Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

A World that Rejects Free Will *Hypothetical*

Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

My initial thoughts:

No moral responsibility; if people are not actually in control of their actions and had literally no choice but to enact them, how can the be held responsible for them? Does this invalidate criminal punishment?

Will people ultimately commit more offenses with less remorse since they can deny responsibility for their actions? Basically, "I did something wrong, but I didn't have a choice".

Does the notion of vengeance for the sake of vengeance become incoherent? This ties in with moral responsibility, of course.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,908
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 3:18:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Does anything have to change? If I had no choice about stealing something then the cop had choice when he arrested me and the judge had no choice in giving me 5 years in the pokey.

It will not be immoral to lock some up for stealing because if there is no free will nothing is moral or immoral - there is just how things are, which is how things must have been.

It's bizarre image - a world where automata act out their lives according to script they don't even know they are following.

Only slightly more bizarre is that it might be this world, now.
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 5:52:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

There'd be greater attention on the causes behind certain human behaviors when considering punishment in law. I doubt it would invalidate criminal punishment.
People would be a lot more complacent about their situation.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 6:06:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 3:18:56 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Does anything have to change? If I had no choice about stealing something then the cop had choice when he arrested me and the judge had no choice in giving me 5 years in the pokey.

Beliefs and knowledge inform behavior. Do you think people's actions and decisions wouldn't be different than they otherwise would if they didn't have the belief that free will didn't exist?

It will not be immoral to lock some up for stealing because if there is no free will nothing is moral or immoral - there is just how things are, which is how things must have been.

Agreed, but as above, such knowledge could determine the behaviors and whatnot that we take and how we evaluate them.

It's bizarre image - a world where automata act out their lives according to script they don't even know they are following.

Only slightly more bizarre is that it might be this world, now.

Ignorance is bliss!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 6:13:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 5:52:28 PM, difference wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

There'd be greater attention on the causes behind certain human behaviors when considering punishment in law. I doubt it would invalidate criminal punishment.

I generally agree, but would you mind elaborating on why you don't think criminal punishment would be invalidated?

People would be a lot more complacent about their situation.

In general, but there would be plenty who would not be so. I know of people today who loathe the idea of determinism or fatalism. And what of those of religious belief which hinges on free will (i.e. Heaven and Hell)?
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 6:33:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 6:13:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/26/2016 5:52:28 PM, difference wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

There'd be greater attention on the causes behind certain human behaviors when considering punishment in law. I doubt it would invalidate criminal punishment.

I generally agree, but would you mind elaborating on why you don't think criminal punishment would be invalidated?


It can work as a deterrent for would-be criminals. But I'm not sure if by criminal punishment you mean something different than plain punishment.
People would be a lot more complacent about their situation.

In general, but there would be plenty who would not be so. I know of people today who loathe the idea of determinism or fatalism. And what of those of religious belief which hinges on free will (i.e. Heaven and Hell)?

Ah, I guess it wouldn't be that comforting an idea. I don't know what to say for those people who don't like determinism or fatalism. For religious people, maybe they'd think about themselves getting "set up for success" rather than succeeding purely through volition?
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 2:12:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

My initial thoughts:

No moral responsibility; if people are not actually in control of their actions and had literally no choice but to enact them, how can the be held responsible for them? Does this invalidate criminal punishment?

The death penalty would probably become nonexistent. Criminal justice systems would probably focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Taking a forward looking approach instead of a retributive approach.
Will people ultimately commit more offenses with less remorse since they can deny responsibility for their actions? Basically, "I did something wrong, but I didn't have a choice".

The illusion of freedom would still be there. So I don't think so.
Does the notion of vengeance for the sake of vengeance become incoherent? This ties in with moral responsibility, of course.
Hard to say. You may not be taking vengeance on their will, but on a person's personality.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,908
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 9:17:34 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
People would still feel anger and a desire for revenge. A person who feels anger but not free will could say to himself 'this anger i feel is not of my own free will ', but I don't think that would make him any less angry. Plus he wouldn't even bother you think about it... He would just be angry and want revenge. Angry people are not usually in the mood for contemplative introspection.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:03:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

Theoretically, it makes no difference. If the world was already deterministic, and then it was discovered to be deterministic, the future actions would still the same because they were already determined!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:50:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 10:46:49 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Do we consider the case where free will is real but people think it isn't?

You mean a deterministic universe in which people think they have free will? It changes nothing if the universe was proven to be deterministic. How can people become "angry" unless they were already determined to get angry? See? They can't violate the determinism!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:55:34 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
just ignore my post above lol
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 1,908
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 11:00:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
No, I mean the case where free will is real (ie the world is not deterministic) but people think free will is false (ie they think the world is deterministic).
The op says tonignore if the scenario is truexor not.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 11:05:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I don't actually see how a "person" can have free will, when a person is just a complex system of chemical reactions governed by the laws of physics (which may not be fully understood yet, but it doesn't really matter here). It might be impossible to predict the actions of that system (with any probability), but dice don't exactly have free will either.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 11:17:17 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
If free will is real, then people have the free will to reject free will. Aren't they just affirming their free will in the act of rejecting free will?
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 11:18:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Of course that means they're not actually rejecting free will. I'm not sure it's even possible to have the free will to reject free will.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 9:14:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

My initial thoughts:

No moral responsibility; if people are not actually in control of their actions and had literally no choice but to enact them, how can the be held responsible for them? Does this invalidate criminal punishment?

Will people ultimately commit more offenses with less remorse since they can deny responsibility for their actions? Basically, "I did something wrong, but I didn't have a choice".

Does the notion of vengeance for the sake of vengeance become incoherent? This ties in with moral responsibility, of course.

The implications have been studied extensively; the results of multiple studies indicate people's beliefs about free will have important practical implications for individuals and for society in general.

Studies have shown that belief in free will has profound behavioral consequences that bear on social behavior, sense of personal control, moral and ethical choices, and general well-being. In terms of individual well-being and mental health, belief in free will encourages a sense of self as agent and translates into confidence in the individual's ability to control events and achieve results, the belief invokes notions of self-regulation, controlled processes, behavioral plasticity, and conscious decision-making.

Socially, belief in free will forms the backbone of much of society's structural integrity; not just the criminal justice system, but also our conceptions of praise and blame, and moral responsibility more generally, some of the most fundamental features of our society are undermined when one doubts our capacity for free will.

Several studies have found that those who do not believe in free will are more inclined to cheat, are less inclined to help others, have more aggression, are more inclined to mindless conformity, exhibit less feeling of guilt, less learning from moral and ethical mistakes, and less inclined to think about how they might have corrected their behavior. It is also associated with lower career prospects and poor job performance, along with higher rates of neurosis. Conversely, believing in free will correlates with better career prospects and higher job performance, along with a host of positive attributes including, self-control, life satisfaction, subjective happiness, mindfulness, and ambition.

The fact is, the belief in free will is not just a matter of detached theoretical philosophy; it has been shown to positively influence behavior in a big way and it has important practical implications.

These considerations are the practical benefits of a belief in free will, as William James said in making his case for Pragmatism, it may just be most appropriate to:

"Grant an idea or belief to be true," and ask "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?"

Pragmatically speaking, belief in free will is what is best for the individual and for society, it simply makes us better people.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 12:50:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 9:14:25 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

My initial thoughts:

No moral responsibility; if people are not actually in control of their actions and had literally no choice but to enact them, how can the be held responsible for them? Does this invalidate criminal punishment?

Will people ultimately commit more offenses with less remorse since they can deny responsibility for their actions? Basically, "I did something wrong, but I didn't have a choice".

Does the notion of vengeance for the sake of vengeance become incoherent? This ties in with moral responsibility, of course.

The implications have been studied extensively; the results of multiple studies indicate people's beliefs about free will have important practical implications for individuals and for society in general.

Studies have shown that belief in free will has profound behavioral consequences that bear on social behavior, sense of personal control, moral and ethical choices, and general well-being. In terms of individual well-being and mental health, belief in free will encourages a sense of self as agent and translates into confidence in the individual's ability to control events and achieve results, the belief invokes notions of self-regulation, controlled processes, behavioral plasticity, and conscious decision-making.

Socially, belief in free will forms the backbone of much of society's structural integrity; not just the criminal justice system, but also our conceptions of praise and blame, and moral responsibility more generally, some of the most fundamental features of our society are undermined when one doubts our capacity for free will.

Several studies have found that those who do not believe in free will are more inclined to cheat, are less inclined to help others, have more aggression, are more inclined to mindless conformity, exhibit less feeling of guilt, less learning from moral and ethical mistakes, and less inclined to think about how they might have corrected their behavior. It is also associated with lower career prospects and poor job performance, along with higher rates of neurosis. Conversely, believing in free will correlates with better career prospects and higher job performance, along with a host of positive attributes including, self-control, life satisfaction, subjective happiness, mindfulness, and ambition.

The fact is, the belief in free will is not just a matter of detached theoretical philosophy; it has been shown to positively influence behavior in a big way and it has important practical implications.

These considerations are the practical benefits of a belief in free will, as William James said in making his case for Pragmatism, it may just be most appropriate to:

"Grant an idea or belief to be true," and ask "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?"

Pragmatically speaking, belief in free will is what is best for the individual and for society, it simply makes us better people.

I don't know which studies you are referring to, but the ones I've seen only deal with how the person reacts right after reading about the nonexistence of free will and moral responsibility. It doesn't follow that on the long term or on a large scale, those individuals were less empathetic, ect.

Then again, I don't know which studies you are referring to. Furthermore, I think it should be noted that correlation doesn't entail causation. There might be some other factor that encourages a disbelief in free will and an inclination to cheat, be more violent, ect. Pessimistic and cynical people may be encouraged to pick up the belief in determinism because determinism appeals to those attributes. People who accept determinism from a philosophical standpoint may not have the negative attributes listed.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 12:23:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 12:50:32 AM, n7 wrote:
At 4/27/2016 9:14:25 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

The implications have been studied extensively; the results of multiple studies indicate people's beliefs about free will have important practical implications for individuals and for society in general.

Studies have shown that belief in free will has profound behavioral consequences that bear on social behavior, sense of personal control, moral and ethical choices, and general well-being. In terms of individual well-being and mental health, belief in free will encourages a sense of self as agent and translates into confidence in the individual's ability to control events and achieve results, the belief invokes notions of self-regulation, controlled processes, behavioral plasticity, and conscious decision-making.

Socially, belief in free will forms the backbone of much of society's structural integrity; not just the criminal justice system, but also our conceptions of praise and blame, and moral responsibility more generally, some of the most fundamental features of our society are undermined when one doubts our capacity for free will.

Several studies have found that those who do not believe in free will are more inclined to cheat, are less inclined to help others, have more aggression, are more inclined to mindless conformity, exhibit less feeling of guilt, less learning from moral and ethical mistakes, and less inclined to think about how they might have corrected their behavior. It is also associated with lower career prospects and poor job performance, along with higher rates of neurosis. Conversely, believing in free will correlates with better career prospects and higher job performance, along with a host of positive attributes including, self-control, life satisfaction, subjective happiness, mindfulness, and ambition.

The fact is, the belief in free will is not just a matter of detached theoretical philosophy; it has been shown to positively influence behavior in a big way and it has important practical implications.

These considerations are the practical benefits of a belief in free will, as William James said in making his case for Pragmatism, it may just be most appropriate to:

"Grant an idea or belief to be true," and ask "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?"

Pragmatically speaking, belief in free will is what is best for the individual and for society, it simply makes us better people.

I don't know which studies you are referring to, but the ones I've seen only deal with how the person reacts right after reading about the nonexistence of free will and moral responsibility.

That's true of the methodology of one of the earlier studies by Vohs and Schooler that was highly hyped by the press, but there have been a boatload of related studies since then with methodological scenarios that varied systematically along multiple dimensions. Roy Baumeister in particular has done multiple studies that explicitly tested both trait deterministic and state deterministic beliefs in free will. Baumeister and Vohs have teamed together as well as with a lot of others to explore the matter in depth across a broad variety of scenarios, and what I typed was only a brief generalization of what we are learning from these studies. In general, the growing body of research has consistently indicated that belief in free will has strong causal effects on behavior in the directions I referenced.

It doesn't follow that on the long term or on a large scale, those individuals were less empathetic, ect.

It's actually much more likely that it does follow, the best way to compare the two states of mind is to test them on a changed scenario in a finite period of time, we are talking about changes in behavior associated with changes in belief under controlled conditions, it follows that the associated behavioral changes are causally correlated.

Then again, I don't know which studies you are referring to.

If you want to look into it further, here"s a search key for a few of the studies and their resultant papers:

Stillman, Sparks, Baumeister, and Tice (2006)

Roy F. Baumeister, Erin A. Sparks, Tyler F. Stillman, Kathleen D. Vohs (2007)

Vohs, K., & Schooler, J. (2008)

Baumeister, R., Masicampo, E., & DeWall, C. (2009)

Stillman, T.F., Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., Lambert, N.M., Fincham, F.D. and Brewer, L.E. (2010)

Rigoni, D., K"hn, S., Satori, G. and Brass, M. (2011)

Forstmann, M., Burgmer, P. and Mussweiler, T. (2012)

Furthermore, I think it should be noted that correlation doesn't entail causation.

Well duh, of course it should be noted, the "parroted cliche" law of the Internet demands that it be noted, I think the best way to lose your Sheeple Card is to forget to note that. But then again, the rigorous methodological approach of scientific research when there is a strong theoretical and deductive basis for assuming causation along with the absence of plausible alternatives does indicate the correlation of results in controlled experiments can infer a strong inductive conclusion.

So no, correlation does not "entail" causation, but under the circumstances of controlled experiment it's a pretty strong indicator that correlation does "imply" causation. Face it, if you reject inductive reasoning you deny most of what we can learn from science, it's not all that hard to logically see how a belief that "I'm not responsible for by behavior" might translate into "irresponsible behavior", and it just isn't that hard to infer the causal link between the two. As far as I can tell, these studies have simply born out what deductive reasoning and common sense predicts, and they are consistent with the foundational basis of every legal and moral system the world has ever seen.

There might be some other factor that encourages a disbelief in free will and an inclination to cheat, be more violent, ect.

Yeah, there might be, but that wouldn't explain the short term change cited in the earlier studies, and then again, maybe we should also consider that there haven't been any studies that challenged the findings I referenced. Are you aware of any studies with contrary findings that I might have missed?

Pessimistic and cynical people may be encouraged to pick up the belief in determinism because determinism appeals to those attributes.

No doubt that belief in determinism is often just a means of justification, it can certainly be a contrived "excuse". It's pretty hard to see the rejection of the self-evident experiential reality of every waking moment as a philosophical conclusion that is logically derived, so I think it's only natural that the question of motivation comes up.

People who accept determinism from a philosophical standpoint may not have the negative attributes listed.

Maybe not, but it logically follows that they would exhibit the behaviors indicated, belief in free will is in large part a matter of moral responsibility, it's pretty rational to logically expect these kinds of results from a so called "philosophical position" that asserts "My actions are not my fault".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 1:35:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 10:46:49 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Do we consider the case where free will is real but people think it isn't?

Certainly.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 1:37:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 6:33:44 PM, difference wrote:
At 4/26/2016 6:13:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/26/2016 5:52:28 PM, difference wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

There'd be greater attention on the causes behind certain human behaviors when considering punishment in law. I doubt it would invalidate criminal punishment.

I generally agree, but would you mind elaborating on why you don't think criminal punishment would be invalidated?


It can work as a deterrent for would-be criminals. But I'm not sure if by criminal punishment you mean something different than plain punishment.

Yeah, I'd agree that it would still have meaningful effect as a deterrent.

People would be a lot more complacent about their situation.

In general, but there would be plenty who would not be so. I know of people today who loathe the idea of determinism or fatalism. And what of those of religious belief which hinges on free will (i.e. Heaven and Hell)?

Ah, I guess it wouldn't be that comforting an idea. I don't know what to say for those people who don't like determinism or fatalism. For religious people, maybe they'd think about themselves getting "set up for success" rather than succeeding purely through volition?

Or "set up for failure". It rails against justice, which God is suppose to be, so I can't imagine that going very well.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:38:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

My initial thoughts:

No moral responsibility; if people are not actually in control of their actions and had literally no choice but to enact them, how can the be held responsible for them? Does this invalidate criminal punishment?

Will people ultimately commit more offenses with less remorse since they can deny responsibility for their actions? Basically, "I did something wrong, but I didn't have a choice".

Does the notion of vengeance for the sake of vengeance become incoherent? This ties in with moral responsibility, of course.

Yea but if there be no agreement there is not moral responsibility. If a warrior in combat kills his fellow warrior he is morally responsible because they are in agreement via fighting on the same side of a battle, one is to be able to trust the other"s intentions. But if that same warrior kills the opposition he has no moral responsibility to that person he killed nor to anyone else. He and the opposition are not in any agreement of any real sort. So the only thing left in the case of morals is betrayal. The freewill to betray maybe the only thing left to what is understood as freewill.

There is no "the devil made me do it" excuse, but in reality I suspect that the understood philosophy of "freewill" isn"t accurate in what it seems to be explaining. If you know you can have, if you don"t know you can"t have. And the "freewill" philosophy doesn"t really clarify anything, its muddy at best. therefore it doesn't seem to have what is sot of it.

Rabbits can make decisions and act on what their sense tell them to get food. will is an essential to what is alive. Will to live alone shows that. But moral issues exist only between those who have a mutual understanding that is an agreement.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 6:17:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

My initial thoughts:

No moral responsibility; if people are not actually in control of their actions and had literally no choice but to enact them, how can the be held responsible for them? Does this invalidate criminal punishment?

Will people ultimately commit more offenses with less remorse since they can deny responsibility for their actions? Basically, "I did something wrong, but I didn't have a choice".

Does the notion of vengeance for the sake of vengeance become incoherent? This ties in with moral responsibility, of course.

I'm a determinist. I'm very confident that free will is an illusion. I've challenged many to explain how free will works. I've even granted their own use of magic to do so. Only stipulation, it must map to what we see in human behavior. To this point, the challenge has never been meant.

But that wasn't the question, what results would happen in the world?
1. The notion that a person is no longer responsible and cannot be punished is false. Just because an individual isn't "free," it doesn't follow that we can't hold them responsible. I can view a human as a broken machine that is a threat to the other machines, and remove that human from society. It is true, the "machine" had no other option than to do what it would do, but I can still view the machine as destructive and remove it for the protection of the other machines.
2. I think tolerance would increase. A person doesn't choose to be what they are. They are what they are. I cannot condemn someone for being what they have no choice to be.
3. The criminal justice system wouldn't be about vengeance or punishment. It would be more about correcting the machine in order to allow it to be released back into society.
4. The poor wouldn't be blamed for choosing to be poor. Maybe a poor person isn't well adapted for this environment and they are where they are because they had no choice but to end up there.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 6:34:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 6:17:11 PM, NoMagic wrote:
3. The criminal justice system wouldn't be about vengeance or punishment. It would be more about correcting the machine in order to allow it to be released back into society.

Or correcting the entire world, so that crime doesn't happen in the first place. But that just makes me a crazy utopian.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:21:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 2:26:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This thread it not about whether Free Will actually exists or not.
I was going to answer but my free will disallowed me to think of one so think of this reply as me not choosing to type a reply. Hence free will doesn't not not exist.👄

If our world came to overwhelmingly and officially recognize that the philosophical notion of free will is false, what do you think the implications would be? What problems, benefits, or other changes would arise?

To be clear, the notion of free will that is specifically being considered here is the ability for one to be in willful control of their actions and decisions, and for it to have been possible to have decided otherwise in the past.

My initial thoughts:

No moral responsibility; if people are not actually in control of their actions and had literally no choice but to enact them, how can the be held responsible for them? Does this invalidate criminal punishment?

Will people ultimately commit more offenses with less remorse since they can deny responsibility for their actions? Basically, "I did something wrong, but I didn't have a choice".

Does the notion of vengeance for the sake of vengeance become incoherent? This ties in with moral responsibility, of course.