If free will is an illusion then should we be held accountable for our actions?
- Thread starter Troll
- Start date
If free will is an illusion, then the act of holding people accountable for their actions is predetemined as well.
Yeah because justice is equally a arbitrary value borne from our arbitrary deterministic reasoning. It's still important to recognize that people make the decisions they make because of an ultimate culmination of experiences. Also punitive consequences are equally for prevention of further actions regardless of intent or will.
I don’t think it means you don’t hold people accountable I think it’s more like it’s illogical to hate someone or desire vengeance for someone doing something that they basically have no way of determining why or how they came to the point where they did that thing.
Yes.
Look, even if you aren't in control You would still want to dissuade wrong and acknowledge right.
Look, even if you aren't in control You would still want to dissuade wrong and acknowledge right.
These people always address just humans in these videos.
But human behavior change drastically if it starts to rain or the wind changes.
If we would be to the point of not being accountable then you would have to argue EVERYTHING is unchangeable. Like we are just a VR movie. Ants, clouds, winds, water movements, ALL set in stone and unchangeable
But human behavior change drastically if it starts to rain or the wind changes.
If we would be to the point of not being accountable then you would have to argue EVERYTHING is unchangeable. Like we are just a VR movie. Ants, clouds, winds, water movements, ALL set in stone and unchangeable
The determinism topic can be a nifty mental dinner some nights, indeed. ^^'
I think, in the end, there are numerous levels to this. Most people frame this in terms of a 'bigger picture' -- but for most non-philosophers, they, of course, are mostly relating this to the idea of rudimentary day-to-day life.
So looking it at from that perspective, there is the idea that [presuming this is something one does believe] 'to know that we are puppets does not change the fact that we are'.
When all is said and done, the questions most by-the-by people should ask is,
'Do I want to be a puppet?'
&
'Will I be able to see the strings each day?'
Because it can be easy, after all, to like control. It is graspable, it is the 'reason', it is glue to all sense of order. When someone comes up to you and slaps you in the face with a frying pan and leaves without any explanation whatsoever, most people will not care about free will at that moment -- only that something violated what they were used to, what they were entitled to, and this includes 1) their comfort, 2) their routine, and 3) their understanding. And that is why people hold others accountable in one respect. It is because, in the end, our emotional attachments, however artificial and chemically predetermined they may be as well, are too great to control ourselves.
Ethically, the popular debate always revolves around the basic jist of having a choice vs. not having the choice... it is worth remembering that, once again, there are numerous levels to everything. Being the top of the food chain, we get to decide all this and ponder questions in the face of an ever-expanding, mysterious universe... I've always thought, for the longest time, that the illusion is something to love, not to reject. Not until one can truly know the truth.
I think, in the end, there are numerous levels to this. Most people frame this in terms of a 'bigger picture' -- but for most non-philosophers, they, of course, are mostly relating this to the idea of rudimentary day-to-day life.
So looking it at from that perspective, there is the idea that [presuming this is something one does believe] 'to know that we are puppets does not change the fact that we are'.
When all is said and done, the questions most by-the-by people should ask is,
'Do I want to be a puppet?'
&
'Will I be able to see the strings each day?'
Because it can be easy, after all, to like control. It is graspable, it is the 'reason', it is glue to all sense of order. When someone comes up to you and slaps you in the face with a frying pan and leaves without any explanation whatsoever, most people will not care about free will at that moment -- only that something violated what they were used to, what they were entitled to, and this includes 1) their comfort, 2) their routine, and 3) their understanding. And that is why people hold others accountable in one respect. It is because, in the end, our emotional attachments, however artificial and chemically predetermined they may be as well, are too great to control ourselves.
Ethically, the popular debate always revolves around the basic jist of having a choice vs. not having the choice... it is worth remembering that, once again, there are numerous levels to everything. Being the top of the food chain, we get to decide all this and ponder questions in the face of an ever-expanding, mysterious universe... I've always thought, for the longest time, that the illusion is something to love, not to reject. Not until one can truly know the truth.
The judicial system should be primarily about deterrence and rehabilitation over holding people accountable anyways.
I saw some videos on Youtube about this bald guy who was a captain of a starship arguing with aliens and talking about how an android had rights because he was a person, or something.
Then I put frozen pizza in the oven and went to take a shit, thinking about whether my kitchen appliances have rights because bald captain said so.
I pulled out my phone and found this thread and figured it would be a good thing to add to the conversation.
Thanks, OP. I'm gonna go check on my pizza and ask my oven if it feels okay cooking my food even though I'm gonna eat it later.
Then I put frozen pizza in the oven and went to take a shit, thinking about whether my kitchen appliances have rights because bald captain said so.
I pulled out my phone and found this thread and figured it would be a good thing to add to the conversation.
Thanks, OP. I'm gonna go check on my pizza and ask my oven if it feels okay cooking my food even though I'm gonna eat it later.
Yeah but your oven doesn't have a positronic brain like Lt. Cmdr. Data has. Big difference.
Very true. But it's a quality oven and I'm eating this pizza now and it sure is good, and I empathize highly with this machine. It lives with me and improves my quality of life.
I don't want to be some kind of selfish charlatan who can't feel for this oven. And bald captain made a really compelling argument with a very commanding tone and proper syntax. I want to be that kind of advocate and help my oven experience the joys of agency and the fruits of its labor, even if its all an illusion.
If these feelings are wrong, why do I feel so bad about the prospect of being right?
I bet Data could get you a really good pizza too AND read some bad poetry to you while handing it to you!
This is why using the justice system for keeping society safe/rehabilitation and not as a tool for revenge is a good idea. You're covered ethically whether free will exists or not.
OP
OP
If free will is an illusion, can anyone really be said to be justifying anything?
Free will isn't an illusion and suggestions otherwise, at least from the kind of person who makes their argument via the medium of YouTube, should just be ignored.
As of right now there's no way to test whether free will is a thing or not. What we can test is if one set of actions benefits society and individuals more or less.
If it were somehow discovered free will didn't exist I don't think that would change. One set of actions would still benefit people and societies more or less, so to reduce harm to people and society the most we should follow those actions. If that includes holding people accountable, absolutely.
If it were somehow discovered free will didn't exist I don't think that would change. One set of actions would still benefit people and societies more or less, so to reduce harm to people and society the most we should follow those actions. If that includes holding people accountable, absolutely.
I was gonna say pass the bong and I found someone who knows what's up.
Even if humans don’t really have free will, but are algorithms like Yuval Noah Harari postulates in Homo Deus, consequences for actions serve a purpose in directing the algorithm. If you create consequences seen as undesirable by the algorithm, the algorithm will try to avoid them, and thus the consequence serves a purpose.
Mods: Please delete all posts in the thread but the OP and this one.
Free will exists. You can't actually map out what what will actually happen. Your existence is a series of unconscious and unconscious decision making. They're not binary either where you will choose the most universal or logical option. You could be skewed from an outside perspective to choose option A because that's what you're more likely to do 70% of the time but you could choose the option that occurs 5% of the time.
Determinism only goes so far.
Determinism only goes so far.
This is just philosophical bullshit, argue in a circle. Free will, exists, yes their are external and internal factors but you deciding to have a beer or do x, y, z, etc. you made that decision.
A better way to put it OP is "If free will is an illusion, for what can we take complete blame?"
It's a no brainer. We have free will. If you choose to believe that then you can not be wrong.
Even if you think the outcome is somewhat random, that doesn't actually constitute free will.
Try thinking about your thoughts for a while and your general train of thought moment to moment. Do you actually choose what you think about? Or do they sort of just pop into your head?
According to who? Our understanding of the universe? Decisions are simply chemical reactions in the brain, which follow a set of physical rules
Quick question: Does causality (cause and effect) "exist" at the sub-atomic level?
Existence is weird.
Existence is weird.
If we are in a simulation then the simulator should be able to map out what will happen right? So you'd have to prove that we don't live in a simulation or that the simulation depends on some uncontrollable random phenomena. Consider then that it's not possible to prove the universe isn't a simulation...
My issue with the free will is that all things being the same - down to the very last atom - free will would allow you the ability to make different choices and I just don't see anything in science that supports that idea. Science tells us that our brains are made of atoms and follow the laws of nature, how do you get around that issue? The fact that we can't compute the future from inside our universe doesn't mean free will exists, it just means that it's not computable from the inside. I'm not a philosopher but that's what my intuition tells me.
With regards to op I absolutely think that embracing the illusory nature of free will have necessary implications for society. In a way it's a much more humane way of viewing ourselves.
Last edited:
Yes. A rubber ball does not need free will to bounce. I don't need free will to treat damgerous assholes like dangerous assholes.
all human behavior happens under the same laws of physics. If crime or bad behavior just naturally happen, then punishment or criticism can also just naturally happen.
The op proposal, "a lack of free will makes judgement wrong," assumes that the judgmental person is outside the system in a separate world where free will exists. If there's no free will, judgement is just another physical reaction. There's no chance for meta-judgement on the judges.
all human behavior happens under the same laws of physics. If crime or bad behavior just naturally happen, then punishment or criticism can also just naturally happen.
The op proposal, "a lack of free will makes judgement wrong," assumes that the judgmental person is outside the system in a separate world where free will exists. If there's no free will, judgement is just another physical reaction. There's no chance for meta-judgement on the judges.
Blow my mind, if free will doesn't exist how can we moral, social, ethical, and/or judicial responsibility?