3 ms·

>So. If free will doesn't exist, it doesn't change anything. Because we cannot change the path we're on. We have no choice. Which is why if I say there is free

>So. If free will doesn't exist, it doesn't change anything. Because we cannot change the path we're on. We have no choice. Which is why if I say there is free will and I'm right, then I'm right, and if I'm wrong, then I never had a choice and so right and wrong doesn't apply.

bena 7y ago
But Pascal's wager is about risk vs. reward. Here, there is neither risk nor reward. The entire question of whether free will exists or not is pointless. If it exists, nothing changes. If it doesn't exist, nothing changes. And regardless whether you believe it exists or not: If you're right about whether it exists, nothing changes. If you're wrong about whether it exists, nothing changes. So no matter the truth, no matter the outcome, everything is exactly the same. That means the question itself is pointless. And right and wrong would still apply, it's just that if free will does not exist, we couldn't morally fault you for choosing wrong, you had no choice. But then again, I wouldn't have the choice in whether or not to morally fault you.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >Here, there is neither risk nor reward. I consider being wrong or right risk and reward within themselves. Most others act in such a way that seems to agree even if they don't conceptualize such a thought. >That means the question itself is pointless. How does one determine what does and doesn't have a point? If free will does exist then we can modify our government based on the notion it does exist if we think it does. If it does exist and we think it does not, then such modifications might be incorrect. That alone is enough for us to determine if there is a point to the question, even outside of any more abstract interest in the question. Consider someone who crashes a car into a person because they didn't like how the other person looked at them and someone else who crashes a car into a person because of an epileptic seizure. Should they be treated the same? If free will does exist, then the actions of the first are consider a bad choice while the actions of the second are deemed an illness beyond control, and while there needs to be actions to safeguard against either case from happening again the liability of the second individual is reduced (though not as much if they knew of the risk and choose to drive anyways). But if free will doesn't exist, then why is the first guy any more responsible for the wreck than the second guy, and why should we even take action?
  - bena 7y ago
    Can you articulate those risks and rewards? If you can't, then you don't really have risk or reward. And it doesn't matter if you consider "being right or wrong" as risks and rewards themselves. It doesn't make it so. > How does one determine what does and doesn't have a point? A simple metric is the fact that regardless of the answer, the consequences are the same. And with the question of free will, the consequences are the same whether or not it exists. Nothing changes. > If free will does exist then we can modify our government based on the notion it does exist if we think it does. If it does exist and we think it does not, then such modifications might be incorrect. That alone is enough for us to determine if there is a point to the question, even outside of any more abstract interest in the question. You're ignoring the real fundamental point. If it doesn't exist, all that happens anyway. Because we would be fated to do so. If free will does not exist, we can't prevent ourselves from making the decisions we're making. We lose choice. If we were to discover free will did not exist, there still could be people who are predetermined to not accept the result. They would still believe they had choice. And since free will does not exist, they can't choose to change. Your crash example relies on free will existing in both cases. Because if free will doesn't exist, we cannot choose to not punish the first guy if we believe he should be punished because we don't get a choice in our beliefs.

bena 7y ago

But Pascal's wager is about risk vs. reward. Here, there is neither risk nor reward. The entire question of whether free will exists or not is pointless. If it exists, nothing changes. If it doesn't exist, nothing changes. And regardless whether you believe it exists or not: If you're right about whether it exists, nothing changes. If you're wrong about whether it exists, nothing changes. So no matter the truth, no matter the outcome, everything is exactly the same. That means the question itself is pointless. And right and wrong would still apply, it's just that if free will does not exist, we couldn't morally fault you for choosing wrong, you had no choice. But then again, I wouldn't have the choice in whether or not to morally fault you.

SkyBelow 7y ago
>Here, there is neither risk nor reward. I consider being wrong or right risk and reward within themselves. Most others act in such a way that seems to agree even if they don't conceptualize such a thought. >That means the question itself is pointless. How does one determine what does and doesn't have a point? If free will does exist then we can modify our government based on the notion it does exist if we think it does. If it does exist and we think it does not, then such modifications might be incorrect. That alone is enough for us to determine if there is a point to the question, even outside of any more abstract interest in the question. Consider someone who crashes a car into a person because they didn't like how the other person looked at them and someone else who crashes a car into a person because of an epileptic seizure. Should they be treated the same? If free will does exist, then the actions of the first are consider a bad choice while the actions of the second are deemed an illness beyond control, and while there needs to be actions to safeguard against either case from happening again the liability of the second individual is reduced (though not as much if they knew of the risk and choose to drive anyways). But if free will doesn't exist, then why is the first guy any more responsible for the wreck than the second guy, and why should we even take action?
- bena 7y ago
  Can you articulate those risks and rewards? If you can't, then you don't really have risk or reward. And it doesn't matter if you consider "being right or wrong" as risks and rewards themselves. It doesn't make it so. > How does one determine what does and doesn't have a point? A simple metric is the fact that regardless of the answer, the consequences are the same. And with the question of free will, the consequences are the same whether or not it exists. Nothing changes. > If free will does exist then we can modify our government based on the notion it does exist if we think it does. If it does exist and we think it does not, then such modifications might be incorrect. That alone is enough for us to determine if there is a point to the question, even outside of any more abstract interest in the question. You're ignoring the real fundamental point. If it doesn't exist, all that happens anyway. Because we would be fated to do so. If free will does not exist, we can't prevent ourselves from making the decisions we're making. We lose choice. If we were to discover free will did not exist, there still could be people who are predetermined to not accept the result. They would still believe they had choice. And since free will does not exist, they can't choose to change. Your crash example relies on free will existing in both cases. Because if free will doesn't exist, we cannot choose to not punish the first guy if we believe he should be punished because we don't get a choice in our beliefs.