Moral consquences of determinism

[Jonti]

A book on the issue of OCD and its relevance for discussions about freewill is "The Mind and The Brain" by Jeffrey M Schwartz. Essentially, the doc was able to help his patients overcome their OCDs not by using drugs, or even conventional talking cures (neither of which, I understand, are particularly successful), but by training people to see the compulsion as "not me", to see it as something foreign, and as, effectively, an external influence that they could learn to ignore.

 

[Knotted]

And I'd agree that the right has wrong-footed the left on the issue. We can choose, and we like to exercise choice. It's not right-wing to see that's attractive.

The question is not over whether choice is possible but what choice means. All the determinist is claiming is that a choice can in principle be explained in causal terms. It's not even uncommon to do so. I chose such-and-such because such-and-such happened. Determinism is just ordinary common sense even if it sounds outrageous. What's really outrageous is the idea that some of our actions are causally inexplicable. I chose such-and-such randomly for no reason. You can't explain random actions in terms of free will because by definition there is no explanation of any kind for a random action.

 

[Jonti]

Determinism is the common sense of trains and boats and planes, the heavy lifting of the world. But information also plays a role in events. It's impossible to understand the physical movements in space of those trains and boats and planes otherwise.

 

[8ball]

What's really outrageous is the idea that some of our actions are causally inexplicable.

That's really not terribly outrageous. It's not what I generally believe (with a few caveats) but I'd hardly call it outrageous.

 

[Jonti]

It's the idea that all of my actions are causally traceable back to the first cause that I find outrageous!

 

[8ball]

It's an OUTRAGE!!

 

[Knotted]

That's really not terribly outrageous. It's not what I generally believe (with a few caveats) but I'd hardly call it outrageous.

Well it would be very odd if people committed significant random acts. It would reek havouc with the law. Maybe some murders weren't intended maybe they were just the result of random human action.

 

[8ball]

Well it would be very odd if people committed significant random acts. It would reek havouc with the law. Maybe some murders weren't intended maybe they were just the result of random human action.

Of course they were intended.

Whoever set off the big bang starting the presdestined chain of events leading to the murder was responsible.

 

[Knotted]

It's the idea that all of my actions are causally traceable back to the first cause that I find outrageous!

I sense what you find outrageous is the idea that it is mechanisms that govern your behaviour. Whether the mechanisms are deterministic or not is a very subtle question of physics that you couldn't tell one way or the other. Just because you physically reduce to physics does not mean that ideas and theories of your behaviour, your feelings and your actions reduce to theories of physics. Really there are no physics of choice, no physics of free will, no physics of feeling wimsical. There are no Jonti neurons which make up a Jonti brain. There are no Jonti atoms that make up a Jonti body. You really are a product of ahuman material and mechanisms which really are continuous with the history of the universe since the big bang. Sorry.

 

[Jonti]

Anyway, I think you will find the legal system holds a person responsible for their choices, and their actions. Though some folks qualify for diminished responsibility

 

[Knotted]

Of course they were intended.

Whoever set off the big bang starting the presdestined chain of events leading to the murder was responsible.

There are no theories of morality in physics or cosmology regardless of whether physics is deterministic or not. You make an error of theory reduction.

 

[8ball]

There are no theories of morality in physics or cosmology regardless of whether physics is deterministic or not. You make an error of theory reduction.

<facepalm>

 

[Knotted]

Anyway, I think you will find the legal system holds a person responsible for their choices, and their actions. Though some folks qualify for diminished responsibility

You give a causal explanation for random behaviour! If there are grounds for diminished responsibility then these are real grounds. If every now and then human being just commit murder because humans are random entities then there are no grounds for it. By definition, you can't explain or qualify a random action.

 

[Jonti]

No theories of human freedom in physics. Well, I wouldn't expect that. But it is ridiculous to suggest that our culture including the legal system, takes the contrary to be the case.

Physics is just one science, or maybe two. There's a multiplicity of other sciences. I'd look more to biology and the human sciences for an understanding of what is meant by human freedom, our evident ability to recognise the consequences of our actions and act accordingly.

 

[Knotted]

No theories of human freedom in physics. Well, I wouldn't expect that. But it is ridiculous to suggest that our culture including the legal system, takes the contrary to be the case.

Physics is just one science, or maybe two. There's a multiplicity of other sciences. I'd look more to biology and the human sciences for an understanding of what is meant by human freedom, our evident ability to recognise the consequences of our actions and act accordingly.

Determinism is a question of physics. It says nothing about human lived experience. It really doesn't. (I might say that the absurd belief to the contrary that free will is incompatable with determinism has social consequences - it is basically a religious belief that there are brain pixies to go with the sky pixies.)

 

[kyser_soze]

It's the idea that all of my actions are causally traceable back to the first cause that I find outrageous!

See this is my point. I have no issue with contingent determinism - If I want to travel from A-C I have to select at least one way of getting there. Similary, there are always immediately contingent environmental factors determining what I do.

What I find monstrous is the idea that this chain of causal events could, with enough information, be traced back to the Big Bang or whatever moment of creation of time and this reality you prefer. For me this is what determinism means - fate, destiny, whatever you want to call it. The idea that I have no influence over the events of my existance, that I'm essentially living a life that I exert no control over.

I mean if you're happy accepting that level of passivity fine, but I think it's ultimately a cop-out - why bother with morality if your choices are already preset, regardless of the morals you choose to have (e.g. I abhor violence and would never do it to someone, however this contingent determinism would have it that at some point I may violate that personally chosen moral, and then I can justify it by saying 'Well, it was predetermined that I would do that, even tho it goes against my moral precepts.')

 

[Knotted]

See this is my point. I have no issue with contingent determinism - If I want to travel from A-C I have to select at least one way of getting there. Similary, there are always immediately contingent environmental factors determining what I do.

What I find monstrous is the idea that this chain of causal events could, with enough information, be traced back to the Big Bang or whatever moment of creation of time and this reality you prefer. For me this is what determinism means - fate, destiny, whatever you want to call it. The idea that I have no influence over the events of my existance, that I'm essentially living a life that I exert no control over.

I mean if you're happy accepting that level of passivity fine, but I think it's ultimately a cop-out - why bother with morality if your choices are already preset, regardless of the morals you choose to have (e.g. I abhor violence and would never do it to someone, however this contingent determinism would have it that at some point I may violate that personally chosen moral, and then I can justify it by saying 'Well, it was predetermined that I would do that, even tho it goes against my moral precepts.')

That's a perfect example of religious mentality. If we abandon our belief in brain pixies then all morality goes to pot. You really are determined by inpersonal mechanism in the brain/nervous system. You will have to get used to the idea.

 

[kabbes]

Well it's a chaotic system. And we can never have perfect information about the starting state of that chaotic system, which makes it inherently unpredictable.

But if you're suggesting that there is a part of the decision making process that transcends the mechanisms used to arrive at that decision, I would be genuinely interested to hear your theory about this.

 

[kyser_soze]

But if all our actions are predetermined, why bother with morality? Why have arguments about what and what is not moral, if it's predetermined you're going to break your own or societies rules? You say all morality goes to pot, I say that morality is merely a cover or a stick for our predetermined actions, and therefore false.

 

[Jonti]

Determinism is a question of physics -- something of a necessary assumption, really. It says nothing about human lived experience.

I'd say that's a shortcoming of natural philosophy, it's a failure to understand where consciousness fits into the world, and not a problem with physics as such.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But if all our actions are predetermined, why bother with morality? Why have arguments about what and what is not moral, if it's predetermined you're going to break your own or societies rules? You say all morality goes to pot, I say that morality is merely a cover or a stick for our predetermined actions, and therefore false.

The arguments themselves play a part in determining our future behaviour.

The issue of predetermination is simply one that we cannot comment on. We don't have the information to judge.

I think Goldenecitrones's point is a good one. We're far less resistant to the idea that, even given far from complete information, we can predict the actions of others than the idea that others can predict our reactions.

 

[8ball]

What's al this bollocks about brain pixies?

 

[kabbes]

But if all our actions are predetermined, why bother with morality? Why have arguments about what and what is not moral, if it's predetermined you're going to break your own or societies rules? You say all morality goes to pot, I say that morality is merely a cover or a stick for our predetermined actions, and therefore false.

lbj already said it, but it's worth repeating.

Firstly, there can still be a morality. There can still be a right and a wrong. This is not incompatible with the idea that our actions are an inevitability of our experiences and genetics.

Secondly, the process is a dynamic one. The various elements of the system interact on a million different levels. If you were to somehow remove the discussions on what made for morality then there would be consequences -- quite probably those consequences would include a less moral world.

I don't think that you can break out of the system in any case. There is no point in asking "what is the point?" because it just is. It is as it is regardless of whether we find a reason for it or otherwise.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What's al this bollocks about brain pixies?

Isn't the point that even where we may reject the dualism of god/universe, we still wish to assert the dualism of me/universe.

I think it comes back to the trick that consciousness plays on us. We think we are in control of ourselves. But we are ourselves.

 

[8ball]

But we are ourselves.

This is a dualistic sentence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is a dualistic sentence.

No it isn't. Tautologous, maybe, but not dualistic.

 

[8ball]

No it isn't. Tautologous, maybe, but not dualistic.

It's dualistic in the same way that the tiresome advice to 'be yourself' is dualistic. Who is doing the being if not yourself? Do be do be do. Subject/object.

It's pretty hardwired into language, though. I was just pointing out that there's no getting away from it.

I'm not sure whether it's tautologous.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's dualistic in the same way that the tiresome advice to 'be yourself' is dualistic. Who is doing the being if not yourself? Do be do be do. Subject/object.

It's pretty hardwired into language, though. I was just pointing out that there's no getting away from it.

I'm not sure whether it's tautologous.

Ok, well it was intended to be tautologous in order to contrast with the dualistic 'we are in control of ourselves'.

 

[8ball]

Ok, well it was intended to be tautologous in order to contrast with the dualistic 'we are in control of ourselves'.

Well, that's also dualistic in the language sense, and also in the deeper way in which you meant, but that doesn't mean there's no truth in it.

We split ourselves up into parts all the time. Personally, I'd never make it into the office otherwise.

 

[Jonti]

The obvious sense is the conscious body, the human. That, we are. So, we are ourselves.

The question is, can this conscious body choose its future to at least some extent? And what does that mean?