Yet Another Thread on Freewill

[shunyadragon]

Nothing that I would see as beneficial.
Just from my personal POV, it seems better to accept accountability for my choices and to teach my kids the same.

ALL the variable philosophies concerning human will account for accountability of our actions regardless of the degree of free will or not.

The accountability for violations of crimes is a fundamental basic nature of being human in the evolution of the 'Rule of Law', which is necessary for the survival of the species.

 

[Nakosis]

None of the above offered any defense of libertarian free will since all you mentioned and many other factors imped potential libertarian free will. There is absolutely no evidence for unimeeded libertarian free will.

Free will, libertarianism, and luck

Do we have free will? Free will is one of the central topics in philosophy, both historically and in the present. The basic puzzles of this topic are easily felt. For instance, it’s easy to wonder whether factors beyond our control -- our genetic constitution, the environment in which we were...

blog.oup.com

Free will, libertarianism, and luck​

Libertarian Free Will: Contemporary Debates​

• BY DAVID PALMER
• FEBRUARY 1ST 2015

Do we have free will? Free will is one of the central topics in philosophy, both historically and in the present. The basic puzzles of this topic are easily felt. For instance, it’s easy to wonder whether factors beyond our control — our genetic constitution, the environment in which we were brought up, and so on — might be among the causes of our behavior. In the light of this, we might wonder whether it’s really possible for us to act freely or, instead, whether everything we do is ultimately shaped by these factors in such a way that undermines our free will.
In contemporary philosophical discussions, this concern is crystallized as a concern about the relationship between free will and causal determinism. Causal determinism is the view that for any given time, a complete statement of the facts at that time, together with a complete statement of the laws of nature, entails every truth as to what happens after that time. On this issue, the basic divide among philosophers is between compatibilism and incompatibilism. Compatibilists believe that free will is compatible with determinism, whereas incompatibilists argue that free will is incompatible with determinism. According to incompatibilists, if our actions are causally determined, then we can’t act freely.
One view about free will that has recently received a lot of scholarly attention is the libertarian view of free will. Libertarianism about free will, which is completely distinct from libertarianism as a political doctrine, is the view that people do have free will, but that this freedom is incompatible with determinism. Thus, libertarians are incompatibilists who think that free will exists. (You could, of course, be an incompatibilist who thinks that free will doesn’t exist — a so-called “free will skeptic.”) In short, if libertarianism is true, then people sometimes act without being causally determined to do so.

In many ways, libertarianism is a natural view to hold about free will. After all, it seems obvious to most of us that we have free will, and many people believe that there’s a clear incompatibility between free will and determinism. But despite this appeal, many philosophers are skeptical of libertarianism. They think that there are powerful reasons to think that this view is false.
One especially prominent objection to libertarianism is the “luck objection.” According to this objection, if our actions aren’t causally determined, then our actions or crucial facts about our actions become matters of luck or chance in a way that undermines our free will. To illustrate, suppose that you have a choice between telling the truth or lying, and you decide to tell the truth. In order for your decision to be a free action, then, according to libertarians, it can’t be causally determined by past events. However, what follows from it not being causally determined is that it was open, up until the time you decided as you did, that you wouldn’t decide that way — that is, it was open, keeping everything else fixed up until that moment, that you would decide to lie instead.

Headline Image Credit: Jubilee Maze, Symonds Yat. CC-BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
David Palmer is Assistant Professor at the University of Tennessee. He specializes in ethics, metaphysics, and philosophy of action. He edited the volume, Libertarian Free Will: Contemporary Debates (OUP, 2014).

This is true from a deterministic POV but not from a libertarian POV and you can't dictate the POV for the libertarian.

The idea of a libertarian denying causality is a strawman. Any causality of which the individual agent is the source is allowed in the freewill process. This includes memories of past events. It includes any emotional factors or desires about the outcome which may influence the decision.

The only causality which could disrupt freewill would be external to the agent. Such as being restrained by another individual or it being physically impossible. So of course from the libertarian POV freewill requires causality. That causality comes from the agent themselves.

The past does not affect the choice of the individual, since the past no longer exists but the memories do. The memory is part of the agent who is making the decision and are part of the freewill process.

As a determinist you say that any causality negates freewill, ok but that does not have to be accepted by the libertarian.

 

[Nakosis]

ALL the variable philosophies concerning human will account for accountability of our actions regardless of the degree of free will or not.

The accountability for violations of crimes is a fundamental basic nature of being human in the evolution of the 'Rule of Law', which is necessary for the survival of the species.

How am I accountable if I couldn't have chosen to in any manner other than what I did?
Sure, I suppose the philosopher is going to have to figure out someway to "suspend belief" in determinism in order to allow for the 'rule of law' which is what I said. Otherwise they'd probably dismissed as a quack. No one would buy what they are trying to sell.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't mean that determinism is a "useful fiction."


I mean that if determinism is true, one benefit of realizing the truth of it is that you have rational grounds to dismiss moral anger.

Also, if you want to help a problem such as high crime rates, you would know that the best way to go about things is to fix the things that cause people to commit crimes. (Like high poverty rates.)

People erroneously "fixing" other people's problems is a separate issue. That is (rather) a criticism about people's misconceptions and has nothing to do with the benefits of realizing the truth of determinism in a deterministic world. People making erroneous assumptions is its own problem, and remains a problem even in a world with free will.

Causality doesn't require determinism to be true. One can analyze the cause of a problem and decide to act to fix the problem or not act. Or if you are a politician, to lie about it or use statistics to hide it etc...

You don't need determinism to decide to help people.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

without God's perspective it's impossible to judge.

That's a limitation the believer imposes on himself. The skeptic judges the god described in the scriptures. The believer is often aghast at that, and calls it hubris and usurping godhood for oneself, because he's been conditioned to never go there. It's blasphemy to him, and he probably fears having his mind read by that god, so he stifles any such thinking as soon as he recognizes that he is engaging in it. It's the puny mind argument, the one that attempts to disqualify any criticism of this god because how can you presume to think you can judge a god. This tactic is used in this omniscience and free will compatibility discussion to assert incoherent positions.

The murderer has an opportunity to improve. The victim is sacrificed and gets rewarded greatly.

Here we see what a wonderful god it must be to give murderers a chance to improve, and the victim is depicted as a winner as well. This is motivated reasoning, and it characterizes religious apologetics. The skeptic has no burden to try to make any of that appear to be anything other that what it is - a violent criminal and an unfortunate victim. There is nothing good about that.

Every tragedy is an opportunity to improve.

Sounds good. What a good god he is. Let's cause more tragedies and make the world a better place.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is true from a deterministic POV but not from a libertarian POV and you can't dictate the POV for the libertarian.

The idea of a libertarian denying causality is a strawman. Any causality of which the individual agent is the source is allowed in the freewill process. This includes memories of past events. It includes any emotional factors or desires about the outcome which may influence the decision.

The only causality which could disrupt freewill would be external to the agent. Such as being restrained by another individual or it being physically impossible. So of course from the libertarian POV freewill requires causality. That causality comes from the agent themselves.

The past does not affect the choice of the individual, since the past no longer exists but the memories do. The memory is part of the agent who is making the decision and are part of the freewill process.

As a determinist you say that any causality negates freewill, ok but that does not have to be accepted by the libertarian.

I take a middle of the road and reject both libertarian and extreme determinist view and go by the shear weight of evidence that negates any possibility of libertarian free will.

Again accountability has no relationship to whether free will exists or any degree of free will or there is no free will.

You have not responded to the specifics and references on my posts.

 

[dybmh]

The skeptic judges the god described in the scriptures.

Does the skeptic believe the scriptures are true? If not, then they are judging the scripture not God.

The believer is often aghast at that, and calls it hubris and usurping godhood for oneself, because he's been conditioned to never go there. It's blasphemy to him, and he probably fears having his mind read by that god, so he stifles any such thinking as soon as he recognizes that he is engaging in it. It's the puny mind argument, the one that attempts to disqualify any criticism of this god because how can you presume to think you can judge a god. This tactic is used in this omniscience and free will compatibility discussion to assert incoherent positions.

What do you or anyone know of the cosmic eternal consequences of anything happening here in the material world?

Here we see what a wonderful god it must be to give murderers a chance to improve, and the victim is depicted as a winner as well. This is motivated reasoning, and it characterizes religious apologetics. The skeptic has no burden to try to make any of that appear to be anything other that what it is - a violent criminal and an unfortunate victim. There is nothing good about that.

How does the skeptic know that there is no good in that?

Sounds good. What a good god he is. Let's cause more tragedies and make the world a better place.

Is the world improving or not?

 

[shunyadragon]

How am I accountable if I couldn't have chosen to in any manner other than what I did?
Sure, I suppose the philosopher is going to have to figure out someway to "suspend belief" in determinism in order to allow for the 'rule of law' which is what I said. Otherwise they'd probably dismissed as a quack. No one would buy what they are trying to sell.

There is no such thing as the suspension of belief in determinism nor free will, which neither have any relationship to accountability. Accountability is simply a matter of fact of the requirements of the survival of the human species. Without accountability the human species will not survive. Actually accountability is a factor of behavior in other primates also.

You have not responded to the matter of fact references I provided concerning the many many problems with libertarian free will/

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Does the skeptic believe the scriptures are true? If not, then they are judging the scripture not God.

Agreed. He judges all claims made about gods whether they are written or not. For example, we can judge the deity depicted in the flood story as both immoral and not too bright for drowning most of terrestrial life over its own error and then trying to correct it using the same breeding stock. This would be an example of the kind of thing the skeptic is free to consider, but the believer just bristles at.

What do you or anyone know of the cosmic eternal consequences of anything happening here in the material world?

Very little. Why do you ask? This sounds like one of those puny mind arguments that attempt to disqualify any thought the apologist doesn't like. It's been given a name: "The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever."

How does the skeptic know that there is no good in that?

In murder? The argument isn't that there is no good, just that it's a net harm.

Is the world improving or not?

I think so. It's never been so good for so many. Is that part of an argument for tragedy being good? Imagine how good the world would be with a tri-omni god in charge. Or even if the humanists were in charge. Humanism has tremendously improved the human condition and is the largest contributor to that improvement thanks to its two chief innovations, science and the modern, liberal, secular, democratic state that transformed serfs and subjects into autonomous citizens. Because of these, life is longer, more functional, more comfortable, easier, and more interesting.

 

[dybmh]

Agreed. He judges all claims made about gods whether they are written or not. For example, we can judge the deity depicted in the flood story as both immoral and not too bright for drowning most of terrestrial life over its own error and then trying to correct it using the same breeding stock. This would be an example of the kind of thing the skeptic is free to consider, but the believer just bristles at.

Good, then scripture cannot be used by a skeptic to judge God, scripture is used to judge scripture. Moving on...

Very little. Why do you ask? This sounds like one of those puny mind arguments that attempt to disqualify any thought the apologist doesn't like. It's been given a name: "The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever."

Excellent, if the skeptic knows very little, then no rational judgement can be rendered.

The fallacy is irrelevent. If it were then a legal case could not be dismissed lacking evidence. A judge requires information. The skeptic "knows very little" about this. The skeptic cannot judge rationally.

In murder? The argument isn't that there is no good, just that it's a net harm.

Originally you said: "There is nothing good about that." Nothing. Now we agree that there is potential for good. If there is divine justice, the net effect on the murderer is harm. If there is divine justice, then the victim is greatly rewarded. The friends and loved ones have an opportunity for growth. If society works to prevent future murders. A tragedy has been converted to net gain.

Big picture: if the goal is to prevent future tragedies, and the individual tragedy leads to that, then the individual tragedy is a net gain.

I think so. It's never been so good for so many.

Good, the world is improving.

Is that part of an argument for tragedy being good?

Ah. That is not what I said. I said tragedy is an opportunity. And I brought evidence that this is true. It can be a good thing. Free-will is the driver for this.

Imagine how good the world would be with a tri-omni god in charge.

I have problems with the tri-omni god concept. That would not be a just god. It would permit everything. God is dreadful, and it is proper to fear it.

Or even if the humanists were in charge. Humanism has tremendously improved the human condition and is the largest contributor to that improvement thanks to its two chief innovations, science and the modern, liberal, secular, democratic state that transformed serfs and subjects into autonomous citizens. Because of these, life is longer, more functional, more comfortable, easier, and more interesting.

Great! The inequity of serfs inspired humanism. A religious monarchy inspired humanism. The negative was converted into a positive.

 

[shunyadragon]

Causality doesn't require determinism to be true. One can analyze the cause of a problem and decide to act to fix the problem or not act. Or if you are a politician, to lie about it or use statistics to hide it etc...

The objective nature of causality in cause and effect events is property of determinism.

You don't need determinism to decide to help people.

If course not, but that is not the issue here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if the skeptic knows very little, then no rational judgement can be rendered.

Is this more of your effort to disqualify dissenting opinion? Why else would you post that? It not difficult to make rational judgments. My dogs do it. If you mean rational verbal judgments, children do it. At higher levels of abstraction, more experience is required, but still, just about any critical thinker knows to reject an insufficiently supported claim.

Originally you said: "There is nothing good about that." Nothing. Now we agree that there is potential for good.

Now you're being pedantic and deflecting, and using language in bad faith. Murder is harmful. Sure, somebody might benefit by it, but that's not much of an argument in defense of murder. Somebody might collect on life insurance or an inheritance, and some people make the world better only by leaving it, but

I have problems with the tri-omni god concept. That would not be a just god. It would permit everything.

So I guess you don't have a problem making moral judgments about gods after all. Also, your comment is bizarre. Benevolence is pretty much the opposite of permitting everything.

The inequity of serfs inspired humanism. A religious monarchy inspired humanism. The negative was converted into a positive.

Humanism was not inspired by what came before it. It was a reaction to it - a rejection of its basic tenets, a rejection of faith and received "wisdom" and a substitution of reason, evidence, and conscience for deciding what is true, good, and right - not holy books. Humanism was the remedy for the mess that theocratic autocracies created under the pretense of the divine right of kings, a Christian principle that informed the Middle Ages.

Is this you trying to find a benefit in religion like you do in murder? It sounds more like Abrahamic theism trying to usurp credit for changes it opposed then and still does. Besides trying to claim credit for the advent of humanism, other theists want to credit Christianity for science and for American founding principles.

 

[dybmh]

Is this more of your effort to disqualify dissenting opinion? Why else would you post that? It not difficult to make rational judgments. My dogs do it. If you mean rational verbal judgments, children do it. At higher levels of abstraction, more experience is required, but still, just about any critical thinker knows to reject an insufficiently supported claim.

I posted it because it refutes the claim that God can be judged from a finite human perspective.

I said: "without God's perspective it's impossible to judge"

In reply you have tried multple ways to say that God can be judged from a human perspective. First you tried to use scripture, which fails because the skeptic doesn't beleive scripture is true. Then you tried to claim it was a fallacy to require knowledge for judgement. And now you're claiming it's not true because it's insulting.

The simple truth is, the negative judgement against God is without rational basis. A real skeptic would acknowledge their lack of knowledge and return to an agnostic position. Instead, what is likely happening, is the so-called skeptic cannot be objective about their own motivations.

Now you're being pedantic and deflecting, and using language in bad faith. Murder is harmful. Sure, somebody might benefit by it, but that's not much of an argument in defense of murder. Somebody might collect on life insurance or an inheritance, and some people make the world better only by leaving it, but

All I'm doing is showing that with free-will, a single negative can be converted to multiple positives. Murder is still wrong, but people have the capability to use that wrong to do good with it. It cannot be denied.

So I guess you don't have a problem making moral judgments about gods after all. Also, your comment is bizarre. Benevolence is pretty much the opposite of permitting everything.

I can certainly make a judgement about certain god concepts, and so can you. An omnibenevolent being would permit the murderer who desires it. That would be benevolent to the murderer.

Humanism was not inspired by what came before it. It was a reaction to it - a rejection of its basic tenets, a rejection of faith and received "wisdom" and a substitution of reason, evidence, and conscience for deciding what is true, good, and right - not holy books. Humanism was the remedy for the mess that theocratic autocracies created under the pretense of the divine right of kings, a Christian principle that informed the Middle Ages.

Great! Something negative lead to a positive reaction.

Is this you trying to find a benefit in religion like you do in murder? It sounds more like Abrahamic theism trying to usurp credit for changes it opposed then and still does. Besides trying to claim credit for the advent of humanism, other theists want to credit Christianity for science and for American founding principles.

All I'm doing is showing that there is a way for humans to take any situation and convert to something positive. This is a function of free-will.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I posted it because it refutes the claim that God can be judged from a finite human perspective.

I don't you've refuted anything. First, what god? We have no gods, just stories about them. You assume that one of these gods exists. I don't, so your entire framework for discussing this matter doesn't apply for the agnostic atheist. You're making the thinking of what is likely a fictional character real and arguing as if it were.

I said: "without God's perspective it's impossible to judge"

As far as we know, there is no God's perspective. You keep inserting that into your argument as if that were a thing for both of us. It's not. The existence of this god is an unshared premise, and no conclusion that follows from it can be called sound. Hopefully you understand that.

the negative judgement against God is without rational basis

And this is why. You're debating a fellow theist who accepts your premises, not a skeptic.

A real skeptic would acknowledge their lack of knowledge and return to an agnostic position.

Of the two of us, I am the agnostic and the skeptic. You're the gnostic theist.

An omnibenevolent being would permit the murderer who desires it. That would be benevolent to the murderer.

Your understanding of benevolence is different from mine.

All I'm doing is showing that there is a way for humans to take any situation and convert to something positive. This is a function of free-will.

What does free will have to do with it? There may be no such thing. Even if free will were just an illusion, there is no reason that we wouldn't make the world more to our liking using the received and unquestioningly obeyed will.

 

[Nakosis]

The objective nature of causality in cause and effect events is property of determinism.

If course not, but that is not the issue here.

I wasn't really responding to your argument here.
Unless your intent was to support this poster's argument as well.

 

[Nakosis]

There is no such thing as the suspension of belief in determinism nor free will, which neither have any relationship to accountability. Accountability is simply a matter of fact of the requirements of the survival of the human species. Without accountability the human species will not survive. Actually accountability is a factor of behavior in other primates also.

You have not responded to the matter of fact references I provided concerning the many many problems with libertarian free will/

You haven't actually provided any. You only see them as problems because of the POV you have chosen.
I was trying to understand how determinism allows for this accountability but I don't see it here.

However, I have explained why the problem you've posed are not problems from my POV.
Maybe if I explain this way, causality is not a problem for libertarian freewill. If you think it is, it is because you, well I won't say wrong, but different understanding of the libertarian concept of freewill..

 

[muhammad_isa]

As a determinist you say that any causality negates freewill, ok but that does not have to be accepted by the libertarian.

I agree with that .. it all depends on what determines it.
If it is our choices that determines it, then free-will is not negated.

 

[dybmh]

I don't you've refuted anything. First, what god? We have no gods, just stories about them. You assume that one of these gods exists. I don't, so your entire framework for discussing this matter doesn't apply for the agnostic atheist. You're making the thinking of what is likely a fictional character real and arguing as if it were.

So that's reason #3 that a person cannot judge God from a finite human perspective.

As far as we know, there is no God's perspective. You keep inserting that into your argument as if that were a thing for both of us. It's not. The existence of this god is an unshared premise, and no conclusion that follows from it can be called sound. Hopefully you understand that.

Great. The debate is over. If there is no God, there is not way to judge it.

And this is why. You're debating a fellow theist who accepts your premises, not a skeptic.

@9-10ths_Penguin is not an theist. And you're the one who chimed in trying to show that a skeptic can judge God. I'm glad we've cleared this up. Hopefully in future conversations, you will remember what we talked about here.

Of the two of us, I am the agnostic and the skeptic. You're the gnostic theist.

I have seen no evidence of your agnosticism. And, BTW, I'm a believer. Not a knower. HUGE difference. Hopefully this little faux-pas on your part will indicate that your own powers of perception and intuition are far from perfect.

Your understanding of benevolence is different from mine.

So be it.

What does free will have to do with it? There may be no such thing. Even if free will were just an illusion, there is no reason that we wouldn't make the world more to our liking using the received and unquestioningly obeyed will.

Without free-will "we wouldn't make the world more to our liking" by definition. "We wouldn't" be doing anything.

 

[Ostronomos]

Free will is an illusion. Therefore, we should not fear anything. We make no choices because everything is predetermined.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

a person cannot judge God

Still with this, the presumption that your belief is our belief? Ok. I will do the same. My posting with you will be based in the assumption that this god doesn't exist.

I have seen no evidence of your agnosticism.

I'm leaving it behind for now, but it's all over RF. I discuss it here and here (search the word agnostic to find the sentence). Normally, I post that gods cannot be ruled in or out, which is what I believe, but I'm modifying that for present purposes and treating them as ruled out. My comments will all be based in an assumption YOU don't share. I don't see any reason to accommodate your beliefs if you keep ignoring mine.

you're the one who chimed in trying to show that a skeptic can judge God.

"God" again? The skeptic judges the reports of gods, not gods.

And, BTW, I'm a believer. Not a knower.

That's not credible. None of your comments indicate that you don't consider your god's existence to be a fact. It's my chief complaint with your posting.

Without free-will "we wouldn't make the world more to our liking" by definition. "We wouldn't" be doing anything.

Not by my definition. I don't know what you think an unfree will does, but I suggest that it's doing what it wants. You seem to equate the condition with a coma. I don't believe that my will is free, you I'm not only doing something, I'm doing what I want to be doing.