11 ms·

> They want to be responsible for their choices, but this is compatible with a deterministic universe. This is a controversial claim. How can someone be respon

> They want to be responsible for their choices, but this is compatible with a deterministic universe. This is a controversial claim. How can someone be responsible for something they have no control over? I'd agree that's possible, but I don't think that's how most people understand it.

naasking 2y ago
> This is a controversial claim. How can someone be responsible for something they have no control over? The Frankfurt cases showed that control over alternate possibilities is not necessary for responsibility. If someone holds a gun to your head to make you do something that you were going to do anyway, that's not really compromising your free will is it? Edit: it's also not really as controversial as you might think, experimental philosophy has demonstrated that most lay people's moral reasoning aligns with Compatibilism: https://philarchive.org/rec/ANDWCI-3 https://philarchive.org/rec/ANDWCI-3
- guerrilla 2y ago
  It's exactly as controversial as I think because I think it's as controversial as we have measured. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4838 https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4838 Lay people are incoherent and childishly naive. I don't really care what they think. > The Frankfurt cases showed that control over alternate possibilities is not necessary for responsibility. This is a controversial claim. There are many popular counterarguments.
  - naasking 2y ago
    > It's exactly as controversial as I think because I think it's as controversial as we have measured. I wouldn't consider 60% agreement to be that controversial frankly, especially when the next most popular contender at 18% is the incoherent mess that is libertarian free will. > Lay people are incoherent and childishly naive. I don't really care what they think. You should, because 1) many trying to dismiss free will use lay people's alleged incoherent definitions, but that's the wrong way to question lay people because they don't think in denotational terms, and if you question them properly they have nuanced and coherent approaches to moral reasoning, and 2) making sense of free will is all about how lay people talk and reason about these concepts, and the point of the philosophical debate over free will is whether there is a coherent definition that can make sense of these arguments. Furthermore, the paper I linked is directly relevant to your post because you made the claim that it's not how most people understand the term, and that paper casts some serious doubt on that position. > This is a controversial claim. There are many popular counterarguments. "Popular" quantified how exactly? Frankly this is even less controversial than the acceptance of Compatibilism, so I won't lose any sleep over it.
    - guerrilla 2y ago
      Touché.
nitwit005 2y ago
You a free to make choices in a deterministic universe. It was just always going to be the choice you made. Introducing randomness just eliminates that determanism, not the ability to choose.

naasking 2y ago

> This is a controversial claim. How can someone be responsible for something they have no control over? The Frankfurt cases showed that control over alternate possibilities is not necessary for responsibility. If someone holds a gun to your head to make you do something that you were going to do anyway, that's not really compromising your free will is it? Edit: it's also not really as controversial as you might think, experimental philosophy has demonstrated that most lay people's moral reasoning aligns with Compatibilism: https://philarchive.org/rec/ANDWCI-3 https://philarchive.org/rec/ANDWCI-3

guerrilla 2y ago
It's exactly as controversial as I think because I think it's as controversial as we have measured. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4838 https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4838 Lay people are incoherent and childishly naive. I don't really care what they think. > The Frankfurt cases showed that control over alternate possibilities is not necessary for responsibility. This is a controversial claim. There are many popular counterarguments.
- naasking 2y ago
  > It's exactly as controversial as I think because I think it's as controversial as we have measured. I wouldn't consider 60% agreement to be that controversial frankly, especially when the next most popular contender at 18% is the incoherent mess that is libertarian free will. > Lay people are incoherent and childishly naive. I don't really care what they think. You should, because 1) many trying to dismiss free will use lay people's alleged incoherent definitions, but that's the wrong way to question lay people because they don't think in denotational terms, and if you question them properly they have nuanced and coherent approaches to moral reasoning, and 2) making sense of free will is all about how lay people talk and reason about these concepts, and the point of the philosophical debate over free will is whether there is a coherent definition that can make sense of these arguments. Furthermore, the paper I linked is directly relevant to your post because you made the claim that it's not how most people understand the term, and that paper casts some serious doubt on that position. > This is a controversial claim. There are many popular counterarguments. "Popular" quantified how exactly? Frankly this is even less controversial than the acceptance of Compatibilism, so I won't lose any sleep over it.
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    Touché.

nitwit005 2y ago

You a free to make choices in a deterministic universe. It was just always going to be the choice you made. Introducing randomness just eliminates that determanism, not the ability to choose.