Discussion Could We Be Other Than We Are? (Kind Of The Free Will Question)

[kane]

When I think about the terrible decisions I've made as an adult, I can see their roots in the poor decisions I made as a child. Which, in turn, I can see as natural reactions of the kind of child I was to circumstances that I didn't understand. My question is: how was I supposed to do otherwise? If a child develops their disposition from some combination of genetics and upbringing, and then reacts to it's circumstances according to that disposition, which then alters that disposition, which dictates the choices of the adult, at what point does the freedom emerge to act in a different way? And where does that freedom come from?

We want to insist that bad people could be other than they are, and act contrary to how they've acted. I've never heard a convincing explanation of how that's supposed to happen. Magic, or God, or changing the subject. It would be nice to get it clear in my mind.

If bad people cannot be other than they are, then we would be forced to confront the idea that ultimately, the world/reality made them bad. That the world necessarily contains evil within it. Not just the possibility of evil. But the actuality of it. And perhaps that's terrifying, because what kind of a just creator would create evil? And what if all it takes to create evil is the right circumstances and the right genetic disposition? Then any of us could be dropped in that position.

Not really interested in debating differing definitions/compatibilism - I'm more looking for an explanation of how anyone could turn out differently to how they actually turn out, and how they themselves can be the ultimate source of that. For example, if your answer is 'quantum randomness', how is that within the individual's control? To phrase it differently, how can anyone be uncaused by forces beyond themselves, and hence the ultimate creator of themselves?

 

[Largeletters]

I don't have a good answer, guess or explanation, however this is quite interesting so I've bookmarked and watched the thread.

 

[kane]

I don't have a good answer, guess or explanation, however this is quite interesting so I've bookmarked and watched the thread.

Here's hoping someone out there does (and that it's comprehensible.)

 

[my heart hurts]

Oof, a hefty one. Well with the understanding that your personality is a culmination of how your genes reacted to certain environments there is only so much we can do, right? You have no control over your environment being one that is not conducive to your growth, or having the genes to actually 'grow out of the cement' if that's the case right? At a certain point I'd think we can only recognize our faults and work to quell them to an extent in which they don't present a noticeable negative effect on our character or how we're perceived? Most people really have no control over their life during their true developmental stages since they are young, and I don't think a shift in personality is one of those new tricks you can teach an old dog. You could always change the mask you show people though, that's quite simple although ingenuine.

Idk why I typed that much to say I agree with your line of thought(It's time to admit I ramble way too much), and as far as my 2 psychology textbooks of understanding goes you could pretty easily find references to back it(though it is a social science so idk how people would view that)

 

[kane]

Oof, a hefty one. Well with the understanding that your personality is a culmination of how your genes reacted to certain environments there is only so much we can do, right? You have no control over your environment being one that is not conducive to your growth, or having the genes to actually 'grow out of the cement' if that's the case right? At a certain point I'd think we can only recognize our faults and work to quell them to an extent in which they don't present a noticeable negative effect on our character or how we're perceived? Most people really have no control over their life during their true developmental stages since they are young, and I don't think a shift in personality is one of those new tricks you can teach an old dog. You could always change the mask you show people though, that's quite simple although ingenuine.

Idk why I typed that much to say I agree with your line of thought(It's time to admit I ramble way too much), and as far as my 2 psychology textbooks of understanding goes you could pretty easily find references to back it(though it is a social science so idk how people would view that)

Going a level deeper (being really pedantic), wouldn't the ability to 'recognize our faults and work to quell them' or 'change the mask you show people' need to be developed from the same combination of genes and environment? So whether or not you're capable of that would also be beyond your ultimate control. Don't think what you said was rambly btw.

 

[poisonedminds]

This is a very interesting question, I think the concept you're referring to is called determinism.
I definitely think we have a lot less control over our decisions than generally accepted, but I also think that it would be dangerous to make that general consensus. It is probably best not to give people a morally acceptable excuse for their bad behaviour.

 

[kane]

This is a very interesting question, I think the concept you're referring to is called determinism.
I definitely think we have a lot less control over our decisions than generally accepted, but I also think that it would be dangerous to make that general consensus. It is probably best not to give people a morally acceptable excuse for their bad behaviour.

Kind of. I'm not sure it's still determinism if you allow for some degree of 'quantum randomness/indeterminism'. There could be countless possible ways things might turn out as a result, so the future wouldn't be strictly determined. But it would still be the result of physical causation, and beyond our ultimate control. I guess the basic idea is just that causality applies to everything, including the mind.

It's possible that it's preferable to tell some kind of 'noble lie', to persuade people to behave better than they would otherwise. I don't think saying that someone couldn't have decided to do otherwise is the same as saying that what they did was ok/morally acceptable. A murderer that could not have decided to refrain from killing is no more tolerable than one who was the ultimate source of the decision to kill. You could still justify punishing/deterring undesirable behaviour. But maybe if people don't feel that they're accumulating spiritual credit for their good deeds, they will make less effort to be good. Noble lies might also be applied to the existence of heaven and hell. Terrifying people into being less bad could certainly be effective. Luckily (for me), I'm selfish enough to only be concerned with trying to grasp how reality actually is, rather than how that perception might effect society. But I assume that most people will continue to believe what feels good to them, regardless of the evidence.

 

[Beachedwhale]

There's no such thing as good or evil objectively speaking.

Hard determinism... I like it, but it doesn't stop the pain. My brain just can't grasp it on a visceral level. My mistakes were so small and stupid and simple and avoidable and they completely altered the entire trajectory of my life

 

[poisonedminds]

Kind of. I'm not sure it's still determinism if you allow for some degree of 'quantum randomness/indeterminism'. There could be countless possible ways things might turn out as a result, so the future wouldn't be strictly determined. But it would still be the result of physical causation, and beyond our ultimate control. I guess the basic idea is just that causality applies to everything, including the mind.

It's possible that it's preferable to tell some kind of 'noble lie', to persuade people to behave better than they would otherwise. I don't think saying that someone couldn't have decided to do otherwise is the same as saying that what they did was ok/morally acceptable. A murderer that could not have decided to refrain from killing is no more tolerable than one who was the ultimate source of the decision to kill. You could still justify punishing/deterring undesirable behaviour. But maybe if people don't feel that they're accumulating spiritual credit for their good deeds, they will make less effort to be good. Noble lies might also be applied to the existence of heaven and hell. Terrifying people into being less bad could certainly be effective. Luckily (for me), I'm selfish enough to only be concerned with trying to grasp how reality actually is, rather than how that perception might effect society. But I assume that most people will continue to believe what feels good to them, regardless of the evidence.

I think deresponsabilising people from their actions would result in more crime and otherwise undesirable actions. It might not mean that it is ok or morally acceptable, but the question here is, can we punish someone for something that was out of his control? If we truly believe that we are victims to our fate and don't have a say in it, then the murderer isn't at fault for his behaviour, and therefore, imprisoning him would pose a moral problem.

 

[kane]

I think deresponsabilising people from their actions would result in more crime and otherwise undesirable actions. It might not mean that it is ok or morally acceptable, but the question here is, can we punish someone for something that was out of his control? If we truly believe that we are victims to our fate and don't have a say in it, then the murderer isn't at fault for his behaviour, and therefore, imprisoning him would pose a moral problem.

'Responsibility' is used in complicated ways. I tend to think of it as socially imposed. We say someone has a duty to do something, or not do something, or to face the consequences. We hold people to account for their actions, meaning we will enforce consequences upon them. When we blame someone for something, we are saying they are the proximate source of the problem. That there is something wrong with them that led to an issue. But often, someone is forced to take public 'responsibility' for something they had no personal role in. For example, a ceo resigns or expresses a heartfelt apology for the actions of an underling that he had no hope of controlling. The problem was not with the ceo, yet socially we demand that he faces the consequences.

'Fault' is similarly complicated. It is often used to imply that someone is the ultimate source of their actions, when it could simply imply that there is something wrong with a person that led to aberrant behaviour. Faulty machines develop faults through physical processes. Faulty people somehow develop faults through a causally disconnected assertion of pure will. They choose to be faulty, and their choice is somehow not influenced by anything beyond themselves. Again, it's social - a coping mechanism. It's an attempt to say 'The problem is you, and you alone. My world is good, except for you. You alone bought this evil into our perfect world.' Then there is no need to ask wider questions about what might've led that person to that place. We can stone them to death and happily go about our day.

So I think you can still say that a person is faulty, and needs to be imprisoned if they are dangerous, just as you might with a dangerous animal. You can impose on them the social expectation to act well, or face the consequences if they don't. You can administer deterrents to those who break those expectations, for the sake of maintaining social harmony. You can remind people that their actions still matter, and they still have as much say in them as they ever did - that their actions are expressions of their beliefs and motivations, however those came to be. Determinism is not fatalism - it still matters what you choose. It's just that what you choose is dictated by forces beyond your ultimate control.

What you would lose is the ability to wipe your hands of evil-doers. To pretend that they are the origin of this world's problems, rather than the world itself. You would have to confront the reality that if you had been subject to the causal forces that they had, you would be where they are. And that might be troubling for many.

But as I said, I'm lucky enough to only care about the question of what is real, rather than the impacts of the answer. Social beliefs will trend towards whatever is most comfortable.