The Ramifications of Determinism

[knownothing]

The kind of Determinism I am talking about is adequate determinism, which does not say that all microscopic events are predictable. Rather, adequate determinism is about things larger than mere particles. There is not much random about a cell or an animal composed of cells. This probably doesn't need to be pointed out, but I want to remind you that quantum indeterminacy, even if it did affect things on a macroscopic level, would still be beyond a person's control and therefore irrelevant to whether or not a person has free will. Freedom of choice should not be confused with unpredictability of "choice". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism)

 

Now, let us consider the ramifications of adequate determinism. If you believe in free will, this topic is not trying to debunk free will for you. It is an examination of how our way of looking at the world might change if we were to adopt the belief that free will is nonexistent. Be aware that I realize that everything you are about to read is highly unrealistic. This is about what I think we "ought to" do if free will is debunked. I have no expectation that society will adopt these attitudes or behaviors. Some things I say might anger you. Please don't react in anger, I am not trying to offend you.

 

1. The abolition of punishment for its own sake

 

We would end up looking at crime in a completely different way. We would have to change our attitudes about sentencing and parole. Prison terms would end when rehabilitation was achieved. It would no longer be appropriate to treat prisoners with contempt unless we knew that doing so would aid in rehabilitation. Punitive humiliation or dehumanization would be simple cruelty if it did not serve a specific reconstructive purpose. It would be appropriate for us to change our attitudes about child abusers and sex offenders and other universally despised groups. The disciplining of children in our education system would need to see changes as well. All of this would have to be done in a way that would not encourage breaking rules and committing crimes. The use of shaming or other tactics might need to be kept as "necessary evils".

 

2. No more deserving

 

No one would ever deserve anything. Find the noblest man or woman alive, and he or she is no more deserving of praise than a child rapist is. Perhaps this would lead to some kind of Harrison Bergeron type world, but an optimistic guess is that maybe everyone would become a little less callous to each other. Assuming free will does not exist, think of the terrible cruelty that comes with the attitude of an objectivist or someone with similar beliefs. If there is no choice, then there cannot be contempt for the poor of the world. It is only when you bring personal accountability into the equation that we can say "they just didn't try hard enough."

 

This is not saying that raping someone would be equal to paying a poor family's mortgage. I am saying that the person doing the act could not be held up on a pedestal or thrown down to subhuman status for either one. The idea is that someone being praiseworthy for doing something is just a story like someone having a soul. It is a nice story, but nothing else. You believe charity is good because believing it is good is constructive. Good is only what reduces suffering and creates happiness. There is not some invisible force that gets on a person and makes him or her "evil". There are only actions and their consequences. It would still be necessary to praise certain actions to encourage them, but deep down we would know it was silliness and ego-stroking.

 

 

 

What do you think? Do you have any thoughts, additions, criticisms, death threats, etc?

Edited September 7, 2013 by knownothing

[tar]

knownothing,

 

Why yes, I have a thought. Our actions or inactions are important, and matter to at least two judges. One emodied in our own conscience, and one embodied in the world. There are actual consequences involved in any action or inaction a person takes, in regards to both judges, Not only is "feeling good" important, but "feeling good about oneself" is important to. That is, I think we are responsible for ourselves twice, once to "do the right thing" in accordance with our own rules, and once again to "do the right thing" in accordance with nature/reality/society/lover/workmate/friend/science/family/("truth", "justice" and the "American Way").

 

As that "human judgement" is involved in what a person does or does not do next, said person is about to make someone feel good (or bad), and about to do or not do something with consequences to both the internal judge and some external judge or another.

 

The changing "standards" that are set, for which one is to judge themselves against, are not thusly completely "made up". They are real and manifest in a multitude of ways. Demonstrable ways.

 

Thusly a person is not a quark, and not bound by only the laws of physics, as a quark is simply bound by, but by the laws of man and nature, as well. A quark can not decide how to act, but a person can and does repeatedly decide what to do, or not do next.

 

By all rights, they should be held accountable for their actions or inactions. By whatever human judges are available.

 

Regards, TAR2

We can and do promote to the pedestal, those who are capable and trustworthy. For good reason.

 

And likewise tend to demote the inept and the deciever for some of the same reasons.

[jduff]

You success in life is soley dependent upon your own personal predjudice. That said, everything that happens as well as everything you do is determined. There is a build up to anything you say or do. That build up gives you a choice of outcomes. Depending on your mindset, it gives what it thinks is the best outcome. Variables, such as environ, time, location play a role. But even they are determinate.

 

A example. You are walking home. On the way home you can go the long way or the short way. The long way is well lit road with traffic and people about. The short way is down a dark alley with shadowy figures in it. The short way would cut your time in half. Which decision would you choose?

 

Notice the variables. In making your decision. Those variables help form your decision. They built up so you have a outcome. Even if the outcome may be wrong to others. The outcome is still there based upon your own personal predjudice.

 

They also were determinate in the formation of your outcome.

 

In the religious world I believe the word they use is discernment. (You know, they put god as part of the choice they make). The reality is your outcome is based upon variables that are completely predictable and when put together give you such outcome. In science, Scientific Method is a form of determinate outcome.

 

Also consider, man has different levels of intelligence, logic, education. Those all play a role for determination. Would you consider a child rapist the same as lets say a neurosurgeon? No! As all the determinate variables are different for them.

 

Even though I disagree with some areas of evolution. Darwin was correct when explaining Survival of the Fittest.There is a reason why one man catches a cold and another does not.

[EdEarl]

IMO, you present adequate determinism and its alternative in an idealistic way as if we can live one or the other, which we cannot. Moreover, you discount the randomness of quantum physics as not relevant, which it is not. Our bodies are partly made of carbon 14, which is radioactive; it decays into nitrogen at some random time. When that happens inside us a molecule containing the
¹⁴C becomes a different molecule; if that molecule is in our brain, then it can have an effect on our thought process. In most cases it may be insignificant, but sometimes the Butterfly Effect means that molecule will make a big difference in us. For example, if that decay results in a brain tumor, we may do almost anything (Texas Tower Shooting).

1. The abolition of punishment for its own sake

We would end up looking at crime in a completely different way. We would have to change our attitudes about sentencing and parole. Prison terms would end when rehabilitation was achieved. It would no longer be appropriate to treat prisoners with contempt unless we knew that doing so would aid in rehabilitation. Punitive humiliation or dehumanization would be simple cruelty if it did not serve a specific reconstructive purpose. It would be appropriate for us to change our attitudes about child abusers and sex offenders and other universally despised groups. The disciplining of children in our education system would need to see changes as well. All of this would have to be done in a way that would not encourage breaking rules and committing crimes. The use of shaming or other tactics might need to be kept as "necessary evils".

Sentencing and parole are not entirely rational processes. The only reason we know Charles Whitman had a brain tumor, is that he was shot before being apprehended. If he had been captured alive, more than likely he would have been charged, tried, and convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death. Moreover, people become emotional about punishment for crimes, regardless of philosophical position of the government or themselves. It takes a devout Christian (any religion) to turn the other cheek when their daughter is raped or their son is murdered; most want revenge/justice.

 

2. No more deserving

I could make similar arguments about deserving, but will not bore everyone.

 

IMO life is a combination of things that are inevitable and some in which our decisions make a difference. It is not a choice when we come to a fork in the road, you see that left a bridge is out and right is a nice paved highway. Only decisions when we cannot see ahead may make any difference whether we choose one or another, and some of those will have the same outcome regardless of choice.

[ydoaPs]

The kind of Determinism I am talking about is adequate determinism, which does not say that all microscopic events are predictable. Rather, adequate determinism is about things larger than mere particles. There is not much random about a cell or an animal composed of cells. This probably doesn't need to be pointed out, but I want to remind you that quantum indeterminacy, even if it did affect things on a macroscopic level, would still be beyond a person's control and therefore irrelevant to whether or not a person has free will. Freedom of choice should not be confused with unpredictability of "choice". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism)

 

Now, let us consider the ramifications of adequate determinism. If you believe in free will, this topic is not trying to debunk free will for you. It is an examination of how our way of looking at the world might change if we were to adopt the belief that free will is nonexistent. Be aware that I realize that everything you are about to read is highly unrealistic. This is about what I think we "ought to" do if free will is debunked. I have no expectation that society will adopt these attitudes or behaviors. Some things I say might anger you. Please don't react in anger, I am not trying to offend you.

 

1. The abolition of punishment for its own sake

 

We would end up looking at crime in a completely different way. We would have to change our attitudes about sentencing and parole. Prison terms would end when rehabilitation was achieved. It would no longer be appropriate to treat prisoners with contempt unless we knew that doing so would aid in rehabilitation. Punitive humiliation or dehumanization would be simple cruelty if it did not serve a specific reconstructive purpose. It would be appropriate for us to change our attitudes about child abusers and sex offenders and other universally despised groups. The disciplining of children in our education system would need to see changes as well. All of this would have to be done in a way that would not encourage breaking rules and committing crimes. The use of shaming or other tactics might need to be kept as "necessary evils".

 

2. No more deserving

 

No one would ever deserve anything. Find the noblest man or woman alive, and he or she is no more deserving of praise than a child rapist is. Perhaps this would lead to some kind of Harrison Bergeron type world, but an optimistic guess is that maybe everyone would become a little less callous to each other. Assuming free will does not exist, think of the terrible cruelty that comes with the attitude of an objectivist or someone with similar beliefs. If there is no choice, then there cannot be contempt for the poor of the world. It is only when you bring personal accountability into the equation that we can say "they just didn't try hard enough."

 

This is not saying that raping someone would be equal to paying a poor family's mortgage. I am saying that the person doing the act could not be held up on a pedestal or thrown down to subhuman status for either one. The idea is that someone being praiseworthy for doing something is just a story like someone having a soul. It is a nice story, but nothing else. You believe charity is good because believing it is good is constructive. Good is only what reduces suffering and creates happiness. There is not some invisible force that gets on a person and makes him or her "evil". There are only actions and their consequences. It would still be necessary to praise certain actions to encourage them, but deep down we would know it was silliness and ego-stroking.

 

 

 

What do you think? Do you have any thoughts, additions, criticisms, death threats, etc?

The first is a big "GOOD!" since that's the adult way of looking at punishment (rehabilitation, not retribution) and the second is false. If the praise makes it more likely that the praiseworthy behavior is exemplified again, why "no more deserving"?