Responsibility without freewill

[Straw Dog]

Conventional wisdom holds that we cannot be held accountable for our actions unless we have freewill. In particular, existentialists emphasize the correlation between personal freedom and responsibility. Although I share many existential views, a faith in transcendental freedom is not one of them. This thread is meant to argue that we are actually still responsible for our actions and their consequences even in a world without an abstract freewill.

Everything that is our own doing is a manifestation of internal causes. This internalization of causality is what defines us as individuals, although we may share some causes with others. It doesn't make sense to say that our internal causes made us do such and such as if we were a victim because we are nothing other than the manifestation of those causes. Even if a decision is made before we are consciously aware of it, it is still our decision. Upon critical reflection, it becomes rational to accept responsibility for our original natures. To represent ourselves as something other than or beyond our very own nature is to represent nothing. Self-representations must identify holistically with our total nature rather than just specifically with consciousness.

Discuss.

 

[Skwim]

Everything that is our own doing is a manifestation of internal causes.

To a degree. Sometimes a large one, sometimes a lesser one.

It doesn't make sense to say that our internal causes made us do such and such as if we were a victim because we are nothing other than the manifestation of those causes.

I don't believe anyone sees it as being a victim.

Even if a decision is made before we are consciously aware of it, it is still our decision.

Yes . . . . . . .but

Upon critical reflection, it becomes rational to accept responsibility for our original natures.

To the extent that no one else is responsible.

Self-representations must identify holistically with our total nature rather than just specifically with consciousness.

What is identifying holistically with our total nature? And what kind of self-representaions are you talking about?

 

[s2a]

Conventional wisdom holds that we cannot be held accountable for our actions unless we have freewill. In particular, existentialists emphasize the correlation between personal freedom and responsibility. Although I share many existential views, a faith in transcendental freedom is not one of them. This thread is meant to argue that we are actually still responsible for our actions and their consequences even in a world without an abstract freewill.

I was always suspicious of that "knowledge tree". Wish I could remeber where I left my robe of covering now...

Everything that is our own doing is a manifestation of internal causes. This internalization of causality is what defines us as individuals, although we may share some causes with others. It doesn't make sense to say that our internal causes made us do such and such as if we were a victim because we are nothing other than the manifestation of those causes. Even if a decision is made before we are consciously aware of it, it is still our decision. Upon critical reflection, it becomes rational to accept responsibility for our original natures. To represent ourselves as something other than or beyond our very own nature is to represent nothing. Self-representations must identify holistically with our total nature rather than just specifically with consciousness.

Discuss.

So...if I don;t know I'm naked...I'm not?

If I am naked anyway, am I then an unconscious pervert and corrupter?

What is then the "nature" of our own self-conscious selves?

Do I choose to be unclothed on purpose, or by unconscious accident?

I really want to be "rational" by these standards you know.

BTW, if everyone is naked, how does my condition seem a manifested "cause" of anything?

If only I had been born in a full suit and tie...

 

[Straw Dog]

To a degree. Sometimes a large one, sometimes a lesser one.

Could you please provide examples of larger and lesser degrees?

I don't believe anyone sees it as being a victim.

As if...

Treating self-representations as specially separated from our objective natures is a cognitive dissonance. Our actions are not happening to us.

To the extent that no one else is responsible.

In most cases, other people are also responsible sharing similar causes.

What is identifying holistically with our total nature? And what kind of self-representaions are you talking about?

Identifying holistically means representing all of one's natural causality, from the genetic to the environmental. We typically only identify with the most shallow layer of conscious awareness.

 

[LuisDantas]

Conventional wisdom holds that we cannot be held accountable for our actions unless we have freewill. In particular, existentialists emphasize the correlation between personal freedom and responsibility. Although I share many existential views, a faith in transcendental freedom is not one of them. This thread is meant to argue that we are actually still responsible for our actions and their consequences even in a world without an abstract freewill.

We are, but of course not in an absolute way.

Free will is not a concept that I recognize as meaningful, but in a way that only means that we are that much more responsible for the effects that our actions and choices have - since they so often restrict those of others and even our own, if for no other reason.

Everything that is our own doing is a manifestation of internal causes. This internalization of causality is what defines us as individuals, although we may share some causes with others.

The boundaries between internal and external causes are not really that clean-cut. It may be argued that they are entirely illusory, even.

For that matter, individualization is also rather arguable.

That is, in fact, one reason why ethical responsibility is so necessary; not because we are well established as having individual existence, but rather because we are not.

We can't very well trust others to be protected from our mistakes, so we ought to attempt to protect them as well as we reasonably can.

It doesn't make sense to say that our internal causes made us do such and such as if we were a victim because we are nothing other than the manifestation of those causes.

We are doubtless victims, often and in many different ways. That does not however mean that we do not have ethical duties and personal responsibility.

Even if a decision is made before we are consciously aware of it, it is still our decision. Upon critical reflection, it becomes rational to accept responsibility for our original natures.

I don't know that we have original natures, but that does not matter far as I can tell. It is still rational and necessary to accept responsibility for the consequences of our actions and omissions, because they will have consequences anyway.

That in itself has very interesting consequences. Chief among them, that ethical responsibility can only truly exist when we have awareness and understanding of the consequences of our actions... and also that we have an ethical duty to actively seek such awareness and understanding.

To represent ourselves as something other than or beyond our very own nature is to represent nothing. Self-representations must identify holistically with our total nature rather than just specifically with consciousness.

How do you know that there is such a thing as our own nature?

 

[Straw Dog]

So...if I don;t know I'm naked...I'm not?

No, you are definitely naked.

Although you may not be consciously aware of it presently, upon dawning awareness and critical reflection, you will probably bear responsibility for having been nude to begin with. Just an observation of human behavior.

 

[Straw Dog]

The boundaries between internal and external causes are not really that clean-cut. It may be argued that they are entirely illusory, even.

Yes, these are categories used for purposes of human understanding within our naturally limited perspectives.

External causes that exert a significant influence upon people are internalized. They are not so clear cut, but the key to understanding is the process of transformation.

For that matter, individualization is also rather arguable.

That is, in fact, one reason why ethical responsibility is so necessary; not because we are well established as having individual existence, but rather because we are not.

We can't very well trust others to be protected from our mistakes, so we ought to attempt to protect them as well as we reasonably can.

Again, just a transitory construct that may be meaningful whenever deliberating about what to do. I'm not arguing for the establishment of separate individuals. Responsibility is shared just as causes are shared.

I don't know that we have original natures, but that does not matter far as I can tell. It is still rational and necessary to accept responsibility for the consequences of our actions and omissions, because they will have consequences anyway.

By original, I mean that which makes us unique individuals in relation to other unique individuals. Do you deny diversity?

That in itself has very interesting consequences. Chief among them, that ethical responsibility can only truly exist when we have awareness and understanding of the consequences of our actions... and also that we have an ethical duty to actively seek such awareness and understanding.

To an extent, yes. The possibility of responsibility is always present.

How do you know that there is such a thing as our own nature?

By following my own instincts. I don't know. I just listen and learn.

 

[Skwim]

Could you please provide examples of larger and lesser degrees?

In as much as "manifestation" has more than one meaning I'm taking it as an expression, either internally or externally; so such an expression can well be influenced by causes lying outside ourselves. And, these causes can well have varying degrees of influence. A tree falling on one will have a far greater degree on the consequent "manifestation" than would a puff of wind against one's cheek.

As if...

Treating self-representations as specially separated from our objective natures is a cognitive dissonance. Our actions are not happening to us.

Still fail to see any victimization here.

Identifying holistically means representing all of one's natural causality, from the genetic to the environmental. We typically only identify with the most shallow layer of conscious awareness.

Your obfuscating prose isn't helping you one bit. Try expressing your ideas in terms that don't need to be deciphered, but whose meanings are unambiguous. Which brings up my previous question.

"And what kind of self-representations are you talking about when you said 'Self-representations must identify holistically with our total nature rather than just specifically with consciousness'"?




Now, my own thoughts about "responsibility without freewill." Responsible in the general sense of the word is a matter of being "chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something*," which lays the culpability on the author. If you do something then no one else or thing did it. Taking it to the next step implied by "without freeewill" is the question of could you have helped doing what you did? Without freewill, of course not; you absolutely had to do what you did. This lands us in the territory of consequences. Freewill easily lends itself to approving or disapproving consequences, two of which are applause and arrest, freewill declaring that the doer could have done differently; not practiced eight hours a day to master the violin,or not deciding not to knock over the jewelry store. Without freewill the actor could not have done differently than he did. No more than a rock could not sit where it does. So, should such a person who is responsible for doing what he did (no one else or thing did it) be honored or chastised for something they had no volition in doing? Of course not.

Should we applaud Niagara Falls for putting on its display of a thundering cascade of water? Of course not. Or a rainbows brilliant display of colors? Of course not, which is why we don't. Same with those who have no free will. They don't deserve applause for what they were "coerced" into doing. I could have done the very same if I too had also been required to practice the violin eight hours a day (assuming all else being equal).


So, while there is a certain responsibility for doing X regardless if it was a product of freewill or of determinism, without freewill I see no responsibility that would generate judgement. What is is what has to be.



*Dictionary.com.

 

[Straw Dog]

Now, my own thoughts about "responsibility without freewill." Responsible in the general sense of the word is a matter of being "chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something*," which lays the culpability on the author. If you do something then no one else or thing did it. Taking it to the next step implied by "without freeewill" is the question of could you have helped doing what you did? Without freewill, of course not; you absolutely had to do what you did. This lands us in the territory of consequences. Freewill easily lends itself to approving or disapproving consequences, two of which are applause and arrest, freewill declaring that the doer could have done differently; not practiced eight hours a day to master the violin,or not deciding not to knock over the jewelry store. Without freewill the actor could not have done differently than he did. No more than a rock could not sit where it does. So, should such a person who is responsible for doing what he did (no one else or thing did it) be honored or chastised for something they had no volition in doing? Of course not.

Should we applaud Niagara Falls for putting on its display of a thundering cascade of water? Of course not. Or a rainbows brilliant display of colors? Of course not, which is why we don't. Same with those who have no free will. They don't deserve applause for what they were "coerced" into doing. I could have done the very same if I too had also been required to practice the violin eight hours a day (assuming all else being equal).


So, while there is a certain responsibility for doing X regardless if it was a product of freewill or of determinism, without freewill I see no responsibility that would generate judgement. What is is what has to be.



*Dictionary.com.

Yes, this does make sense. Thanks for sharing.

I'm a poet confused by philosophy. Better to just follow my heart.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, this does make sense. Thanks for sharing.

I'm a poet confused by philosophy. Better to just follow my heart.

But I think you're a better poet if your mind has firm grasp on the nature of reality; it will at least help you from making philosophically incorrect statements. As depressing as the thought may be, there is no such thing as freewill. Everyone is destined to do what they do and nothing different.

 

[Straw Dog]

But I think you're a better poet if your mind has firm grasp on the nature of reality; it will at least help you from making philosophically incorrect statements. As depressing as the thought may be, there is no such thing as freewill. Everyone is destined to do what they do and nothing different.

Well, then I may very well be destined to not have a firm grasp on the nature of reality.

So it goes...

 

[Willamena]

But I think you're a better poet if your mind has firm grasp on the nature of reality; it will at least help you from making philosophically incorrect statements. As depressing as the thought may be, there is no such thing as freewill. Everyone is destined to do what they do and nothing different.

Fatalism isn't "the nature of reality."

 

[Skwim]

Fatalism isn't "the nature of reality."

Fatalism only in the sense of predeterminism, a consequential offshoot of determinism.

But why not, and if not then what is "the nature of reality," and why?

 

[Willamena]

But why not, and if not then what is "the nature of reality," and why?

The nature of reality is the moment, i.e. 'now,' which we identify with conscious recognition of a world in which we participate.

But that's neither here nor there.

 

[Straw Dog]

Here's another view: the future is within the present and the present-future is within the past. All phases in the process actually occur simultaneously rather than sequentially.

 

[Desert Snake]

At best you would be implying limited free will. As soon as we make the choice between wearing a red shirt as opposed to a blue shirt, there is the implication of freewill..we have made a 'choice', between two or more options, this is not pre-ordained automaton behavior.

 

[bobhikes]

Conventional wisdom holds that we cannot be held accountable for our actions unless we have freewill. In particular, existentialists emphasize the correlation between personal freedom and responsibility. Although I share many existential views, a faith in transcendental freedom is not one of them. This thread is meant to argue that we are actually still responsible for our actions and their consequences even in a world without an abstract freewill.
Discuss.

After reading through I still fail to see how you can have responsibility without out freedom of will.

 

[Thruve]

Hence, Grace.

 

[Skwim]

At best you would be implying limited free will. As soon as we make the choice between wearing a red shirt as opposed to a blue shirt, there is the implication of freewill..we have made a 'choice', between two or more options, this is not pre-ordained automaton behavior.

Why did you make the "choice" you did? Was it a completely random event or was there a cause behind it? If there was a cause event behind it could you have done otherwise? Of course not. You had to do what you were caused to do. And what generated this specific reaching-for-the-red-shirt event, a prior random event or did it too have a cause. Off course it had a cause---random events only happen at the quantum level. And so on back down the chain of causes/effect events. Each cause determining the next event, and only that event, which in turn became the cause of the following event, and so on until the moment of cause→Event of reaching-for-the-red-shirt. You were caused to reach for the red shirt because the sequence of cause/events leading up to that moment were what they were and not something else. For you to have reached for the blue shirt something in this chain would have had to be different, BUT THEY WEREN'T, so you had to reach for the red shirt.

There may be apparent options, but there are no true choices, or choosing.

 

[Skwim]

After reading through I still fail to see how you can have responsibility without out freedom of will.

You can have responsibility in the sense that you, and no one else, committed the act. I, and no one else, picked up the rock and threw it. So I, and no one else, am responsible for breaking the window. As for assigning blame or praise, that's a whole other kettle of crawdads.