compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

People lack free will, so their actions are determined by factors such as their genes, their environment, and their prior experiences, and not by their "own" decisions. What they did was beyond their control, so they cannot be held accountable for it. Since a person lacks free will, their actions are not their own, and therefore they cannot be held morally accountable.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by popeye1945 »

BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:25 pm People lack free will, so their actions are determined by factors such as their genes, their environment, and their prior experiences, and not by their "own" decisions. What they did was beyond their control, so they cannot be held accountable for it. Since a person lacks free will, their actions are not their own, and therefore they cannot be held morally accountable.
Excellent BigMike,

I would add that when we come into this world, we enter it anonymously, meaning without an identity, and if there is any innate knowledge to the newborn it is in the form of instincts; the property of a species' history. One could honestly say that each individual is born with a constitution, with a given vitality and propensities/inclinations but that identity is acquired through its interactions with its environmental context. The first breath we take, there is no indication that we are in control of our environment context, be that family, society or the world at large, and upon arrival, it is adapt and overcome, we do not have a say in what we adapt to. With the context of the world at large we are a link in the chain of beings that the environment selects for life/adaptation or death.

The concept of free will is totally dependent upon the concept of human action, when in fact there is no such thing as human action there is but human reaction. Humanity, like all creatures, are reactionary creatures; and this is the very basis of evolutionary adaptation, no reaction no adaptation. Our biology is linked forevermore to the changing planet as a functioning part of something larger than ourselves, to us the world is cause to which we react and when we react, it is then cause to the physical world changing it incrementally; to which we as a species must then again adapt through reactions to those changes. It is a hard sell to many, but one should remember that one cannot move without, without first being moved within, motivation itself spells reaction. Our well-being depends upon how well we react to the physical environment, we fight off disease through biological reactions to chemical or biological invaders and if we utterly fail to do so, we die. Our biological rhythms/ circadian rhythms are our reactions to the music of the spheres. We are a functioning part of a greater whole and if our perspective were to change perhaps we would not be as we are today, in jeopardy of being unfit, unable to react to a world that changes too fast for our evolutionary development. There is no independence, no free will to our functioning in the world, and human action is a delusion, a deadly delusion.
Last edited by popeye1945 on Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:25 pm People lack free will, so their actions are determined by factors such as their genes, their environment, and their prior experiences, and not by their "own" decisions. What they did was beyond their control, so they cannot be held accountable for it. Since a person lacks free will, their actions are not their own, and therefore they cannot be held morally accountable.
Somebody burns down your house and nothing is going to happen to them? :shock:
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by popeye1945 »

phyllo wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:16 pm
BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:25 pm People lack free will, so their actions are determined by factors such as their genes, their environment, and their prior experiences, and not by their "own" decisions. What they did was beyond their control, so they cannot be held accountable for it. Since a person lacks free will, their actions are not their own, and therefore they cannot be held morally accountable.
Somebody burns down your house and nothing is going to happen to them? :shock:
You miss the point; the individual must be dealt with, but ultimately the historical causal history is responsible for the individual's actions as cause, acknowledging this truly complicates things; but that doesn't make the concept wrong.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

phyllo wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:16 pm
BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:25 pm People lack free will, so their actions are determined by factors such as their genes, their environment, and their prior experiences, and not by their "own" decisions. What they did was beyond their control, so they cannot be held accountable for it. Since a person lacks free will, their actions are not their own, and therefore they cannot be held morally accountable.
Somebody burns down your house and nothing is going to happen to them? :shock:
Moral responsibility refers to the idea that individuals are accountable for their actions and decisions, based on ethical and moral principles. This means that they have a duty to make choices that align with their moral values and that they are answerable for the consequences of their actions.

On the other hand, moral accountability is a similar concept but may place more emphasis on the accountability aspect, rather than the responsibility aspect. It suggests that individuals are held accountable for their actions regardless of whether they had control over them or not, and that they may face consequences for those actions.

So, in summary, moral responsibility emphasizes the idea of duty and obligation to act in accordance with moral principles, while moral accountability emphasizes the idea of being held accountable for one's actions, regardless of their control over them.

I think that if people had a chance to debate it and come to reasonable definitions of the terms, they might agree to use the term "moral accountability" instead of "moral responsibility", even if they don't have free will. In any case, burning down my home is a legal matter, not a moral one.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by popeye1945 »

BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:38 pm
phyllo wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:16 pm
BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:25 pm People lack free will, so their actions are determined by factors such as their genes, their environment, and their prior experiences, and not by their "own" decisions. What they did was beyond their control, so they cannot be held accountable for it. Since a person lacks free will, their actions are not their own, and therefore they cannot be held morally accountable.
Somebody burns down your house and nothing is going to happen to them? :shock:
Moral responsibility refers to the idea that individuals are accountable for their actions and decisions, based on ethical and moral principles. This means that they have a duty to make choices that align with their moral values and that they are answerable for the consequences of their actions.

On the other hand, moral accountability is a similar concept but may place more emphasis on the accountability aspect, rather than the responsibility aspect. It suggests that individuals are held accountable for their actions regardless of whether they had control over them or not, and that they may face consequences for those actions.

So, in summary, moral responsibility emphasizes the idea of duty and obligation to act in accordance with moral principles, while moral accountability emphasizes the idea of being held accountable for one's actions, regardless of their control over them.

I think that if people had a chance to debate it and come to reasonable definitions of the terms, they might agree to use the term "moral accountability" instead of "moral responsibility", even if they don't have free will. In any case, burning down my home is a legal matter, not a moral one.
Wouldn't you say it comes down to the necessity of protecting the integrity of society in general and that the individual must be controlled?

I would like someone to challenge me on my previous post in which I stated that there was no such thing as human action there is but human reaction; the whole concept of free will hangs in the balance so to speak.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm You claimed something ("Free will gave Mary the option to not abort Jane") but you provide no reasoning to support the claim.

That's not reasoning. That's not philosophy. That's making up a story.
No, if in fact we do have free will "somehow" -- re God or nature itself -- then Mary would have the option to either abort or not to abort. What reason could there possibly be that she doesn't if in fact "somehow" she does?

Instead, because neither you nor I are privy to the explanation for how and why mindless non-living matter did evolve into mindful living matter on Earth, we are both ensnared in the surreal nature of these exchanges. Surreal in that neither philosophers nor scientists have been able to determine if in fact we do have free will.

We could dream about exchanging assessments of free will...then wake up and realize that "reality" was created entirely by our brains chemically and neurologically. But what about the waking world reality? How do we establish unequivocally that this either is or is not autonomous?
Right, and what is the science behind demonstrating where and when and why determinism ends and fatalism begins in Mary's brain?
phyllo wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm Fatalism begins in Mary's mind when she starts to think that she knows what her fate is and that she can't change it.

We already know the characteristics of determinism and fatalism through observation and reasoning. Science has nothing to do with it.
Right. And in asserting this, that makes it true. When, in fact, you have no capacity even to pin down this distinction in your own brain. Can Mary start to think [about anything] of her own free will or is she compelled to think about only that which she was never able not to think of?

Do we opt to note the distinction between determinism and fatalism...fatalistically or deterministically?

And -- click -- how preposterous is it to insist that science has nothing to do with exploring this distinction itself!!
I never said I could explain my claims. Let alone demonstrate them. You must have me confused with someone else.
phyllo wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm If you can't explain why your ideas about Mary's abortion are better than other ideas, then what are you doing here?
I'm grappling to make sense of a world in which we seem to have no definitive manner in which to know for certain if our explanations are in fact of our own volition or not.

And, more specifically on this thread, how those who call themselves compatibilists are able to reconcile Mary unable to not abort Jane with her still being morally responsible for doing so. How do they make a distinction between determinism and fatalism?
I'm just interested in hearing arguments that reconcile determinism and moral responsibility.
phyllo wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm You got arguments. And you don't seem to be interested in any of them.
Link me to them. On this thread. And, sure, some here may provide arguments. But -- click -- that doesn't mean they will make sense to me.
Besides, given "the gap" between what I think here and now about Mary's abortion and all that there is to be known about it going back to all that there is to be known about the existence of existence itself, what are the odds that my analysis actually could be correct?

I merely suggest that's applicable to everyone else here too.
phyllo wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:55 pm If you have some reasoning to back up your statements and it passes scrutiny, then your odds of being correct increase.

But you don't have anything.
Huh?

First there's the astounding vastness [and mystery] of the universe itself: https://youtu.be/m2YJ7aR25P0

Then there's all the speculation about a "multiverse"...an infinite number of universes some suggest. Then there's the simply staggering mystery of why something exists at all. And why this something?

And you're asking me to provide reasons for what I think about Mary's abortion...reasons that can pass scrutiny? Run by whom?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

The distinction between fatalism and determinism are made clear by simply googling "what's the difference between fatalism and determinism?"

> Determinists believe the future is fixed specifically due to causality; fatalists and predeterminists believe that some or all aspects of the future are inescapable but, for fatalists, not necessarily due to causality. Fatalism is a looser term than determinism.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:21 pm The distinction between fatalism and determinism are made clear by simply googling "what's the difference between fatalism and determinism?"

> Determinists believe the future is fixed specifically due to causality; fatalists and predeterminists believe that some or all aspects of the future are inescapable but, for fatalists, not necessarily due to causality. Fatalism is a looser term than determinism.
That's my sense. Fate could be some supernatural causation, for example. It might also be limited to something specific and not everything. Like some demon, bad person, catastrophy is going to catch up with me and there is nothing I can do. The only thing I would add to your description is that a fatalist probably doesn't feel good. There is resignation, pessimitism, hopelessness involved.

A determinist could be annoyingly chipper 24/7.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:42 pm
BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:38 pm
Wouldn't you say it comes down to the necessity of protecting the integrity of society in general and that the individual must be controlled?
Are you discussing the function and purpose of the legal system?
I would like someone to challenge me on my previous post in which I stated that there was no such thing as human action there is but human reaction; the whole concept of free will hangs in the balance so to speak.
Every action has a reaction. To me the concept of free will is an illusion; it is not hanging in the balance in the sense of being in a critical, precarious or uncertain state. Free will is certainly nonsense.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by popeye1945 »

BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:58 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:42 pm
BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:38 pm
Wouldn't you say it comes down to the necessity of protecting the integrity of society in general and that the individual must be controlled?
Are you discussing the function and purpose of the legal system? I would like someone to challenge me on my previous post in which I stated that there was no such thing as human action there is but human reaction; the whole concept of free will hangs in the balance so to speak.
Every action has a reaction. To me the concept of free will is an illusion; it is not hanging in the balance in the sense of being in a critical, precarious or uncertain state. Free will is certainly nonsense.
[/quote]

Not necessarily discussing the legal system, just common sense that you have to maintain order within society or you will no longer have a society. So, despite realizing that the long chain of causation is responsible for all our REACTIONS, those who pose a threat to society must be controlled in some way.

My point is that the physical world is cause just by its presence, it is the cause of the reactions of all reactionary creatures. It is if you like the essence of the relation between subject and object, where the physical alteration of the conscious subject's body is for the subject his apparent reality; through the projection of his experiences onto the world as meanings. Did you read my above post? I know it might sound flakey a first but it stands up. As I stated above, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction, the fact that one must be motivated in order to move makes it a reaction, not an action. The entire concept of free will depends upon this concept of the human free will to action, which just is not reality. It would help if you read the above post as well. There just is no example that anyone can present of human action for the reasons I have already stated. I have in the past put out the challenge but no one could provide me with an example of human action short of an epileptic seizure which would not be of conscious intent. I invite again anyone who can present me with an example of human action to do so, it just is not possible. A change in semantics makes all the difference in the world, for as I stated above, free will/action is a delusion and a deadly one.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: compatibilism

Post by phyllo »

BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:38 pm
phyllo wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:16 pm
BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:25 pm People lack free will, so their actions are determined by factors such as their genes, their environment, and their prior experiences, and not by their "own" decisions. What they did was beyond their control, so they cannot be held accountable for it. Since a person lacks free will, their actions are not their own, and therefore they cannot be held morally accountable.
Somebody burns down your house and nothing is going to happen to them? :shock:
Moral responsibility refers to the idea that individuals are accountable for their actions and decisions, based on ethical and moral principles. This means that they have a duty to make choices that align with their moral values and that they are answerable for the consequences of their actions.

On the other hand, moral accountability is a similar concept but may place more emphasis on the accountability aspect, rather than the responsibility aspect. It suggests that individuals are held accountable for their actions regardless of whether they had control over them or not, and that they may face consequences for those actions.

So, in summary, moral responsibility emphasizes the idea of duty and obligation to act in accordance with moral principles, while moral accountability emphasizes the idea of being held accountable for one's actions, regardless of their control over them.

I think that if people had a chance to debate it and come to reasonable definitions of the terms, they might agree to use the term "moral accountability" instead of "moral responsibility", even if they don't have free will. In any case, burning down my home is a legal matter, not a moral one.
I'm not sure what was achieved by changing "moral responsibility" to "moral accountability" and "moral" to "legal".

The end result seems to be that same ... someone does something considered bad and is punished for it.

Surely that is accountability and/or responsibility.

Why can't it be considered to be "responsibility" or "accountability"?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

BigMike wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:25 pm People lack free will, so their actions are determined by factors such as their genes, their environment, and their prior experiences, and not by their "own" decisions. What they did was beyond their control, so they cannot be held accountable for it. Since a person lacks free will, their actions are not their own, and therefore they cannot be held morally accountable.
See, here we go again. He posted this. But does his point also include him posting it? That, in other words, he was never able to not post it? And if that is the case and the rest of us, in lacking free will, were never able to react to it other than as our own brains, wholly in sync with the same matter compel us to, then the entire exchange itself is unfolding only as it ever could have.

Yet some [the ones I call the "free will determinists"] can seem to react to those who disagree with them as a libertarian might. They seem really agitated to be disagreed with. Even though those who disagree with them were never able to opt to agree with them. And even their own agitation would seem to be but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality.

BUT: I am still quite willing to acknowledge that the problem here is me. Things such as the compatibilist argument that determinism and moral responsibility can [philosophically and for all practical purposes] be reconciled...I just don't understand the argument.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:21 pm The distinction between fatalism and determinism are made clear by simply googling "what's the difference between fatalism and determinism?"

> Determinists believe the future is fixed specifically due to causality; fatalists and predeterminists believe that some or all aspects of the future are inescapable but, for fatalists, not necessarily due to causality. Fatalism is a looser term than determinism.
And when someone's brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compels them to Google it...is that an example of fatalism or determinism?

The point some hard determinists argue is there is nothing at all that we think, feel, say or do, that we were ever able to freely opt not to.

At least until brain scientists are able to discover how and why brain matter itself is, in some measure, exempt from the laws of matter that clearly seems applicable to all other matter.

Another mystery is consciousness is "lower animals". They have sense organs and are conscious of the world around them. Just like us. But their behaviors are derived from instincts...biologically, genetically. That's why even if it is argued that human beings are responsible [morally and otherwise] for their behaviors, other animals are not.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 4:19 am
And when someone's brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compels them to Google it...is that an example of fatalism or determinism?
Determinism
iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 4:19 am The point some hard determinists argue is there is nothing at all that we think, feel, say or do, that we were ever able to freely opt not to.
There's a recursive nature to the proposition that you can "freely opt" to think or feel everything you think or feel, which makes the proposition itself dead in the water. Do you see the recursiveness, the infinite regress, yourself? I can explain it if you don't.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 4:19 am At least until brain scientists are able to discover how and why brain matter itself is, in some measure, exempt from the laws of matter that clearly seems applicable to all other matter.
Do you think brain matter is exempt? I definitely don't. I don't have any expectation that any scientist will discover otherwise - but I'll be listening if they do!
Post Reply