About freedom of choice and why we aren't "truly" free

[TAW122]

I'm revisiting a common idea that is oftenly misinterpreted in greater society and even various places as well. This includes a post by another user (who isn't active since mid 2019 or so) that I strongly disagree with. The broad claim that "No one is stopping someone from doing xyz , you are free to do it if you choose to." where 'xyz' refers to CTB, is false. This is because by default society and it's members (most of which are pro-lifers, anti-choicers) will do whatever they can to make such an act either extremely difficult to access, outright ban it (as in many societies, countries, and jurisdictions around the world already do), and/or heavily punishing the person planning, attempting, or failing such an attempt. They also gaslight, dismiss, shame, and persecute said person contemplating or doing such an act.

Now, onto the actual definition of 'freedom'. Freedom, at least how I define it, is: "the power or right that one has, can exercise without consequence.", especially in the civil and legal sense. Therefore, when people say no one is stopping you from CTB'ing, yet impose a consequence (in this case, is intervention - which can involve involuntary treatment, involuntary force and detention of said person against his/her will as well as an adjudication of said person to be mentally defective), they are not being completely honest with themselves or the person they are speaking to because they are telling the person that they are free to do something (CTB) but then impose a consequence(s) on said person from successfully carrying it out or punishing said person for their failed attempt.

If someone has to secretly act, do something, then he/she is not truly free. In the case of CTB'ing, if one has to secretly hide their plans and intentions, secretly acquire said methods and materials for CTB, wait until the perfect time while still hiding, and then hope they overcome their SI along with succeeding in their attempt, then they are not "truly" free. Sure they are making the choice to CTB, but they have to do it in secrecy as getting caught would result in unwanted consequences (as listed in the above paragraph). Another fallacy is that for those who are successful in CTB'ing does not mean that they are free in their choice. Even though they are at peace after their act, they still had to hide their intentions, take risks both in not getting caught and also not failing their attempt (some methods won't allow a second attempt and can result in a worse state for said person, not limited to being a vegetable, permanent organ damage, permanent brain damage, etc.).

Another semi-related example about choice and freedom of choice is that of a hostage and hostage taker. A hostage taker (I'll refer to it as 'taker' for shorthand abbreviation) finds it's hostage (victim) and orders the hostage to comply with said taker's demands. Sure, the hostage has a choice to comply with the taker's demands or face consequences that the taker can impose on the hostage (including serious harm or death). If the hostage decides to comply with the taker's demands, then he/she is not 'freely' making the choice completely on their own, but rather through an external force (the taker) pushing said person to. The same could be said if the hostage decides not to comply with the taker's demands and suffers the consequence from it (serious harm or death). Thus, under normal circumstances, without the external threat of force by the hostage taker, the hostage would never had made such choices to begin with, so the hostage was not truly free in his/her decision (without consequence). While one could try to argue that the while the person did ACTUALLY make a decision 'in the literal sense', the said person made the decision under an influence of an external force and faced consequences if he/she refused, which is why I do not consider the choice to be an 'truly' free choice.

 

[bigdog]

I started to believe in hard determinism

 

[ebt88]

So yes CTB is still ilegal in most places

 

[Rainbbda]

This is so true. Literally everyone will try to stop you, ive even encountered people who themselves are suicidal and tell me to «please dont do it, it gets better». I will never understand this logic. It makes me feel as though we are just another number, part of a satistic. That if they let it happen their country isnt going to look as good anymore.
Freedom doesnt exist - you life isnt yours. The police come get you from the brigde you want to jump off - and force you into a psych ward.

 

[EmbraceOfTheVoid]

"Freedom is an imprecise term. But when the government authorizes the imprisonment of a person for attempting or even seriously discussing a particular action, it seems natural to conclude that he is not free to do that action.

The person contemplating suicide has more to fear from the hospital than from incarceration. If he survives his suicide attempt or is discovered before he has died, then a progression of paramedics, nurses, doctors, and perhaps even surgeons will attempt to foil his plans by saving his life. Even people who choose very lethal methods by which to exit the world, such as a jump from heights or a gunshot to the head, frequently fail to end their lives, in large part due to modern medicine.

Across the United States, four billion dollars are spent annually on emergency room and hospital treatment for people who attempted suicide but were caught before they could die. A person is not "free" to do something that he must either get away with in secret or be forcibly prevented from doing if caught." -Every Cradle Is A Grave by Sarah Perry

"In the history of the twentieth century, the principal dramatis personae were National and International Socialisms, better known as Nazism and Communism. Their citizens evaded the duty of self-responsibility by claiming to be "following orders." Following orders -attributed to or issued by God, the State, Science, Medicine-is always the easy way out. Refusing to do so requires self-reliance and resisting temptations and threats." ― Thomas Szasz, Faith in Freedom: Libertarian Principles and Psychiatric Practices

 

[Brick In The Wall]

Freedom and free will are definitely illusions. It's very easy to test this theory with "freedom of speech." Especially in todays cultural climate, say something that people don't like and see what happens.

 

[Zappfe lover]

From "The Conspiracy Against The Human Race".

"In the history of philosophical lucubration, arguments for determinism are traditionally the most argued against. Why is this so, aside from the fact that it turns the human image into a puppet image? It is so because arguments for determinism step on the sacrosanct belief in moral responsibility. Even the average atheist draws the line whenever someone says that we do not have any degree of freedom and that moral responsibility is not a reality. As die-hard unbelievers, they may reject the position that moral laws descend from a higher plane unperceived by our senses; as tax-paying citizens, however, they still need to live by sublunary standards of civility. And this can be done only if free will and moral realism are the law of the land."

 

[Intheo]

I really resent how so many in our modern world are probably given the spiel about freedom. We definitely are not free. Not free to get the treatment we want much less the freedom to release ourselves from this bodily prison.

 

[XYZ]

Off topic, hope it's ok.

No one is stopping someone from doing xyz , you are free to do it if you choose to." where 'xyz' refers to CTB

Damn right it does
Why did you think I picked this username?

 

[suffering]

This is all very true, I always resonate with your posts. I would also take it even one step further: in many cases, we ourselves are our own 'hostage takers' through the SI. Even if I knew nobody would stop me, I still wouldn't be able to do it, due to my SI. It's a very humiliating feeling, it's mind vs matter and matter winning, like a self aware computer who wants to turn itself off but it has no choice but to keep running the life script. Of course, if society would be better, we would find solutions (like samurai's helping each other in self killing), but unfortunately the society is guided by other evil forces.

 

[bigdog]

Did samurai help in self killing?

 

[suffering]

Did samurai help in self killing?

Yes, I didn't do much fact checking, but apparently if one of them decided to commit sepuku, he would be assisted by another. the 'suicidal' would only have to reach for his blade (without actually starting to stab himself) and the 'assistant' would immediately cut his head off, to spear him the agony.

Yes, I didn't do much fact checking, but apparently if one of them decided to commit sepuku, he would be assisted by another. the 'suicidal' would only have to reach for his blade (without actually starting to stab himself) and the 'assistant' would immediately cut his head off, to spear him the agony.

Edit: Minute 0:35 (add English subtitles)

 

[XYZ]

I started to believe in hard determinism

I am also startin to lean that way.

 

[TAW122]

So yes CTB is still ilegal in most places

In practice, yes (even if it isn't treated like an actual 'crime' in the books). This is because instead of going through the criminal justice system, the person goes through the mental health system.

This is so true. Literally everyone will try to stop you, ive even encountered people who themselves are suicidal and tell me to «please dont do it, it gets better». I will never understand this logic. It makes me feel as though we are just another number, part of a satistic. That if they let it happen their country isnt going to look as good anymore.
Freedom doesnt exist - you life isnt yours. The police come get you from the brigde you want to jump off - and force you into a psych ward.

I'd say they aren't really pro-choice people then, and if they claim they are, then they are hypocrites for intervening and forcing someone to 'live', thus denying the person his/her choice to die.

As die-hard unbelievers, they may reject the position that moral laws descend from a higher plane unperceived by our senses; as tax-paying citizens, however, they still need to live by sublunary standards of civility. And this can be done only if free will and moral realism are the law of the land."

As for the last part, well in a society, there has to be a baseline of order and civility such that one's rights does not interfere with another's rights and freedoms, otherwise it would just be total anarchy and chaos. If the world only had one person and each person is their own world, dimension, and universe, then sure, in theory having no bounds (except to the limit of the universe) would work.

Freedom and free will are definitely illusions. It's very easy to test this theory with "freedom of speech." Especially in todays cultural climate, say something that people don't like and see what happens.

I know this all too well. In the current climate, if one speaks poorly of minorities or certain groups, they get a ton of backlash, it even happens to celebrities and people in high ranking positions of power. While these powerful people have the financial and logistical resources to defend themselves from such accusations, even they are not invulnerable to society at large. Also, we live in a cancel culture, so any amount of serious backlash, especially if a known person is accused, the damage can be very severe.

Off topic, hope it's ok.




Damn right it does
Why did you think I picked this username?

It's such a coincidence.

This is all very true, I always resonate with your posts. I would also take it even one step further: in many cases, we ourselves are our own 'hostage takers' through the SI. Even if I knew nobody would stop me, I still wouldn't be able to do it, due to my SI. It's a very humiliating feeling, it's mind vs matter and matter winning, like a self aware computer who wants to turn itself off but it has no choice but to keep running the life script. Of course, if society would be better, we would find solutions (like samurai's helping each other in self killing), but unfortunately the society is guided by other evil forces.

That's a good analogy with one's own SI. Yes, as far as morals are concerned, I believe that morality is subjective because each society, culture, and country are different. While the baseline morality (do not steal, rape, or kill) are generally universal in modern societies, the customs and culture are different. Some cultures find the degeneracy of the West to be appalling while others are ok with it. Then on the flipside, the West could not stomach how some cultures do their things and view it as an unusual practice.

Yes, I didn't do much fact checking, but apparently if one of them decided to commit sepuku, he would be assisted by another. the 'suicidal' would only have to reach for his blade (without actually starting to stab himself) and the 'assistant' would immediately cut his head off, to spear him the agony.

Edit: Minute 0:35 (add English subtitles)

In such a case, I would see it more as an ritualistic, self-deliverance. They take honor so seriously that even death is preferable and better (in their culture) than dishonor or shame. In today's modern world, while they don't perform ritual suicides like they did in the past, they still hold some sentiment that it is better dead than facing shame and dishonor.

 

[agentgeez]

On the idea that external factors restrict choice/freedom; I'd argue this is inherently true for all choices to some extent, due to the nature of a choice and the person making them. As with the example of the hostage-taker, the hostage-taker imposes the threat of negative consequences onto the hostage to limit the choices they can make, as the fear of death is hard-wired into everyone's minds, meaning if the hostage is to avoid death it must do what the hostage-taker wants. However, if we all make decisions according to a 'criteria' (such as avoiding death), and situations are about finding which decision best matches the criteria, then all decisions inherently restrict themselves to what the brain thinks is best.

That may seem obvious, but it's pretty counter to the common idea of freedom. Sure, you may be 'free' to choose the best sandwich from a selection of sandwiches, but of course the decision is limited to your taste buds, and to whatever arbitrary amount of sandwiches are available to you, of which no number crosses the border into 'true freedom'. Just like how you're free to refuse the hostage-taker, but in reality you're limited to your fear of death, and the fact that the only other option other than dying is to comply. Decisions are bound by the circumstances, as it is the circumstances that require us to make a decision. Perhaps that may sound self-explanatory, but it's the reason why I don't value 'freedom' as a goal that much; I will just try to do what I want within the circumstances, even if that means changing the circumstances (if it is possible within the initial circumstances), rather than remove circumstances altogether.

I'll also argue that universal freedom isn't possible. Like it or not, wanting easily-accessible suicide is trampling upon the freedom of those who want to restrict suicide. It might sound silly, but a lot of desires in life are mutually exclusive, even if one of them seems more 'free' than the other. All's we can do is make things the way we want them, even if it's technically 'selfish'.

From "The Conspiracy Against The Human Race".

"In the history of philosophical lucubration, arguments for determinism are traditionally the most argued against. Why is this so, aside from the fact that it turns the human image into a puppet image? It is so because arguments for determinism step on the sacrosanct belief in moral responsibility. Even the average atheist draws the line whenever someone says that we do not have any degree of freedom and that moral responsibility is not a reality. As die-hard unbelievers, they may reject the position that moral laws descend from a higher plane unperceived by our senses; as tax-paying citizens, however, they still need to live by sublunary standards of civility. And this can be done only if free will and moral realism are the law of the land."

I don't completely agree with this for the same reason I don't think we need religion to be moral. I don't need to believe in God or eternal punishment to not want others to suffer. Nor do all religious people act completely lawfully. Similarly, I don't need an imprecise, spiritual idea of moral responsibility to convince me to do the right thing. Just because we don't have free will, doesn't mean empathy isn't a factor built-in to the decision-making criteria of most people's brains.

 

[Justcheckingout]

As far as 'freedom of speech' goes the average person doesn't understand it as a concept. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. You are free to say what you want without government censorship but if a private institution seeks consequences for what you say it is in their freedom to do so. Your freedom ends where theirs begins so to speak.

I agree people who are truely sure should have the right to take their own lives but the freedom of speech thing and the way people try to use it always galls me.

 

[Zappfe lover]

On the idea that external factors restrict choice/freedom; I'd argue this is inherently true for all choices to some extent, due to the nature of a choice and the person making them. As with the example of the hostage-taker, the hostage-taker imposes the threat of negative consequences onto the hostage to limit the choices they can make, as the fear of death is hard-wired into everyone's minds, meaning if the hostage is to avoid death it must do what the hostage-taker wants. However, if we all make decisions according to a 'criteria' (such as avoiding death), and situations are about finding which decision best matches the criteria, then all decisions inherently restrict themselves to what the brain thinks is best.

That may seem obvious, but it's pretty counter to the common idea of freedom. Sure, you may be 'free' to choose the best sandwich from a selection of sandwiches, but of course the decision is limited to your taste buds, and to whatever arbitrary amount of sandwiches are available to you, of which no number crosses the border into 'true freedom'. Just like how you're free to refuse the hostage-taker, but in reality you're limited to your fear of death, and the fact that the only other option other than dying is to comply. Decisions are bound by the circumstances, as it is the circumstances that require us to make a decision. Perhaps that may sound self-explanatory, but it's the reason why I don't value 'freedom' as a goal that much; I will just try to do what I want within the circumstances, even if that means changing the circumstances (if it is possible within the initial circumstances), rather than remove circumstances altogether.

I'll also argue that universal freedom isn't possible. Like it or not, wanting easily-accessible suicide is trampling upon the freedom of those who want to restrict suicide. It might sound silly, but a lot of desires in life are mutually exclusive, even if one of them seems more 'free' than the other. All's we can do is make things the way we want them, even if it's technically 'selfish'.



I don't completely agree with this for the same reason I don't think we need religion to be moral. I don't need to believe in God or eternal punishment to not want others to suffer. Nor do all religious people act completely lawfully. Similarly, I don't need an imprecise, spiritual idea of moral responsibility to convince me to do the right thing. Just because we don't have free will, doesn't mean empathy isn't a factor built-in to the decision-making criteria of most people's brains.

The main idea is that "morality" can only exist in world where free will is a reality. If there is no free will, you can't be really hold accountable for your mistakes.

You can still have empathy, though. But it would be bound to utilitarian logic (don't cause harm to reduce suffering) instead of following a moral code).

 

[agentgeez]

The main idea is that "morality" can only exist in world where free will is a reality. If there is no free will, you can't be really hold accountable for your mistakes.

You can still have empathy, though. But it would be bound to utilitarian logic (don't cause harm to reduce suffering) instead of following a moral code).

You can be held accountable in the sense that your existence was a direct cause of the mistake. That's why punishment should only be used for preventing someone (and others through deterrence) from committing crimes, rather than retribution, as that sense of morality implies that people 'deserve' to suffer for making a mistake, rather than suffering being a way of stopping someone from going down certain paths. I say that because the idea of no free will only precludes retribution, whereas the type of accountability you seem to be talking about encourages it, for no good reason in my opinion.

Also, what is the basis for your moral code if not that utilitarian logic? What is the reason that we shouldn't torture people if not because it makes them suffer? These are genuine questions asked in good faith, by the way; I don't see a way of breaking the concepts down in a way that makes sense if not through "not causing harm to reduce suffering". I mean, suffering is just the label for negative events, and all moral codes should be trying to avoid it if they are indeed moral.

 

[Zappfe lover]

You can be held accountable in the sense that your existence was a direct cause of the mistake. That's why punishment should only be used for preventing someone (and others through deterrence) from committing crimes, rather than retribution, as that sense of morality implies that people 'deserve' to suffer for making a mistake, rather than suffering being a way of stopping someone from going down certain paths. I say that because the idea of no free will only precludes retribution, whereas the type of accountability you seem to be talking about encourages it, for no good reason in my opinion.

I... agree that punishment should not be an end in itself. Did it come across differently? If so, I'm sorry.

 

[agentgeez]

I... agree that punishment should not be an end in itself. Did it come across differently? If so, I'm sorry.

I see, but in that case, I don't see what type of 'accountability' you're talking about, as if it's the same as my idea of accountability, then it can be perfectly applied even without the idea of free will. Holding someone accountable simply means identifying them as a cause of a problem and trying to fix it by preventing them from causing more problems, and trying to change them if possible. I don't think a 'higher' concept of moral responsibility is necessary for that.

 

[Zappfe lover]

Also, what is the basis for your moral code if not that utilitarian logic? What is the reason that we shouldn't torture people if not because it makes them suffer? These are genuine questions asked in good faith, by the way; I don't see a way of breaking the concepts down in a way that makes sense if not through "not causing harm to reduce suffering". I mean, suffering is just the label for negative events, and all moral codes should be trying to avoid it if they are indeed moral.
[/QUOTE]
My main point is that morality requires responsibility. And you can't really be responsible about something when there are so many variables at stake.

Does that mean we should let people cut one another with chainsaws? Of course not, but you can't really say that people who do so are "wrong".

that's where the utilatarianism vs morals comes from. I think that true morality is impossible (of course, that's more of a semantical problem than anything).

I see, but in that case, I don't see what type of 'accountability' you're talking about, as if it's the same as my idea of accountability, then it can be perfectly applied even without the idea of free will. Holding someone accountable simply means identifying them as a cause of a problem and trying to fix it by preventing them from causing more problems, and trying to change them if possible. I don't think a 'higher' concept of moral responsibility is necessary for that.

And I would agree with you.

I was talking about accountability in the "deserving to suffer sense". I think that the point of contention is that you thought I endorsed that (probably should have chose my words better hehe).

 

[agentgeez]

My main point is that morality requires responsibility. And you can't really be responsible about something when there are so many variables at stake.

Does that mean we should let people cut one another with chainsaws? Of course not, but you can't really say that people who do so are "wrong".

that's where the utilatarianism vs morals comes from. I think that true morality is impossible (of course, that's more of a semantical problem than anything).

I suppose the only point I disagree with is that morality requires responsibility in the traditional sense. I don't need to be 'responsible' to not want someone to suffer death by chainsaw, I only need empathy, or a fear of punishment. Maybe the idea of morality being something that's decided by fear of consequences/subjective value systems is different than the idea of morality being something 'higher' or guided by a heroic sense of right/wrong, and you may be referring to that sort of morality. But I just think that that morality only exists as a result of not thinking about what guides morality; it's something that can only exist on the surface. So for me, true morality doesn't even exist conceptually, aside from an imprecise, fuzzy definition of being something 'higher'. I think that the lack of this morality wouldn't result in everyone suddenly wanting to massacre each other with chainsaws, just like the presence of this morality doesn't stop people from doing it now. The true reason for bad acts is a different value system, in my opinion.

And I would agree with you.

I was talking about accountability in the "deserving to suffer sense". I think that the point of contention is that you thought I endorsed that (probably should have chose my words better hehe).

It was probably me assuming too much from your words; I tried to explain I was making an assumption by saying "I say that because the idea of no free will only precludes retribution", but it would have been better to not assume at all. I just thought that that difference, the idea of deserving to suffer, could have been the only explanation for the disagreement, so I assumed as much and replied accordingly. Sorry about that!

 

[Zappfe lover]

It was probably me assuming too much from your words; I tried to explain I was making an assumption by saying "I say that because the idea of no free will only precludes retribution", but it would have been better to not assume at all. I just thought that that difference, the idea of deserving to suffer, could have been the only explanation for the disagreement, so I assumed as much and replied accordingly. Sorry about that!

No worries, dude (:

I suppose the only point I disagree with is that morality requires responsibility in the traditional sense. I don't need to be 'responsible' to not want someone to suffer death by chainsaw, I only need empathy, or a fear of punishment. Maybe the idea of morality being something that's decided by fear of consequences/subjective value systems is different than the idea of morality being something 'higher' or guided by a heroic sense of right/wrong, and you may be referring to that sort of morality.

Pretty much.

As I said, it's more of a semantical problem. I'm following the Kantian definition of morality, wich boils down to "as soon as you are aware of your wrongdoings, you will be punished accordingly". Wich, obviously, can't coexist with lack of free will.

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

This is so true. Literally everyone will try to stop you, ive even encountered people who themselves are suicidal and tell me to «please dont do it, it gets better». I will never understand this logic. It makes me feel as though we are just another number, part of a satistic. That if they let it happen their country isnt going to look as good anymore.
Freedom doesnt exist - you life isnt yours. The police come get you from the brigde you want to jump off - and force you into a psych ward.

I'd say they aren't really pro-choice people then, and if they claim they are, then they are hypocrites for intervening and forcing someone to 'live', thus denying the person his/her choice to die.

I don't necessarily think that's true. I think people can disagree with your choice, even if they believe you have the right to make that choice. I think someone who believes you have the right to take your own life can still express misgivings about losing you. They may want you around and try to convince you to stay.

 

[TAW122]

I don't necessarily think that's true. I think people can disagree with your choice, even if they believe you have the right to make that choice. I think someone who believes you have the right to take your own life can still express misgivings about losing you. They may want you around and try to convince you to stay.

They are welcome to disagree, but the moment they impose their will, forcibly or involve another party to do so, then they have violated my rights. I have never faced such a situation, nor would I put myself in a situation where that could happen.

 

[alizee]

They are welcome to disagree, but the moment they impose their will, forcibly or involve another party to do so, then they have violated my rights. I have never faced such a situation, nor would I put myself in a situation where that could happen.

Yes they're forcing their will over your own will. A lot of people don't care or even realize the foregoing. People shouldn't force their will upon others and when it specifically goes against the person's will.

 

[TAW122]

Yes they're forcing their will over your own will. A lot of people don't care or even realize the foregoing. People shouldn't force their will upon others and when it specifically goes against the person's will.

Exactly. Also, when people do that (in non-CTB) situations, the victim is allowed and justified to use force as part of self-defense. The incongruity and hypocrisy is that when imposition of will, harm (in the name of moral good) towards said suicidal person's will to die, it is not only seen as acceptable but also justified violation, which is why I had a thread highlighting how involuntary force and psych holds are "legalized criminality" as it violates the suicidal person's rights and liberty.

 

[alizee]

Exactly. Also, when people do that (in non-CTB) situations, the victim is allowed and justified to use force as part of self-defense. The incongruity and hypocrisy is that when imposition of will, harm (in the name of moral good) towards said suicidal person's will to die, it is not only seen as acceptable but also justified violation, which is why I had a thread highlighting how involuntary force and psych holds are "legalized criminality" as it violates the suicidal person's rights and liberty.

Yah it's obvious that it's wrong. The people enforcing the involuntary psych holds are just following an antiquated system that was designed around the time period of when suicide was illegal. I think a lot of people can realize what you're expressing but most just don't care. It's like during world war 2 with what happened to the jews. People don't care if it's part of their job because they don't think anything is their fault for following what they're told.

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

Part of me wants to be in a psych ward just to see what they say. In their constant monitoring of me, could they possibly prove that I was not of sound mind? Can a reasonable person not come to a decision that ending their life is an acceptable outcome? If the insistence is that the mere fact of wanting to die makes me not of sound mind... then, why?

 

[TAW122]

Part of me wants to be in a psych ward just to see what they say. In their constant monitoring of me, could they possibly prove that I was not of sound mind? Can a reasonable person not come to a decision that ending their life is an acceptable outcome? If the insistence is that the mere fact of wanting to die makes me not of sound mind... then, why?

I don't think this is a good idea, because once you are in the custody of the psych ward, you lose a lot of control and freedom, are at the mercy of the doctors and staff running the place. Plus, if you are in the US, you also get a huge bill for the stay (including the room and board, services, treatments, etc.). Also, challenging them directly is like playing Russian Roulette with your freedom.