3 ms·

The deterministic view also removes blame. If success is due to luck than so are failings - a killer is also a victim of nurture, nature and luck. Based on th

by meany 5y ago

The deterministic view also removes blame. If success is due to luck than so are failings - a killer is also a victim of nurture, nature and luck. Based on the title, my interpretation is that the author would like individuals to discount their own success and be more empathetic to those less successful. However, an individual's capacity for empathy and their views on success factors, etc. are also luck based by this rationale. So it seems that the logical conclusion from this line of reasoning is an individual can't do anything other than what they're already doing, so can't ultimately be held responsible. To be clear, I'm not suggesting the argument is wrong, just that the moral of the article (based on its focus on success) seems at conflict with the logic it is based on.

mgh2 5y ago
Free will and responsibility can be mutually exclusive, this is what most people have a hard time understanding.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Not really. If there's no free will, you cannot also remove responsibility (because you don't have the free will to remove it). You believe, follow, and practice what you're determined (non freely) to believe about responsibility.
  - mgh2 5y ago
    If being mutually exclusive is a fact, the individual cannot determine the laws of nature.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      Doesn't have to change any laws of nature. Responsibility is an idea inside a person (it's an ethical concept), not a law of nature. As such, if the person doesn't have free will (and can't act on his independent volition) then they also can't remove their feeling/belief about responsibility. If it's there (and for most people it is), it's there.
      - alan-hn 5y ago
        No, that's only your interpretation of responsibility. Causality still exists no matter what and that's where responsibility lies, in the chain of causality
        coldtea 5y ago
        >Causality still exists no matter what and that's where responsibility lies, in the chain of causality Deterministic causual chains of the type we're talking about don't allow for responsibily. One thing merely causes another, going back to the Bing Bang, without any flexibility of it being otherwise or anybody chosing to do anything else. If you have no choice, you have no responsibility, not in any moral sense. You only have "responsibility" in a deterministic universe if we use "responsible" as a synonym for "caused" (as in, X's action is "responsible" for this happening. But that's no more of a responsibility, character/person/morally -wise, as saying "the rain is responsible for the road being wet"). That's not only true for a deterministic universe with no free will/choice. We also accept it in our legal system, even while believing in free will. For example, if somebody does something because they have no other choice, e.g. because somebody else put a gun to their head to do it, we don't consider them responsible, or at least we consider them much less responsible than when acting on their own
        alan-hn 5y ago
        See definition 1b2. No reason to put it in quotes, its literally one of the definitions. We're arguing over semantics, which definition is "more right". My opinion as a bioscientist is that there is no other proper definition that lines up with the deterministic reality of the universe. Some causes are just too complex for us to understand currently so we write it off as " personal responsibility" Just because we wrote something in law doesn't make it correct. Humans are dumb as shit. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsible https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsible
        mgh2 5y ago
        It will help with examples: 1. In order to survive, you to take a less than ideal job, but you still have the responsibility to do your duty to the best of your ability. 2. You had a wedlock child not of your planning. You still are responsible for the child. 3. For Nazi Germany soldiers, "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse. You have a conscience and are responsible for you actions. The people who believe in "choice" are precisely the ones who don't want to take responsibility for their actions - ex: "my body, my choice" in vaccines or abortion. The brainwashing propaganda runs very deep. The reality is that you don't really have a no choice in anything - you only think you do, but you are still responsible to do right under your conditions

by meany 5y ago

mgh2 5y ago

Free will and responsibility can be mutually exclusive, this is what most people have a hard time understanding.

coldtea 5y ago
Not really. If there's no free will, you cannot also remove responsibility (because you don't have the free will to remove it). You believe, follow, and practice what you're determined (non freely) to believe about responsibility.
- mgh2 5y ago
  If being mutually exclusive is a fact, the individual cannot determine the laws of nature.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Doesn't have to change any laws of nature. Responsibility is an idea inside a person (it's an ethical concept), not a law of nature. As such, if the person doesn't have free will (and can't act on his independent volition) then they also can't remove their feeling/belief about responsibility. If it's there (and for most people it is), it's there.
    - alan-hn 5y ago
      No, that's only your interpretation of responsibility. Causality still exists no matter what and that's where responsibility lies, in the chain of causality
      - coldtea 5y ago
        >Causality still exists no matter what and that's where responsibility lies, in the chain of causality Deterministic causual chains of the type we're talking about don't allow for responsibily. One thing merely causes another, going back to the Bing Bang, without any flexibility of it being otherwise or anybody chosing to do anything else. If you have no choice, you have no responsibility, not in any moral sense. You only have "responsibility" in a deterministic universe if we use "responsible" as a synonym for "caused" (as in, X's action is "responsible" for this happening. But that's no more of a responsibility, character/person/morally -wise, as saying "the rain is responsible for the road being wet"). That's not only true for a deterministic universe with no free will/choice. We also accept it in our legal system, even while believing in free will. For example, if somebody does something because they have no other choice, e.g. because somebody else put a gun to their head to do it, we don't consider them responsible, or at least we consider them much less responsible than when acting on their own
        alan-hn 5y ago
        See definition 1b2. No reason to put it in quotes, its literally one of the definitions. We're arguing over semantics, which definition is "more right". My opinion as a bioscientist is that there is no other proper definition that lines up with the deterministic reality of the universe. Some causes are just too complex for us to understand currently so we write it off as " personal responsibility" Just because we wrote something in law doesn't make it correct. Humans are dumb as shit. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsible https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsible
        mgh2 5y ago
        It will help with examples: 1. In order to survive, you to take a less than ideal job, but you still have the responsibility to do your duty to the best of your ability. 2. You had a wedlock child not of your planning. You still are responsible for the child. 3. For Nazi Germany soldiers, "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse. You have a conscience and are responsible for you actions. The people who believe in "choice" are precisely the ones who don't want to take responsibility for their actions - ex: "my body, my choice" in vaccines or abortion. The brainwashing propaganda runs very deep. The reality is that you don't really have a no choice in anything - you only think you do, but you are still responsible to do right under your conditions