5 ms·

It’s also an inconvenient idea. For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Why try at anything if you have no choice

It’s also an inconvenient idea. For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. It’s nihilism to the extreme. Then again, the quantum idea of true randomness isn’t much better — if human choice stems from a coin flip, can you really call it a conscious choice? The scientific method and human free will rely on a possible fiction of choice that is neither 100% deterministic, nor 100% random.

temp438 5y ago
> For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Guilty is a social concept derived from the assumption that some events in the universe are "bad" > Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. > It’s nihilism to the extreme. Realising that there is no free will is not smth negative or positive. It's just smth which sets your further path which had no other purpose but spreading Life in the universe
naasking 5y ago
> For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Why do you think you had no choice in committing it? Are you saying these people don't have any reasons they think justified committing a crime? That seems clearly false in general. Certainly if someone was literally forced to commit a crime, ie. they didn't want to do it, then they are not guilty, but why wouldn't they be guilty if they wanted to commit the crime and then did so? This is a common confusion in thinking about moral responsibility under determinism. "Choice" is a process whereby a set of options is reduced to one. This process is typically driven by an individual's reasons for acting, ie. there existed a hypothetical set of possible actions Y, but I did action X from Y because of reason Z. Z counterfactually describes why X was selected from Y, and when Z is an internally held value/justification for acting, this is a person's "will". When a person is "free" to use their will to make choices, then they are acting of their own free will. If they are instead coerced into choosing W from Y instead of Z, where W is defined by somebody else's values, then they are no longer free to act on their will. This is Compatibilism, where free will and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism. I also think it's important to distinguish "free will" as used in ethics and "free will" as used in science, where they speak of the experimenter's freedom. They are simply not the same thing, because one is compatible with determinism where the other may not be. > Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. What you're describing is fatalism, not nihilism or determinism. Given some tragedy is caused by a person, consider two scenarios: 1. they wanted that tragedy to happen 2. they fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening It's very clear to most people that the person in scenario #1 should be held responsible, where in #2 they should not. #2 is fatalism and absolves a person of moral responsibility, but this does not describe what happens under determinism. Under determinism, the people who make bad choices wanted to make those choices, and being held responsible is the moral feedback they need to correct their flawed decision process.
- thinkski 5y ago
  What is the origin of genuine choice?

temp438 5y ago

> For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Guilty is a social concept derived from the assumption that some events in the universe are "bad" > Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. > It’s nihilism to the extreme. Realising that there is no free will is not smth negative or positive. It's just smth which sets your further path which had no other purpose but spreading Life in the universe

naasking 5y ago

> For instance, how can one be guilty of a crime if one had no choice in committing it? Why do you think you had no choice in committing it? Are you saying these people don't have any reasons they think justified committing a crime? That seems clearly false in general. Certainly if someone was literally forced to commit a crime, ie. they didn't want to do it, then they are not guilty, but why wouldn't they be guilty if they wanted to commit the crime and then did so? This is a common confusion in thinking about moral responsibility under determinism. "Choice" is a process whereby a set of options is reduced to one. This process is typically driven by an individual's reasons for acting, ie. there existed a hypothetical set of possible actions Y, but I did action X from Y because of reason Z. Z counterfactually describes why X was selected from Y, and when Z is an internally held value/justification for acting, this is a person's "will". When a person is "free" to use their will to make choices, then they are acting of their own free will. If they are instead coerced into choosing W from Y instead of Z, where W is defined by somebody else's values, then they are no longer free to act on their will. This is Compatibilism, where free will and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism. I also think it's important to distinguish "free will" as used in ethics and "free will" as used in science, where they speak of the experimenter's freedom. They are simply not the same thing, because one is compatible with determinism where the other may not be. > Why try at anything if you have no choice — everything that will happen was decided at the universe’s origin and is merely playing out. What you're describing is fatalism, not nihilism or determinism. Given some tragedy is caused by a person, consider two scenarios: 1. they wanted that tragedy to happen 2. they fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening It's very clear to most people that the person in scenario #1 should be held responsible, where in #2 they should not. #2 is fatalism and absolves a person of moral responsibility, but this does not describe what happens under determinism. Under determinism, the people who make bad choices wanted to make those choices, and being held responsible is the moral feedback they need to correct their flawed decision process.

thinkski 5y ago
What is the origin of genuine choice?