Free will is a red herring :)

[MidGe]

There has been a number of posts on this forum related to freewill, whether it exists or not, etc., usually somehow related to morality.

To me this seems very much of a red herring. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. It doesn't make much difference. You may choose to do something with the best intention, but the outcome may be thwarted by conditions or events not foreseen and outside your control. To use a facile and simple example, you may help the little old lady cross the street, hold up traffic for her even, and as she reach the other footpath, a young punk on a skateboard, out of control, bumps her. She falls, hit her head and either dies or suffer for a lengthy period.

It seems to me that freewill without knowing the ultimate consequences of one's choice is a very meaningless faculty. I think more interetsing is the motivation or intention that accompanies a choice. I know that with, effort, over a period of time, you can learn manage anger for instance, avoiding consequences due to choices made in anger, but not knowing whether or not the consequences will be positive.

I would say, intention, altering your mind automatic responses etc.. are much more important than the actions themselves, since we cannot predict the results.

Whether or not freewill exists, it is meaningless in terms of results. In other words act well (whatever that means to you), don't worry about the results or about freewill. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[cambraceres]

What you say is true, one can ignore the deeper philosophical argument about free will or any other grand theme, and be no worse off than his fellow man. The reason for this is the same you gave, but the reason for this argument in the first place has little to do with whether or not the knowledge of your own free will is valid. The reason for this argument is the same as almost every other. The desire to work and know and do and see is what drives anyone to fathom the shadows of his existence, and posit solutions to problems completely outside his sphere, and completely irrelevant to his cause. This again is human nature, it will not allow such an argument to lie dormant. The need for philosophy will not go away, the terror of uncertainty, and the delight in our own skill will drive us further and further until our logic itself breaks down.

Cambraceres

[yukoncpa]

Great post. If everyone lived the simple precept that you outline, the whole world would be a more pleasant place. Unfortunately, many people seem to thrive on strife and contention ( somehow this makes them happy ), but inevitably many of these people suffer consequences and they need something or someone to blame ( placing blame, also seems to make some people happy ). I find that free will debates are something that religious folk are passionate about. I’m not very religious at all and was shocked at how many people were vehemently opposed to my simple idea that we all have free will. I get the feeling that this is one of many excuses for living a “righteous” life and at the same time creating hell for others.

[cambraceres]

Yukon, I don't believe their intent is so nefarious as you assert. Christians and others who believe they have the right argument, or are still forming what will become their right argument, are fulfilling their need to answer the more subtle questions of their existence. If they find the proper concept, they will of course attempt to convert others, as this feels good.

It is not that they wish to hurt others or make other's lives harder, it is just that they wish to help the poor people who do not "know" what they know.

[yukoncpa]

Concur. I get caught up in my own biases of others sometimes. Thank you.

[guesswest]

I think you've misconstrued the freewill vs determinism debate. It's not just about whether you're free to act, it's about whether the intentions you form are freely formed also.

It's not that I think your point about knowing consequences isn't a valid one, but it's for a different debate, namely virtue ethics vs consequentialism. If we don't have free will, your intentions are pre-determined in exactly the same way your actions are, so a division between the two is useless.

Edit: Just to clarify - am responding to OP not to yuko, hit the wrong button.

[Somekid]

I think you make a good point, although I think that the free will debate is very relevant to if and how we punish people for their actions.

I'm afraid my point here might be too simplistic, but it seems that if people don't have free will then it seems strange to punish them for their actions.

Although if nobody had free will then we really couldn't be held accountable for punishing someone....now I've confused myself...I guess free will is a red herring

[MrMon]

If no one had free will and we could determine what someones destiny was, then not only would we have the obligation to hold someone accountable, we would have the obligation to protect society by removing them before they could commit the (inevitable) crime.

[Somekid]

We might have what one could call an obligation in that case, but it would be pointless. If nobody had free will, the idea of obligation wouldn't really exist since their is no choice in our actions. We can't actually decide whether or not to stop the person, even if it appeared that way.

[guesswest]

I don't think the idea of free will in the philosophical sense is very applicable to ethics.

If we don't have free will we don't, in the strictest sense, have choice in anything. Including whether or not we punish individuals, or hold them accountable, whether or not we punish 'pre-crimes', or anything at all. If everything we do is pre-determined, it's all-encompassing to the extent that it's irrelevant to moral questions and most other questions. But we do have the appearance and experience of free will.

I've never really heard anyone argue that justice systems or society generally shouldn't hold individuals accountable for their actions on the grounds that those actions might be pre-determined by some mind-bogglingly complex cosmic chain of causality. Is that really going on?

The problem of free will is a significant problem, but it's an existential problem. Clearly we experience free will day to day , and within that appearance we should be trying to create a just society - whether the result comes from genuine free will or virtual free will.

[Somekid]

Free will is central to the question of ethics.

Ethical statements are generally of the type "We SHOULD do X"

If we lack free will, then the idea that anyone SHOULD do anything is ridiculous.

However, I'm not trying to argue that we should not hold people accountable for our actions. In fact, to assert that we shouldn't hold people accountable for their actions given a lack of free will would be nonsensical. We either will hold them accountable or we won't.

Ethical theories can't exist independent of the free will question. In fact the idea that people have freedom of choice is the basic assumption of ethics.

However, what we exactly mean by "free will" is very relevant.

edit: I hope my post is a wonderful illustration of exactly how free will is a red herring...I've completely lost track of the original post.

[guesswest]

But you need to take this a step further. If we accept for the sake of argument that free will doesn't exist, what then is this 'we' or 'I' you're talking about? If there's no free will there are no autonomous agents to hold responsible or not hold responsible - we're just some giant machine performing internal functions.

If free will exists or doesn't exist ethics still has exactly the same job because it's still necessary for social structure - it's just a case of whether it's adjudicating based on literal free will or the all-encompassing experience of free will. It then becomes an existential question, maybe an epistemic question, but not the domain of ethics, because it couldn't (or shouldn't) possibly impact any ethical decisions.

That the reach of determinism is all-encompassing is what's key. A good parallel is the god debate - it's makes the idea of god redundant to say he exists and is omnipresent, because assuming omnipresence, what then makes god an entity in itself, how's he anything but a synonym for 'the sum of all things'? It's precisely the fact that in a determinist model ALL things are determined that it becomes irrelevant for ethics - it'd be entirely relevant if determism applied to some but not all events/persons.

[MidGe]

Trying to get it back OT more or less.

You have the choice of opening one of two doors. Open one and someone will be killed, open the other and you will gain $1M.

The two doors are identical. What is the difference between you choosing a door or spinning a coin for it. Free will is a red herring if you do not know the consequence of your choice. That seems to be the way it is in life, to me.

[cambraceres]

Rarely does life function in this way though MidGe.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
You have the choice of opening one of two doors. Open one and someone will be killed, open the other and you will gain $1M.

The two doors are identical. What is the difference between you choosing a door or spinning a coin for it. Free will is a red herring if you do not know the consequence of your choice. That seems to be the way it is in life, to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is it a choice to not open either door?

What about opening both doors Simultaneously?

If there is true free will, these should be choices. I think which one you choose is a matter of character.

[madnak]

There's no logical reason for punishment in the first place. The idea that some people "deserve" to suffer is absurd, free will or no. I fail to see how free will somehow makes it so people should suffer.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no logical reason for punishment in the first place. The idea that some people "deserve" to suffer is absurd, free will or no. I fail to see how free will somehow makes it so people should suffer.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the argument is not so much that some people should suffer but that you have more moral justification for punishing people who do bad acts freely than for punishing those who do bad acts because they were forced to.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no logical reason for punishment in the first place. The idea that some people "deserve" to suffer is absurd, free will or no. I fail to see how free will somehow makes it so people should suffer.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the argument is not so much that some people should suffer but that you have more moral justification for punishing people who do bad acts freely than for punishing those who do bad acts because they were forced to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if we are predestined, our decisions, from our perspective are not forced.

Cambraceres

[Somekid]

One argument for punishment is that whenever a rational agent breaks a moral law, they do it conscious of the fact that they are violating a moral law. Therefore, there is an acceptance of just punishment.

People can deserve to suffer because they have caused other people to suffer. Many ethical theories believe that breaking moral laws creates an obligation for punishment.

More importantly, why shouldn't someone who does something abhorrent (like killing a baby or two), be punished?

[madnak]

Why shouldn't they? I'm sorry? Is that supposed to be an argument, like people should be punished by default unless there's a specific reason they shouldn't?

I think of it the other way around. People shouldn't be punished, unless there's a reason to punish them.

But that's neither here nor there, because it is all about valuation. Absent valuation, there's no reason anyone shouldn't be punished, and there's no reason anyone should be punished, punishment is wholly arbitrary.

Using a compassionate form of valuation in which suffering is seen as undesirable, it becomes very simple. Suffering is undesirable, punishment is defined (in this context) as causing suffering, therefore punishment is inherently undesirable.

The idea that if there is suffering present in a system, then that suffering should be met with even more suffering, is completely ludicrous. Assuming that you value compassion, then, the onus is on you to provide a reason before causing suffering, not the other way around.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
One argument for punishment is that whenever a rational agent breaks a moral law, they do it conscious of the fact that they are violating a moral law. Therefore, there is an acceptance of just punishment.

People can deserve to suffer because they have caused other people to suffer. Many ethical theories believe that breaking moral laws creates an obligation for punishment.

More importantly, why shouldn't someone who does something abhorrent (like killing a baby or two), be punished?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally dependent on the power that is. In a utilitarian sense, whoever pays the cost to be the boss decides what is and is not abhorrent, and also in what way and measure an undesirable should suffer.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Rarely does life function in this way though MidGe.

[/ QUOTE ]

The consequences may not be (but sometimes are!) that obvious or as clearly apposite, but, to me, life is mostly that way.

Regarding life, I would add, that the times when we can make a choice (exercise a pseudo free will) are rare. We seem (I do) to function mostly on automatic mode (I include thinking in the automatic mode). To be able to cut the automatic, take stock and decide without being neccesarily led by a mere chain of thinking causes and effects (still not free will), is not the norm.

Futhermore, many people would say that they can think what they want, that they can choose. I would question that, as it seems to choose a way of thinking, one must have thought about what the choice were! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a choice to not open either door?

What about opening both doors Simultaneously?

If there is true free will, these should be choices. I think which one you choose is a matter of character.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those questions do not matter if you don't know what is behind the doors. Choosing is meaningful when you know the results not otherwise. Just trying to explain what I amtrying to say. It is quite counter intuitive I think.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to get it back OT more or less.

You have the choice of opening one of two doors. Open one and someone will be killed, open the other and you will gain $1M.

The two doors are identical. What is the difference between you choosing a door or spinning a coin for it. Free will is a red herring if you do not know the consequence of your choice. That seems to be the way it is in life, to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, thats not an issue of free will or lack thereof, its the classic virtue ethics vs consequentialism question. Is the moral worth to be found in the individual and their sentiments (virtue ethics) or their actions and the consequences of those actions?

As has been said, life rarely works that way and we can normally get some idea of the consequences of our actions, albeit an imperfect one in most cases. On the flip side, we can have good intentions and do horrible things - Hitler thought his worldplan was for the greater good.

There's great argument over which end to give more weight to, but very few people would argue anything other than it being a balancing act between the two. So it'd be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater and label the analysis of consequences as completely irrelevant.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, thats not an issue of free will or lack thereof

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely with this statement. We are saying similar things I think. The point I am making is that whether there is free will or not is of little, or no consequence since it cannot be exercised in any meaningful way. If you allow me to clarify what I think you are saying (to make sure /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) is that regardless of this there is an important issue with knowing whether free will exists or not.

I surely agree about the possible value in analysis of possible consequences (ahead of the decision), however I am not at all, in regarding consequences after the event in relation to the specific act of making a choice (ie guilt etc... but that is a follow on topic. I think you may agree).

[guesswest]

Well - I agree that the idea of free will is redundant in your example, so in that sense I agree with you. But I don't think it hinges around the idea of choices or lack of choices because it'd be redundant for ethical purposes if you knew what was behind the doors too. So yes I think free will is a red herring in ethical debates like these, but to be honest I've never really seen it brought into play in that way - is that actually going on?

Ethics has to exist, if we removed it it'd come back again, it's a response to social needs. Whether it exists in a universe of legitimate free will or one of 'virtual' or 'experiential' free will is a very interesting and profound question. But it's an existential question, ethics has the same job to do regardless.

As far as your example goes, you can similarly conjure up an example whereby there is nothing but consequences and individual intention/virtue is irrelevant. For instance, you're in a locked room and you have to do something ostensibly immoral (say kill someone) to prevent something much more undesirable happening (say detonation of a nucleur bomb in an urban centre). There are a million thought experiments like these for both sides of the argument. But since our day to day experience doesn't occur in a vacumn it has to be a balancing act between the two.

Edit: And I DO agree with you on retrospective consequentialism in terms of guilt. At the very least the guilt should be restricted to what you could possibly have done to better comprehend the consequences, but divorced from the actual consequences. Though humans are pretty sentimental, and making that distinction is often quite difficult.

[Andrew Karpinski]

I disagree with your post in that I think the question of whether or not we have freewill is of supreme importance. If we do not have freewill we should rethink our entire judicial system. There would be no reason to punish someone for WHAT they did, only what they might do in the future. Also, it would be impossible to cast judgement on someone if they did not have freewill, so our perspective on that would change as well.

Of course, the real question for free will is what could possibly give us it. Out side of some all powerful creator (and no, I am not a theist) I see no explanation that is even close to reasonable.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your post in that I think the question of whether or not we have freewill is of supreme importance. If we do not have freewill we should rethink our entire judicial system. There would be no reason to punish someone for WHAT they did, only what they might do in the future. Also, it would be impossible to cast judgement on someone if they did not have freewill, so our perspective on that would change as well.

Of course, the real question for free will is what could possibly give us it. Out side of some all powerful creator (and no, I am not a theist) I see no explanation that is even close to reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]
justice is not about punishment.

chez

[Andrew Karpinski]

I think if you are going to make such a counter intuitive statement you should at the very least back it up : )

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you are going to make such a counter intuitive statement you should at the very least back it up : )

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, did'nt realise it was counter-intuitive. Punishment has four purposes:

prevent people from behaving in a way we don't want.
deter people from behaving in a way we don't want.
educational.
revenge.

Fairness (justice) has nothing to do with it.

chez

[madnak]

There is no reason to punish someone for what they did in the first place. The idea that certain people "deserve" to suffer is completely irrational.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason to punish someone for what they did in the first place. The idea that certain people "deserve" to suffer is completely irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

What someone deserves is not clear. There is a reason to punish someone if they have done something the powers that be deem to be detrimental to their way of life. The person themselves may not believe they should suffer, but it is a matter of perspective.

[madnak]

Punishment as a deterrent can be rational in that case. Punishment for the sake of punishment is never rational.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your post in that I think the question of whether or not we have freewill is of supreme importance. If we do not have freewill we should rethink our entire judicial system.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we have no free will we have probably no chances of rethinking our justice system. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
Punishment as a deterrent can be rational in that case. Punishment for the sake of punishment is never rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not initially take into account the reason for the punishment, but honestly, whho punishes for the purpose of punishing?
A miserable sadist?
A misguided authority?

I doubt any one in a position of authority believes they are hurting anyone arbitrarily, and if they are then they are a miserable sadist.

Cambraceres

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your post in that I think the question of whether or not we have freewill is of supreme importance. If we do not have freewill we should rethink our entire judicial system.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we have no free will we have probably no chances of rethinking our justice system. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And if we have no free will, our judicial system is the least of our worries. Everything sort of ceases to matter.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
And if we have no free will, our judicial system is the least of our worries. Everything sort of ceases to matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
And if we have free will, since we don't know the real consequences of our choices, everything related to free will sort of ceases to matter. Which is the point I was trying to make.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if we have no free will, our judicial system is the least of our worries. Everything sort of ceases to matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
And if we have free will, since we don't know the real consequences of our choices, everything related to free will sort of ceases to matter. Which is the point I was trying to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not having perfect knowledge of the consequences of our actions is very different to having no idea what the consequences of our actions will be.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Not having perfect knowledge of the consequences of our actions is very different to having no idea what the consequences of our actions will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in my opinion, I accept it may be in yours. It maybe a matter of experiences? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[guesswest]

Well - if you had no idea what the consequences of your actions were going to be, or viewed them as completely irrelevant, this wouldn't be restricted to ethics. There'd be no point in doing anything, eating, walking, talking etc - they are all actions we undertake because of an envisaged consequence.

[MidGe]

I don't think about it, dude. I am not fooling myself, thinking I do. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[guesswest]

I don't understand that comment - but ok /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

I would say that decisions that are reflected and evaluated are rare. In general we act automatically altough we would like to think we don't. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[guesswest]

I think genuine evaluation does happen all the time with more complex decisions.

But in so far as things like eating, talking, walking - yes they're automatic. But they're automatic because we've learned since birth the consequences of those actions. If eating food did not satiate our hunger or nourish us we would not be doing it everyday.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that decisions that are reflected and evaluated are rare. In general we act automatically altough we would like to think we don't. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

conscious evaluation is something of a rarity, but so much happens behind the scenes, it's hard to say what is happening in our heads.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not initially take into account the reason for the punishment, but honestly, whho punishes for the purpose of punishing?
A miserable sadist?
A misguided authority?

I doubt any one in a position of authority believes they are hurting anyone arbitrarily, and if they are then they are a miserable sadist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they don't believe it's arbitrary. They all have excuses, like "it's God's will" or some such. Regardless, their only goal is to hurt people. And a large number of people (probably the majority) support them.

There is a strong social ideal that "bad people" should be punished, not because it will prevent future crime, but because they are "bad" and "deserve" to suffer. Western religion involves the concept of hell - eternal suffering that has no actual purpose - there is nothing more sadistic than that, but 80% of Americans accept it as part of their beliefs.

I'm just pointing out that there's no rational component whatsoever. And free will is 100% irrelevant.

[bearly]

is it punishment you don't like or "punishment"?..........b

[madnak]

I'm not sure what you mean. It's suffering I don't like.