Responsibility without freewill

[Straw Dog]

Penumbra,

Free will, I think, is a fairly important illusion. We seem to have evolved with the predisposition to view other people as moral agents. It's a cultural universal, as far as I know. And it's hard to function otherwise. Religion itself may be the predisposition to personify forces of nature.

I don't know that 'illusion' is the right word for it, especially considering its apparent importance. An illusion is a distortion of the senses, which reveals the mind's normal manner of operation. It is a false and deceptive appearance, impression, perception, or idea. I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around how such an illusion can have real, beneficial effects. Do you know of any other beneficial illusions that occur in nature?

I think responsibility is more of a practical matter than a philosophical matter.

I don't view terms like free will and responsibility to be logically coherent. Instead, I think practicality is the most important thing, and a certain level of consistency between how we assign the idea of freedom and how we assign the idea of responsibility. I don't think there can be philosophical responsibility without philosophical freedom, for example. But even if both are missing, we can still have prisons and people can get fired and so forth.

I agree.

 

[idav]

Freewill or not you break it you buy it, its karma.

 

[Willamena]

Freewill or not you break it you buy it, its karma.

That's responsibility, not karma.

 

[Skwim]

But why would they?

Out of politeness. If someone asks, "Was it you who washed my car ?" one might politely respond, "Yes. It was me."

 

[Willamena]

Out of politeness. If someone asks, "Was it you who washed my car ?" one might politely respond, "Yes. It was me."

Yes. Responsibility.

 

[Penumbra]

Penumbra,

I don't know that 'illusion' is the right word for it, especially considering its apparent importance. An illusion is a distortion of the senses, which reveals the mind's normal manner of operation. It is a false and deceptive appearance, impression, perception, or idea. I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around how such an illusion can have real, beneficial effects. Do you know of any other beneficial illusions that occur in nature?

I think it's the right word.

As for beneficial illusions, I think in some ways, almost everything is illusionary to some extent.

By that I mean, the brain filters much of reality in order for the small remaining part to be useful. Right?

For example in terms of vision, we don't see gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, infrared, microwaves, or radio waves. We see just a small portion of the visible spectrum. It could be said, then, that the world we visibly see, is an illusion, isn't it? If you show someone 1% of a picture, are they seeing the real picture? Would seeing the entire spectrum help or inhibit a person's survival?

Or, optical illusions. We see illusions, or misleading images, in part because they are aspects of what makes our vision successful.

A and B are the exact same shade of gray:

Spoiler: Large Image

And yet when we look at that image, we know exactly what the image is trying to show us.

The same thing goes for relativity and quantum effects. Humans directly perceive neither of them. Our brains can barely comprehend them. Newtonian physics seem intuitive, but relativity and quantum effects seem largely illogical, even to the most educated minds. They don't naturally think in terms of them, and instead must quantify them mostly with mathematics. That's because, at the speeds humans exist at, and interact with, only Newtonian physics is necessary, disregarding advanced technology.

So I don't think it's odd that free will would be yet another beneficial illusion. I think overall, the human mind works in terms of personifying things. We personify not just other people, but also animals and forces of nature. It's pretty much a universal phenomenon, with almost all cultures doing it, even if they do it differently.

Basically I don't think the word "illusion" means that something is not important or not beneficial.

 

[9Westy9]

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.

Is it "right" to punish someone for something they're not in control of?

 

[Straw Dog]

Is it "right" to punish someone for something they're not in control of?

No.

I don't really believe in punishment anyway. Neutralizing the actual action that is threatening is what matters most. Correcting harmful behavior is most beneficial.

 

[Penumbra]

Is it "right" to punish someone for something they're not in control of?

Depends what the purpose of punishment is.

If a pet dog viciously bites someone, something has to be done about the dog to keep it away from people. We don't blame the dog, though. Still, there may be consequences for the dog.

Punishment can be rehabilitative. It can correct problematic actions so that future actions from that person are more likely to result in positive well-being both for themselves and others.

Punishment can be preventative, for determent. In that way, it can correct problematic actions before they occur, by making people aware of consequences for actions. So, one person gets rehabilitation, and other people hopefully know not to do that, and are deterred.

Punishment can protect others, temporarily or permanently. It can keep dangerous dogs away from people, dangerous criminals away from law-abiding citizens, and so forth.

Punishment can be reparative. If person A hurts person B, then forcing person A to pay for person B's medical bills, time off work, and some additional compensation, helps balance the imbalance. A lot of psychological research shows that people have an innate need for balance, which is essentially justice, much like they need emotional intimacy or acceptance by a group. It's a rather universal need. And apart from that, when a person has been dealt some sort of big problem, we sympathize with them and want to help, and the best places for resources to come from, if they are available, is from the person that caused it, particularly if they were negligent. Or, their insurer, due to pooled risk.

Punishment can be for vengeance. Out of sadism, spite, hate.

Of those, the first four don't require the belief in free will, and don't require the punished person to be in control in order to make sense. They either have to happen anyway (like getting a murderer off the streets), or they are helpful anyway (like enforcing addiction rehabilitation for an offender, or getting a negligent party to pay for medical expenses). So they're best thought of as consequences, a natural cause and effect. Only the fifth one, the desire to cause suffering for the purpose of causing suffering, lacks good reasoning if there is no freedom, no control, and of course some may argue that it lacks good reasoning even if there is freedom and control.

 

[Straw Dog]

So I don't think it's odd that free will would be yet another beneficial illusion. I think overall, the human mind works in terms of personifying things. We personify not just other people, but also animals and forces of nature. It's pretty much a universal phenomenon, with almost all cultures doing it, even if they do it differently.

Basically I don't think the word "illusion" means that something is not important or not beneficial.

Alright then. Freewill is a noble illusion. However, it's slippery whenever I see semantics all the way through. It also doesn't seem like authentic action requires the illusion of free choice.

 

[Penumbra]

Alright then. Freewill is a noble illusion. However, it's slippery whenever I see semantics all the way through. It also doesn't seem like authentic action requires the illusion of free choice.

Sometimes things evolve not because they're required, but because they're more efficient than other methods.

 

[idav]

Discuss.

Yes we are all responsible for our own natures. Karma is about the nature of things as well as the effects of actions. Those actions will receive karma no matter if the action is by choice or forced action. Even when free will is an illusion karma is still due. I feel free will illusion has much to do with self aware illusion, in that self awareness is what perpetuates an illusion of choosing our own actions. No self awareness, no illusion of free will.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Yes we are all responsible for our own natures. Karma is about the nature of things as well as the effects of actions. Those actions will receive karma no matter if the action is by choice or forced action. Even when free will is an illusion karma is still due. I feel free will illusion has much to do with self aware illusion, in that self awareness is what perpetuates an illusion of choosing our own actions. No self awareness, no illusion of free will.

I've wondered about the idea of karma - if it is a universal metaphysical law - then is it just the action that has consequence... or is it mixed with the intent as well? I tend to believe that intention does influence karma - for one thing influence of belief/intent is seen in the placebo effect. And quantum physics suggests that there is constant subatomic communication going on.

 

[HeatherAnn]

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.

Strawdog,
Kudos, or positive karma - for you to even bring this up.

The idea of free will tends to be misunderstood, so that both sides see one extreme or the other... polarized thinking. One side says, "there is no possible way to have 100% free will and still be an entity that has limits."
Then the other side says, "even if you have a degree of choice - (which always exists the choice on what to focus), you have free will - ability to will one thing over another."

One way or the other... it is good to encourage response-ability - especially in a world that values liberty without thought for higher good.

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.

I'm in a never-ending process of learning about consciousness and self-identity.
Hesse pointed out that ancient Asiatics never implied that a person only had one soul. Pascal said, "How many natures lie in human nature!"
Yet, Kent suggested that the transcendental ego enables a constant synthesizing so we can have knowledge.

We're walking paradoxes, in so many ways!
Our bodies are planets to trillions of microbes and after considering the skeletal system, cardio vascular, and all of the other body systems, how can one decide exactly what part of a body deserves credit for living?

 

[idav]

I've wondered about the idea of karma - if it is a universal metaphysical law - then is it just the action that has consequence... or is it mixed with the intent as well? I tend to believe that intention does influence karma - for one thing influence of belief/intent is seen in the placebo effect. And quantum physics suggests that there is constant subatomic communication going on.

All actions have consequence. Karma is intent so far as knowledge is available via the "subatomic communications".

 

[Straw Dog]

Sometimes things evolve not because they're required, but because they're more efficient than other methods.

Do you think we can evolve and/or develop more efficient methods? Or is the illusion of freewill top of the line?

 

[Straw Dog]

Kudos

Thanks!

The idea of free will tends to be misunderstood, so that both sides see one extreme or the other... polarized thinking. One side says, "there is no possible way to have 100% free will and still be an entity that has limits."
Then the other side says, "even if you have a degree of choice - (which always exists the choice on what to focus), you have free will - ability to will one thing over another."

One way or the other... it is good to encourage response-ability - especially in a world that values liberty without thought for higher good.

Yes, the extremes do tend to get the spotlight, but they also do represent the classical argument of freewill vs. determinism. I see determination in the will and freedom in the causes, although I'm still trying to sort out thoughts on the matter.

We're walking paradoxes, in so many ways!
Our bodies are planets to trillions of microbes and after considering the skeletal system, cardio vascular, and all of the other body systems, how can one decide exactly what part of a body deserves credit for living?

Yes, we are microcosms without a center in continuous process of becoming. The unfolding of life expresses the creativity of being.

 

[Straw Dog]

Yes we are all responsible for our own natures. Karma is about the nature of things as well as the effects of actions. Those actions will receive karma no matter if the action is by choice or forced action. Even when free will is an illusion karma is still due. I feel free will illusion has much to do with self aware illusion, in that self awareness is what perpetuates an illusion of choosing our own actions. No self awareness, no illusion of free will.

Yes, we may move beyond self-reflective consciousness into a more integrated flow with the totality of being.

 

[idav]

Yes, we may move beyond self-reflective consciousness into a more integrated flow with the totality of being.

That makes sense.

 

[Straw Dog]

That makes sense.

I don't know that it resolves all issues as it is difficult to maintain integrated flow when certain obstacles arise that seem to require reflection. The integrated state of consciousness may not be superior to the reflective depending upon the situation.