Determinism is determinism. There is only one kind of determinism. It is not the case that hards believe in outside forces and softs believe in inner states. No, both affirm that a causal chain going back before the agent was born is causally responsible for every action. The difference is whether that is relevant in determinism moral responsibility. Hard determinists say that this causal chain means people are not free and not morally responsible for their actions. For soft determinists the causal chain is real, but irrelevant to moral responsibility. Same determinism, different implications of determinism.
This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics, C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Saturday, November 28, 2020
Determinism and responsibility in the final analysis
If determinism is true, if one person is a murderer and another person is a law-abiding citizen, the ultimate reason goes back before the people were born. In what sense is it really, ultimately, the murderer's fault, at least in the final analysis?
Substitutionary atonement and intuition
It might seem counterintuitive to some people that punishing an innocent person can satisfy the demands of justice against a guilty person. It may be correct, but there is an intuitive barrier to get over.
The Death Penalty and Exonerating the Innocent
Although the death penalty is appealing in a lot of ways, it is irreversible, which means that if it turns out there is a miscarriage of justice and someone is executed for something they didn't do, nothing can be done about it. For 30 years Anthony Ray Hinton was on death row for a murder he didn't commit, until the Equal Justice Initiative picked up his case and got him exonerated. Knowing what I know about the tendency to rush to judgment, and the racism inherent in the justice system in our country, I have trouble trusting the system enough to retain the death penalty.
On an eye for an eye
Jesus stated it in order to cancel it and introduce a higher law which rejects vengeance and payback. He instructs us to respond to our injustices with a higher form of response —- love. Jesus then gives illustrations in the passage which indicate how we should respond in love.
One, “But I tell you not to resist an evil person…” (Vs. 39). This doesn’t mean not to defend yourself. The meaning of the Greek text is “don’t payback evil with evil means.” It means don’t be aggressive in retaliating by evil means. Don’t escalate the situation by trying to get even.
Jesus continues, “But whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Vs. 39).
There is of course a limit to this but it means, “be very patient and don’t respond aggressively or rudely”. It means to respond in a positive courteous way to show an attitude and speak in such a way as to show the spirit of Jesus. The Bible say we are to be slow to anger. Jesus forgave even those who crucified Him.
Sunday, November 22, 2020
Thursday, November 19, 2020
Abortion: Something to shout about?
It seems to me that there are a lot of situations in which a woman might make a decision to get an abortion. They could be doing it because having a baby would compromise their party lifestyle. They might be doing it because they were raped. They might to do it because they don't want to put off their college degree. They might do it because they know they can't afford to care for the child once it's born, or because they won't be able to afford to get the prenatal care they will need to complete the pregnancy. Or they could choose abortion because they don't want to bring a disabled child into the world (implying that disability makes a life not worth living). The only way you can argue that abortion is OK across the board is to maintain that the fetus, prior to birth, is a blob of tissue that has no intrinsic value. Many people who might not be prepared to equate all abortion with murder might nonetheless think that in an abortion you cause the loss of something of considerable value, and that decision to abort, at minimum, should not be taken lightly. (But others actually think abortions are something to shout about). https://shoutyourabortion.com/book/
Soft Determinism and moral responsibility
Soft determinism says that even if (and even though) determinism is true, we are still responsible for our actions. What does that mean exactly, that we are responsible for our actions? Moral responsibility seems to have two distinct meanings, and you might answer the question of soft determinism differently depending on which one you mean. One meaning it might have is that, even if determinism is true, our motives cause our actions, therefore actions that attempt to correct our motives in order to change our future actions are warranted. Whatever might be causing me to contemplate committing a cold-blooded murder, if you don't want me committing that cold-blooded murder, then whose motive needs to be modified? Well, mine. So you may want to attach penalties to cold-blooded murder so that have a countervailing motive to whatever my motive for murder might be, and not commit the act. If I do commit the act, then you are going to want to find out who did it, and maybe do something to me that will deter others from doing the same thing. But what if determinism is true, and the fact that I am a murderer and you are a law-abiding citizen is, in the final analysis, the result of factors beyond my control, or yours. If you are trying to correct someone's motives and change their behavior, pushing the question of "responsibility" further back like that doesn't make sense. But what if what you are doing is first and foremost trying to give me what I really deserve, to approximate in human terms what presumably God, if there is one, will be doing at the Final Judgment? Then it seems to me that being concerned about determinism is more plausible, since it seems to be a matter of cosmic luck that I happened to end up on the end of a causal chain that made me a murderer, but made you a law-abiding citizen.
Tuesday, November 17, 2020
In what sense are we responsible for our actions?
An interesting aspect of the free will controversy has to do with the kind of moral responsibility that is at stake. Is it the kind of moral responsibility that can justify retribution, or maybe even eternal retribution? Or is it something else, such as knowing who to motivate through reward or punishment. I first encountered the free will problem in the context of debates of Calvinism. Calvinists and their opponents agree concerning the sense in which we are responsible for our actions--if someone goes to hell because of sin, they deserve to go to hell because of sin. So, in that context, you have to ask whether being predestined by God to, say, commit murder renders you still responsible, sub specie aeternitatis, for committing that murder. And it seemed to me that if determinism were true, and circumstances, (such as a divine eternal decree) rendered it impossible for me to do otherwise from commit a murder, I am not responsible for that murder, but that whoever issued that eternal decree, as the ultimate source of my action, would be.
Consider the fact that "the devil made me do it" is considered an almost comic example of a lame excuse. The reason we are usually given for this is the idea that the devil tempts us, but we have the free will to resist the devil, in which case the devil will flee. This seems to assume that we have libertarian free will. No one made you do anything.
Was the election stolen?
At the risk of sounding like Loftus, Let's look at this from the point of view of an outsider. Suppose I come here from a foreign country. I am not a Republican or a Democrat. There are all the sources of information out there. I am trying to figure out whether the election was stolen. How would I assess the evidence on this matter? By what neutral criteria should I take, say Sean Hannity seriously and Rachel Maddow not seriously? Both, no doubt, have an axe to grind. But you can grind your axe with facts, or with "alternative facts." Or are we stuck with the Nietzschean conclusion there are no facts, only interpretations of facts. (Is that a fact?)
Thursday, November 12, 2020
Compatibilism, the devil, and Jeffrey Dahmer
Free will, along with the existence of God and perhaps the
mind-body problem, is one of the philosophical issues that is of great interest
to a lot of people. One idea that offends many of us would be the idea that
someone should be treated differently, or even punished, because of the color
of their skin. Martin Luther King’s dream was that his children would one day
be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Judging someone by the content of their character is not arbitrary in the way
that judging someone by the color of their skin is. But why?
Well,
because arguably, our character is, to a large extent, a product of the choices
we make. We do not choose our race, but we do choose our actions. Thus, we
treat bank robbers differently than we treat non-bank robbers, and that’s not
discrimination, because people chose to rob a bank, but did not choose to be
white or black.
Or did we?
A well-known African-American comic from my youth, Flip Wilson, used to have a
character who frequently used a punch line, “The devil made me do it.” A
country song entitled “Speak of the Devil” includes the following lyrics:
Speak of the devil
He took me out again last night
He got me drunk and he got me in a fight
He was chasing women
I was just there for the ride
Speak of the devil
He took me out again last night
I
won’t here attempt to adjudicate the question of whether or not there is a
devil. But I would ask why this might be perceived by its intended audience as
a lame excuse, even if people in the audience believe that the devil is real. Those
who believe in the devil normally think that while the devil can tempt you to
do something, he ordinarily does not make you do it. You could, and should,
have chosen to resist. The devil may highlight in your mind the attractiveness
of wrongdoing, but he cannot by his temptations guarantee that you will do the
wrong thing.
But
we can imagine the devil doing a great deal more than just tempt. Suppose the
devil were to literally cause your body to engage in numerous acts that you
believe to be evil, while your mind watched helplessly in horror, unable to
prevent your body from committing a series of horrible crimes. If that were
true, then surely you would not be responsible for those crimes, it would
really be the devil.
But
now suppose that what the devil does is something different. He finds an eight
year old boy, Little Jeff, and alters his brain chemistry in such a way that it
guarantees that he will grow up to be
notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. Jeffrey forms the desire to commit the
horrible murders he committed, and those desires cause him to commit those
murders. The devil made him do it, in that the devil’s actions guaranteed that
he form the desires and commit the murders. But there was not Real Jeffery
inside thinking that he was being driven against his will to commit crimes. So
if this is true, who is responsible for the crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer? The
devil, Jeffrey, or both?
Sunday, November 01, 2020
Is religion for me?
If you say religion is not for me that seems odd in the following way. Religions make assertions about God, Christ, how one comes into relation to God through Christ (or some other way), etc. Now it seems to me that either God is real or not, either Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity who rose from the dead or he is not, and either Christ has established the Catholic Church and sacraments as the way to be in relation to God. If these things are all true, then everyone should be a Catholic, and if they are false, then no one should be a Catholic. I don't see how these things can possibly be a matter of personal preference. These are claims that something is true, and these claims are either true or false.