Thursday, June 26, 2008
Want to give the bird to the guy who cut you off this morning? That's silly: he had no choice in the matter. Disgusted by Bush's war-lust? Why? It's no fault of his. God does not play dice, we weren't hugged enough as children, and guns don't kill people, those tsunami-causing butterflies in Japan do.
You guessed it: we're talking determinism, people. Determinism is based somewhat on the theory that a universal formula exists describing all velocities, positions, and states of all matter in the universe, for any moment in time. More simply put: actions are predictable, physical consequences of prior actions. Even more simply put: Cause and effect, and effect, and effect. This is elegantly summarized by Einstein's famous paraphrased quotation: "God does not play dice" (*).This leaves little room for our beloved concept of "free will". If there exists such a formula, then that warm, fuzzy feeling that we are making our own choices is just an illusion caused by our internal frame of reference (please see: "The Sun Obviously Revolves Around the Earth Because we See it Rise and Fall and Stuff", written in part by Ages, The Middle).
An analogy to this can be made with book characters. The characters, if asked, would say that the actions they take on the next page are their own. Since they live in their own frame of reference, this is a natural assumption. Yet we as readers can look from the outside, and can see that every time we turn to that page, they do the exact same thing. They have absolutely no choice in the matter (if you're having trouble with the thought that this analogy implies there is an "author", just imagine that the "author" is the formula generating output).Free will is an essential component of blame, judgment, and moral responsibility. We do not blame the bullet (though perhaps the maker of the bullet) for death, nor do we blame the body (though perhaps the Maker of the body) for bleeding to death, but rather the shooter of the gun (**). We blame him or her because he or she had "free will", and "made a choice" to fire it. And inversely, we do NOT blame the firer of the gun if he or she had NO choice in the matter (e.g. self defense, or pure accident).
So, finally, the point of this entire post is made obvious: blaming a person for the evil he or she commits is non-sense. Just as praising those for the good that they do is non-sense. Like dominoes in line, we fall when and where the domino behind us forces us to fall.
Please note that I'm not saying you shouldn't blame or praise; in fact, "should" is another non-sense phrase in determinism. You either will do something, or you won't. If you're still angry at Bush, yep. You are. If you flip off that driver on the free way, yep. You did. The implications of this post are only whether or not it really makes any sense.
Period.
* Yes, quantum mechanics does disturb the idea of physical determinism slightly. Apparently, QM is truly random. However, I don't think this affects the morality argument since random quantum motion hardly can be considered the basis for free will. In fact, if our actions are the result of randomized occurrences, it makes us seem even less to blame for our actions.
** Relevant Eddie Izzard quote
.jpg)
5 Comments:
I see there's a "Period." at the end of your post. Does this mean that you're not open to alternative views on this topic?
I disagree with your claim that "free will is a necessary component of blame, judgment, and responsibility." Suppose we are automatons, as would be the case in a deterministic universe. Then blame and judgment are actions we take to reinforce (positively or negatively) the actions of others. In other words, a large part of the reason for these actions is to influence the future behavior of others for our own benefit. If you accept this, then don't these actions now "make sense" in a deterministic universe populated by self-interested automatons? More generally, how could anything that occurs in a deterministic universe not "make sense"?
By the way, if you follow your own reasoning then you would conclude that this post doesn't "make sense" since it offers judgments (e.g. "That's silly" and both blame and praise are "non-sense") about the actions of blame and judgment.
Sorry, Jesse! I didn't see that you'd commented further on this post. Here's my response, but given this is such a difficult topic to communicate, I may have totally misinterpreted your statements. Obviously, be sure to clarify if I've misunderstood anything.
To clarify what I mean by free will being essential, here's a simplified formula:
Jack knows action is wrong + Jack takes said action freely = We judge jack
If either of these conditions is not met, we don't feel comfortable judging Jack. (Interesting side-note: the Catholic church has a similar formula regarding sin).
Now, when evaluating if an action "makes sense", it is crucial to consider the frame of reference. From the frame of reference of the universe, physics, or nature, all actions make sense in that each is predictable, and follows the laws of physics perfectly. For example "it makes sense that that billiard ball went off at an angle of 38 degrees given the point of impact of the cue ball."
If the frame of reference is on the human, philosophical, or metaphysical level, than things can start not making sense. Saying 1 = 2 does not make sense. Saying up tastes salty does not make sense. Morally judging a woman forced at gunpoint by a kidnapper to rob a bank does not make sense. I'm claiming that determinism is a kidnapper forcing our hand at all times.
I think you're saying that the action of blame and judgment "makes sense" in the former frame of reference; that is that according to our programming, blame and judgment will result in a better world for us, therefore we blame and judge. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense in the latter case: that is, from a philosophical perspective, having negative feelings for our fellow automatons when they carry out the demands of determinism doesn't "make sense". It only "makes sense" in the billiard ball sense of the word. Does that make sense? ;)
As far as my post goes, you are correct that the tone I take of "you shouldn't judge" is pure non-sense, if one agrees with determinism. For me to tell someone they shouldn't judge is equivalent to saying a waterfall shouldn't fall down; it's a meaningless statement. I actually, when writing the post, had to "make a choice" as to whether or not to be entertaining and hypocritical, or to be consistent and kind of stale. I accept the consequences of that choice :)
For further clarification, here's an example of how a logical agent would probably look at a person's bad actions:
"Hello criminal. I see that you're stealing my car. Well, I know you actually had no choice in the matter, but I still want my car, and I don't want other cars to be stolen. I, too, have no choice in my actions: I will inform the police and have them capture you. My hope is that this results in less crime. It sucks that it just so happened that the things determinism has forced you to do have led you to prison. Lame."
I hope this more or less responds to your points.
By the way, I'd be really interested in hearing Carmen's opinion on all this.
You're correct in saying that thinking about whether something "makes sense" depends on the frame of reference.
From the context of your post, I assumed that you had the more physical one. As such, I constructed my argument using those terms to illustrate how everything that happens "makes sense" from that reference point.
But it seems that my assumption about your vantage point was wrong, that you actually judge whether these things make sense through the lens of philosophy and morality. So, if I gather what you are saying correctly, you mean that blame and praise are not justifiable actions unless their is free will.
My philosophy of morality is such that I doubt whether there is any sort of universal moral truth. Rather, it seems to me that moral truth is something that we create to rationalize our own, subjective, somewhat arbitrary moral sentiments.
Under this view of morality, whether something is justified is determined at the level of the individual. It is most often the case that justification is a matter of individual moral intuition, a matter of whether or not something seems right or wrong to that specific person.
Now, in questioning our subject of determinism and free will, I have come across (via Carmen) what are known as Frankfurt counterexamples.
Here's one I constructed on my very own =)
Suppose that W. has an inclination to invade a certain country, but might not if he takes the time to listen to his weapons inspector. Dick, W.'s assistant, wants W. to invade, so he plants a device in W.'s head so that even if W. talks to his inspector he will invade.
It is now impossible for W. to do anything but invade - he has lost any free will with respect to this action.
It so happens that W.'s inspectors go on vacation without talking to W. about the possible invasion. As such W. invades regardless of the fact that he really had no choice in the matter.
Is he not still responsible for the invasion?
Most people, including myself, would say that he is, even though he had no free will.
What do your moral sentiments tell you, GoaT?
Post a Comment