that judgment are perfectly normal and would also be determined, of course.

And let's take a quick side step into free will.

It would make little sense to judge people as good or bad in a free will universe. Since past behavior, feelings, attitudes on their part have no significance over future or current behavior. Free will means that character does not lead to action. The person can choose to do things 'out of character'. I find the whole thing confusing, but I have no idea what moral judgments of people mean in that world. I can see judging acts but people????

So, to sum up: I don't see determinism entailing a qualitative shift in the way I react to people. There might be some changes in degree of certain responses I already have. And when I say shift, I mean from the current situation - where I don't know which is the case, and/but don't quite understand what free will means - to a situation where I am utterly convinced determinism is the case. I also see no reason for society to shift it's responses. Or for us to shift socially. The phrase 'morally responsible' might be misleading in some ways, but in a way I think that's focusing way too much on words, given that I see no reason to eliminate any of the categories of reaction.

Note: this doesn't mean I think the justice system works well, or social groups are fair. I mean that I don't think they have the wrong categories of responses/measures. A social group may shun someone for not having an expensive cellphone. I think that's idiotic. But the idea of shunning someone for something, I see no reason that should be taken off the table because of determinism.

IOW I would need to see a strong argument why continuing to have these categories of response is hypocritical or problematic before stopping having those reactions/taking those measures.

And if you say those kinds of responses are bad, well, then you've just been hypocritical. I could see practical arguments mounted.

Click.

Again, from my frame of mind, how is this assessment really any different from one that might be given to us by a libertarian?

He tells us what he thinks and what he feels and what he wants as though "somehow" his brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, did not compel him to. It's just another rendition of BigMike's "free will determinism" to me.

The part that revolves around Schopenhauer's we can want things, but we can't want what we want.

Then going back to what he himself can't explain regarding...

"Somehow" matter came into existence. "Somehow" it configured into biological matter on Earth. "Somehow" conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" self-conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" that evolved into us.

Punish Mary for aborting Jane in a world where Mary was never able not to abort her?

Uh, "somehow"?

[iambiguous]

Now, how about you? In regard to Mary and Jane, or given your own context, how do you construe determinism, free will and compatibilism?

As they pertain to moral responsibility.



Note to others:

Click.

You tell me how my post above does not pertain to his question, "what is moral responsibility?"

Have you read what I have written, in this thread, about moral responsibility?

Have you read what Iwannaplato has written?

Have you read the Dennett quote that Iwannaplato posted?

I pretty much agree with Iwannaplato and Dennett.

Click.

Sigh...

The point [mine] isn't my reading what they wrote, but pinning down philosophically/scientifically whether I opted to read them of my own volition or was compelled to read them by a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

And let me ask you:

In regard to how you understand determinism, free will and compatibilism, are you responsible for posting what you do here?

[Iwannaplato]

Click.

Again, from my frame of mind, how is this assessment really any different from one that might be given to us by a libertarian?

He tells us what he thinks and what he feels and what he wants as though "somehow" his brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, did not compel him to.

Some rhetorical questions.....
1) What is the point of saying you think my assessment is not really different from a libertarians? Is that an insult? Are you making an argument when you say that? No, obviously. No substance at all in this response.
2) How did I my post assert that my brain wasn't following the laws of matter? Of course I could be compelled to incorrectly conclude things. Duh. I was stating my views - determined, free arrived at, I don't know. But those are my views. Any arguments in there that you disagree with? No, no substance in Iambiguous' response.
3) This has been pointed out to you by several people, but I'll phrase it as a question: Who is this 'him' who is compelled that is not 'his brain'? What are these two entities: the brain and the self? Why are there two of them?

It's just another rendition of BigMike's "free will determinism" to me.

Bare assertion. No argument. Hey, this is like that, so it's .....bad I guess.

The part that revolves around Schopenhauer's we can want things, but we can't want what we want.

Obviously if determinism is the case, this is correct. I never denied it. It's not clear to me you read what I wrote.

But you did find a way to repeat yourself....yet again.

Then going back to what he himself can't explain regarding...

"Somehow" matter came into existence. "Somehow" it configured into biological matter on Earth. "Somehow" conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" self-conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" that evolved into us.

Where did I say I could explain that? that issue that was not part of my post? I didn't solve the are morals objective issue either. I didn't find a better way to recycle cellphone parts either.

What a ridiculous non-relevant...criticism? response? tangent? complaint?

Punish Mary for aborting Jane in a world where Mary was never able not to abort her?

Where did I say anything about punishing Mary?
Did you read my post?

But smart of you not to assert things. Just you an implicit fallacy of incredulity argument by putting it in question form. No need to make any effort.

Just labels and buzz words and non-relevant critiques without justification.

[Iwannaplato]

Now, how about you? In regard to Mary and Jane, or given your own context, how do you construe determinism, free will and compatibilism?

As they pertain to moral responsibility.



Note to others:

Click.

You tell me how my post above does not pertain to his question, "what is moral responsibility?"

Have you read what I have written, in this thread, about moral responsibility?

Have you read what Iwannaplato has written?

Have you read the Dennett quote that Iwannaplato posted?

I pretty much agree with Iwannaplato and Dennett.

I don't think I quoted Dennett. But glad you agree, in a general way. I'm also glad you notice that he may not have read what I wrote. He responded, which would imply he did read it. But since his response has almost nothing to do with what I wrote, I'm not sure what happened.

[phyllo]

The point [mine] isn't my reading what they wrote, but pinning down philosophically/scientifically whether I opted to read them of my own volition or was compelled to read them by a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Who believes that to be an important point? Aside from you?

Think about it. If you're the only one who thinks it's important, is it really important? Maybe it isn't. Why is it important or why not? Why do people disagree with you on that point?

[phyllo]

Now, how about you? In regard to Mary and Jane, or given your own context, how do you construe determinism, free will and compatibilism?

As they pertain to moral responsibility.



Note to others:

Click.

You tell me how my post above does not pertain to his question, "what is moral responsibility?"

Have you read what I have written, in this thread, about moral responsibility?

Have you read what Iwannaplato has written?

Have you read the Dennett quote that Iwannaplato posted?

I pretty much agree with Iwannaplato and Dennett.

I don't think I quoted Dennett. But glad you agree, in a general way. I'm also glad you notice that he may not have read what I wrote. He responded, which would imply he did read it. But since his response has almost nothing to do with what I wrote, I'm not sure what happened.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34247&p=629505&hil ... tt#p629505

[iambiguous]

Okay, in regard to how you understand determinism, free will and compatibilism, what would tell phyllo if he asked you if he was responsible for posting what he does here?

I'm responsible for all my actions.

Thus "in your head" demonstrating that you are. You believe it. Case closed.

As though merely posting it in and of itself establishes the definitive proof that you are.

As though you can simply sweep what you do not -- cannot? -- grasp regarding this...

"Somehow" matter came into existence. "Somehow" it configured into biological matter on Earth. "Somehow" conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" self-conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" that evolved into us.

...under the metaphysical rug. A trivial pursuit that philosophers and scientists have long since dismissed as entirely irrelevant here.

Right?


Now, back to this, Mr. Wiggle:

In regard to Mary and Jane, or given your own context, how do you construe determinism, free will and compatibilism?

As they pertain to moral responsibility.

[Iwannaplato]

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34247&p=629505&hil ... tt#p629505

Well, gosh dang, you're right. I remember the argument but that it was Dennett was gone.
As I Iambiguous would say My brain compelled me not to remember.
Or as many humans say: I forgot.

[phyllo]

Okay, in regard to how you understand determinism, free will and compatibilism, what would tell phyllo if he asked you if he was responsible for posting what he does here?

I'm responsible for all my actions.

Thus "in your head" demonstrating that you are. You believe it. Case closed.

As though merely posting it in and of itself establishes the definitive proof that you are.

Who other than me is doing my actions?

Does this need demonstrating?

[Flannel Jesus]

Okay, in regard to how you understand determinism, free will and compatibilism, what would tell phyllo if he asked you if he was responsible for posting what he does here?

Yes