Determinism, denial, and psychological projection

[Genecks]

If there is no free-will, is it right for an individual to blame others for his or her problems in life?

[iNow]

There may not be free will, but there are ways to change our behaviors and to practice different responses to life's stimuli. Also, it will depend largely on the problem. Some are more in our control than others, and that's independent of the free will issue.

[kristalris]

Given no free will (what definition and what context do you want?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_(disambiguation)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

 

 

You ask is it "right" "blaming"? This implies having morals and that implies the concept of free will: your question is thus a contradiction.

 

Pure determinism: no free will, no rights, no blame thus an incorrect question.

 

Pure chance: no free will, no rights, no blame thus an incorrect question.

 

Combinations of chance and determinism might provide a reasonable definition on free will that what one does effects the future. But then you have a concept of free will that you exclude.

 

So it depends on your definition of free will what do you want to exclude and include in it? I.e. you are thus obviously using different definitions of free will at the same time.

 

I believe that what we do or don't do influences our future. So that requires requires a concept of free will to keep a degree of order via blame having rights et cetera.

 

The concept of free will might also be dependent on the level of observation you choose: everyday observation, quantum level, lower as yet unobservable levels?

 

I hope this provides food for thought.

[Genecks]

Then without the usage of the word "right," as used in the original question...

 

If there is no free-will, is it logical for an individual to attribute others and past events as the causes for his or her current existence and behavior?

Edited March 9, 2013 by Genecks

[iNow]

If there is no free-will, is it logical for an individual to attribute others and past events as the causes for his or her current existence and behavior?

That, coupled with their genetic predispositions, yes. What else would it be?

[PeterJ]

Then without the usage of the word "right," as used in the original question...

 

If there is no free-will, is it logical for an individual to attribute others and past events as the causes for his or her current existence and behavior?

I'd say so. If there is no freewill then what else could cause a present event but past events? But even if there is freewill the same would be true. We could act as we want, but would we be free to choose what we want? And if we are, do we exercise that freedom?

 

But it;s a big 'if'. As an idea determinism does not work any better than freewill. For this reasom most philosophers go for some form of compatabilism. This would be my position. .

[kristalris]

Then without the usage of the word "right," as used in the original question...

 

If there is no free-will, is it logical for an individual to attribute others and past events as the causes for his or her current existence and behavior?

Yes.

 

If we take that free will doesn't exist at a deepest level even when taking a compatibilist approach of a pre-determined begin state at any point in time followed by chance widening the subsequent possibilities, in which we humans are a sort of self programmable robots, that react in an in part pre determined in part chance way dependent upon our genetic and our personal history and development, then we could reason as follows:

 

So let's say for sake of the argument we are such robots programmed in the pursuit of say dopamine i.e. happiness. We do all that that gives us our daily dose. Problem is that what provides this for the one might / does deprive it for others. So working together helps to all achieve this daily dose with the least losers.

 

All social behavior could then be seen in that context. I.e. blaming rights, morality et cetera.

 

(Base line: we at the moment don't know.)

 

At the moment in working on quantum computers and neuro-scientists are working on entanglement that might also come into play in the working of every individual and even collective working of brains. That might then - given no free will at the deepest level - provide a reason for the illusion in having a free will. But even then at a less deep level you still need the concept of free will in order for all robots to achieve their programmed (and reprogrammed) goals.

[LaurieAG]

If there is no free-will, is it right for an individual to blame others for his or her problems in life?

 

An increasingly polarized society can behave very much like a pendulum as manipulated public perceptions swing from one side to the other with increasing frequency. If you go with the flow and swap sides and perceptions (regardless of morality, ethics and principles) and say nothing you will probably be perceived as positive by your masters of either persuasion (regardless of your morality, ethics or principles) but if you have a static perception of morality and ethics and view both extremes in this light you are more likely to be perceived by your masters of either side as negative regardless of your absolute position in the moderate center.

 

I suppose it's up to the individual whether they value morality, ethics and principles over the alternative. At least according to the latest definitions of rape, the people who struggle or resist have some recourse while those who consent would be considered willing participants if no duress was involved.

 

Entanglement is an interesting concept as the masters of either side try to make the people complicit in any atrocities to lengthen their reign when the pendulum starts to swing the other way. Sometimes this works for a little while and sometimes it merely accelerates the rate of the swing.

 

One thing is for certain, when 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' becomes the social norm, evil is in control and the pendulum naturally wants to swing the other way.

[SomethingToPonder]

If there is no free will, Then it does not matter if you blame others or not , why would you blame others? Is it other people fault in some way that there is no free will?
There are so many possibilities of how this could be a yes or a no either way, so i suppose you definitely posted it in the right place.
if there is no free will and we as a humans are all acting on some agenda that cannot be altered and all our choices end up in the inevitable or are planned then our whole understanding of science would be planned as well, but my question would be, How is this occurring is there some sort of entity that created the plan? Or on a more imaginable scale, Imagine that we are a type of molecule, the equivalent of if you look at things magnified and you can see the bacteria. our whole universe and everything further is something on an animal or a surface of something in a much bigger universe.

I might not be explaining this very well and i apologize,but i cant think of a way to put it.
our world could be a molecule in a collection of other forms of bacteria and molecules which would be other planets stars gasses etc, and we are something tiny sitting somewhere on the equivalent of a different universe. we could be on a floor somewhere in an alternate universe and if say somebody dropped something on that part of the floor our universe could collapse as we are merely the particles or smallest bacteria. hard to explain, if anybody could elaborate if try to help explain more, maybe somebody else putting it a different way would make me see it differently.