If soft determinism is true, your total past circumstances, not just being poor, guarantees that you steal. It "makes" you steal, but it doesn't make you steal against your will. And because you wanted to do it, your act is considered free even though it's determined. But the past guarantees that you want to steal and do. It would be the same if the devil gave you the desire to steal and the made it so you would. You would still be considered free.
12 comments:
So I'm free to do as my will tells me, but I'm not free to have any particular sort of will? I'm free to steal, but not free to not want to steal?
I'll admit that soft determinism is internally coherent, but I'm not buying it.
If soft determinism is true, then God could have created things in such a way that everyone freely does what is right. If God is good, he will create the world in such a way that everyone does what is right. God is good, but God did not create the world in such a way that everyone does what is right. Therefore soft determinism is false.
FREE WILL is just about the most basic "dogma" that cannot be jettisoned or even compromised without one falling down the rabbit hole of totally insane conclusions. Free will is, alongside personal immortality, essential to a meaningful universe. Without free will, there's no reason to even get out of bed in the morning.
Aren't there two senses of 'free' here? There is 'freedom' meaning undetermined by the past, and there is 'freedom' in the sense that subjectively our will is unconstrained. I can't imagine what it would be like to lack freedom in the second sense. One would be there and not there at the same time, as it were. On the other hand, I think I can accept being what I am and doing what I do because of my past. So the two senses of 'freedom' do seem distinct.
Victor's modus tollens argument that soft determinism is false could be seen as a reductio ad absurdum of the existence of God as characterised therein.
I don't understand what Starhopper means when he says 'free will is... essential to a meaningful universe'. I kind of agree. I'd say free will is a part of our kind of consciousness, part of the way we relate to and see ourselves within the world.
Starhopper,
Without free will, there's no reason to even get out of bed in the morning.
Free will or no, I get out of bed because it's too boring to stay in bed. I don't need a meaningful universe, or a purpose outside of my fellow humans, to live a good life and contribute to society. It's how we're wired.
I would still like to get some definition of free will that is not fundamentally circular and can not be seen in the actions of computers.
In real life, our decisions are guided by our preferences and passions. When they conflict, we go with the preference/passions that moves us most strongly at that time. What does free will mean in this light?
David, what I mean by that is that there would be no point to anything. A criminal could not be blamed for his actions, because he had no choice in the matter. A hero could not be praised for his heroics, because he could not do otherwise. In fact, there could be no praise or blame for anything. Do we praise a rock for falling? Do we blame the sea for being wet?
There's a great scene in the movie Shadowlands where C.S. Lewis asks an atheist colleague of his whether he is content with his life. The colleague answers, "I am what I am, and the universe is what it is." He cannot answer the question, because for him the question is without meaning.
OK, I see what you mean by 'meaningful'. You seem to be using 'freedom' in my first sense. Suppose there were no such freedom, as I am inclined to think. Yet suppose praise and blame worked deterministically (or better, probabilistically, but with unequal weights) to encourage heroism and discourage criminality. Then praise and blame would work to the general good. More heroism means more abundant food and safety. Less criminality means resources can be used more efficiently. There would be a point in praising and blaming. They make a difference. Even in an ultimately deterministic world.
I think "I am what I am, and the universe is what it is" is a polite way for the colleague to signal that he is unwilling to answer and Lewis should discretely move the conversation elsewhere. But I haven't seen Shadowlands.
"But I haven't seen Shadowlands."
Oh, but you must. It is one of my 10 favorite movies - movies which I can (and do) watch over and over again, always finding something new to appreciate.
The other nine? well, here they are:
The Way (with Martin Sheen)
Master and Commander (My one regret in life is not learning how to sail.)
An Autumn Afternoon (directed by Yasujiro Ozu)
Girl Happy (Elvis's best movie - pure fun)
Ballad of a Soldier (sheer, utter perfection)
Casablanca (I know, it's corny. But I still love it.)
A Canterbury Tale (perhaps the most beautiful movie I've ever seen)
The Thief of Bagdad (with Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. Who says you need sound?)
Forbidden Planet (the greatest SF movie ever)
Starhopper,
A criminal could not be blamed for his actions, because he had no choice in the matter. A hero could not be praised for his heroics, because he could not do otherwise
The blame/praise serves to reduce/reinforce the behavior in question, both in that person and in others who hear what is being said.
Yes, my modus tollens argument is just a reversal of one kind of atheistic argument from evil turned against its premises.
If soft determinism is true, then God could have created things in such a way that everyone freely does what is right.
Could he, though? Having decided on making a deterministic world perhaps it was impossible for God to ensure that we would all freely do what is good. That's the meaning of the Eden story.
Post a Comment