5 ms·

I, for one, am unconcerned that we don't live in a clockwork universe. Or, at the least, one so complex that the initial conditions can never be known. Because

I, for one, am unconcerned that we don't live in a clockwork universe. Or, at the least, one so complex that the initial conditions can never be known. Because that leaves open the possibility that all isn't determined, and that we can finally take responsibility for our own actions.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Or we can assume that we have no responsibility because our internal experiences and our actions are not deterministic. Which means there is no consistent self which can determine them.
naasking 5y ago
> Because that leaves open the possibility that all isn't determined, and that we can finally take responsibility for our own actions. I'm not clear why your path in life being determined precludes you from taking responsibility for your actions. Presumably if the universe is deterministic, then the consequences of your actions literally follow from your choices. Therefore the proximal cause of those consequences can be attributed to you, ie. you are responsible for causing those outcomes. That you were determined to make those choices doesn't erase this basic fact. That you can learn from mistakes and make different choices in the future given similar circumstances is exactly why holding you responsible for your choices works as a form of moral feedback. If your choices were not deterministic, then this implies that they were partly random, in which case holding you responsible is no longer a valuable tool for moral feedback, because no amount of responsibility or feedback can influence a random variable. Therefore, the degree to which you should be held responsible is arguably proportional to the degree in which your choices are deterministic; we see this in every day life, where babies and the clinically insane who act for no apparent reason are not held responsible for the actions, while people who are mentally competent and can operate within systems of rules are held responsible.
- mikevm 5y ago
  So if we really assume determinism, does that mean that we'll have to make some changes to the legal system? For example, getting rid of the insanity defense[0]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense
  - naasking 5y ago
    I don't see why. Whether someone is responsible includes a consideration as to whether their behaviour is governed by somewhat coherent and articulable reasons. If they have reasons for why they acted a certain way, that indicates a responsiveness to feedback that changes those reasons, such that they may not make the same choice again in the future. Clearly the insane don't satisfy this requirement.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Or we can assume that we have no responsibility because our internal experiences and our actions are not deterministic. Which means there is no consistent self which can determine them.

naasking 5y ago

> Because that leaves open the possibility that all isn't determined, and that we can finally take responsibility for our own actions. I'm not clear why your path in life being determined precludes you from taking responsibility for your actions. Presumably if the universe is deterministic, then the consequences of your actions literally follow from your choices. Therefore the proximal cause of those consequences can be attributed to you, ie. you are responsible for causing those outcomes. That you were determined to make those choices doesn't erase this basic fact. That you can learn from mistakes and make different choices in the future given similar circumstances is exactly why holding you responsible for your choices works as a form of moral feedback. If your choices were not deterministic, then this implies that they were partly random, in which case holding you responsible is no longer a valuable tool for moral feedback, because no amount of responsibility or feedback can influence a random variable. Therefore, the degree to which you should be held responsible is arguably proportional to the degree in which your choices are deterministic; we see this in every day life, where babies and the clinically insane who act for no apparent reason are not held responsible for the actions, while people who are mentally competent and can operate within systems of rules are held responsible.

mikevm 5y ago
So if we really assume determinism, does that mean that we'll have to make some changes to the legal system? For example, getting rid of the insanity defense[0]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense
- naasking 5y ago
  I don't see why. Whether someone is responsible includes a consideration as to whether their behaviour is governed by somewhat coherent and articulable reasons. If they have reasons for why they acted a certain way, that indicates a responsiveness to feedback that changes those reasons, such that they may not make the same choice again in the future. Clearly the insane don't satisfy this requirement.