4 ms·

I think that determinism is not a useful theory, and I think that is what Hawking was getting at in his wry comment. Even if the universe is deterministic, it

by efitz 3y ago

I think that determinism is not a useful theory, and I think that is what Hawking was getting at in his wry comment. Even if the universe is deterministic, it doesn’t feel deterministic, and determinism doesn’t help me with ethics or morality. It reminds me of The Stranger.

danbruc 3y ago
[...] determinism doesn’t help me with ethics or morality. It does. When we look at criminals we nowadays take into account medical and psychological conditions, we are aware that people are not always in full control of what they are doing. This is obviously a weaker form than full blown determinism, but we certainly take into account that people are not completely free in their actions at all times. Similarly the assumption of a deterministic universe will influence ethics and morality, even though it will of course not be the only thing under consideration. [1] [1] Ignoring the big complication that talking about considerations and things like that in a deterministic universe is itself something that needs a lot of care.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > It does. When we look at criminals we nowadays take into account medical and psychological conditions, we are aware that people are not always in full control of what they are doing. But that doesn't change anything one way or the other. The efficacy of policies can be determined by measuring the outcomes. Policies which reduce crime / recidivism rates are good; policies that don't are bad. Whether or not anybody has free will makes no difference, the outcomes are what they are whether or not people have free will. If raising the DUI fine 10x causes a drop in DUI rates, then that's a good policy even if people don't have free will. And if it has no effect on DUI rates, then it's an ineffectual policy even if people have free will. Free will is irrelevant, measurable outcomes are what matters.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    Policies which reduce crime / recidivism rates are good; policies that don't are bad. Killing all people will reduce the crime and recidivism rates to zero. At the very least you want some more nuance. The efficacy of policies can be determined by measuring the outcomes. Killing a healthy person and taking two of its organs to save two terminally ill people waiting for an organ transplant will increase the number of years lived. Is outcome really all that matters? Breaking the window of a car because you like breaking stuff and breaking the window of a car to unsuccessfully save a dog left behind in the car on a hot day, are they really morally the same because the outcome is the same? Yes, you talked about policies and not individual actions, but with some more thinking I could certainly find a good example for policies.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Meet me half way here, of course I'm simplifying the actual process of determining which laws are worth having and which aren't because the nitty gritty Nth order effects of laws aren't what we're discussing here. If killing one person to harvest their organs saves two lives, but also makes people cry in anguished despair at the immoral and unjust state of their society, then that's a bad law. But that's got nothing to do with free will or lack thereof. My assertion, the point I'm making, is that at no point does the existence or nonexistence of free will factor into the process of determining which laws are worth having. The way people feel about laws does factor into determining what laws are good or bad, but that is true whether or not people's feelings are deterministic or derived from free will.
      - danbruc 3y ago
        I think we actually agree on this, we just have to separate two pieces. When it comes to determining which kind of behavior we want, what we want to encourage and discourage, then determinism or not is probably not relevant. I would not completely exclude the possibility that it might sneak in somewhere, but ad hoc I can not think of anything. The other piece is more the implementation and enforcement of the rules, how do we deal with people violating the rules. Here I think determinism or not has to influence the way we set things up. With determinism you can not really justify putting people into small prison cells, they should instead be allowed to live a normal live except from being prevented to come into situation in which there bad behavior would kick in again. So depending on what exactly we call the law - whether only the desired or undesired behavior or also including policies around implementation and enforcement - I could agree to both, determinism plays [almost] no role or it does.

by efitz 3y ago

danbruc 3y ago

[...] determinism doesn’t help me with ethics or morality. It does. When we look at criminals we nowadays take into account medical and psychological conditions, we are aware that people are not always in full control of what they are doing. This is obviously a weaker form than full blown determinism, but we certainly take into account that people are not completely free in their actions at all times. Similarly the assumption of a deterministic universe will influence ethics and morality, even though it will of course not be the only thing under consideration. [1] [1] Ignoring the big complication that talking about considerations and things like that in a deterministic universe is itself something that needs a lot of care.

mcpackieh 3y ago
> It does. When we look at criminals we nowadays take into account medical and psychological conditions, we are aware that people are not always in full control of what they are doing. But that doesn't change anything one way or the other. The efficacy of policies can be determined by measuring the outcomes. Policies which reduce crime / recidivism rates are good; policies that don't are bad. Whether or not anybody has free will makes no difference, the outcomes are what they are whether or not people have free will. If raising the DUI fine 10x causes a drop in DUI rates, then that's a good policy even if people don't have free will. And if it has no effect on DUI rates, then it's an ineffectual policy even if people have free will. Free will is irrelevant, measurable outcomes are what matters.
- danbruc 3y ago
  Policies which reduce crime / recidivism rates are good; policies that don't are bad. Killing all people will reduce the crime and recidivism rates to zero. At the very least you want some more nuance. The efficacy of policies can be determined by measuring the outcomes. Killing a healthy person and taking two of its organs to save two terminally ill people waiting for an organ transplant will increase the number of years lived. Is outcome really all that matters? Breaking the window of a car because you like breaking stuff and breaking the window of a car to unsuccessfully save a dog left behind in the car on a hot day, are they really morally the same because the outcome is the same? Yes, you talked about policies and not individual actions, but with some more thinking I could certainly find a good example for policies.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Meet me half way here, of course I'm simplifying the actual process of determining which laws are worth having and which aren't because the nitty gritty Nth order effects of laws aren't what we're discussing here. If killing one person to harvest their organs saves two lives, but also makes people cry in anguished despair at the immoral and unjust state of their society, then that's a bad law. But that's got nothing to do with free will or lack thereof. My assertion, the point I'm making, is that at no point does the existence or nonexistence of free will factor into the process of determining which laws are worth having. The way people feel about laws does factor into determining what laws are good or bad, but that is true whether or not people's feelings are deterministic or derived from free will.
    - danbruc 3y ago
      I think we actually agree on this, we just have to separate two pieces. When it comes to determining which kind of behavior we want, what we want to encourage and discourage, then determinism or not is probably not relevant. I would not completely exclude the possibility that it might sneak in somewhere, but ad hoc I can not think of anything. The other piece is more the implementation and enforcement of the rules, how do we deal with people violating the rules. Here I think determinism or not has to influence the way we set things up. With determinism you can not really justify putting people into small prison cells, they should instead be allowed to live a normal live except from being prevented to come into situation in which there bad behavior would kick in again. So depending on what exactly we call the law - whether only the desired or undesired behavior or also including policies around implementation and enforcement - I could agree to both, determinism plays [almost] no role or it does.