Nothing. When we realized you weren’t here
we sat with our hands folded on our desks
in silence, for the full two hours.
Everything. I gave an exam worth
40 percent of the grade for this term
and assigned some reading due today
on which I’m about to hand out a quiz
worth 50 percent.
Nothing. None of the content of this course
has value or meaning.
Take as many days off as you like:
any activities we undertake as a class
I assure you will not matter either to you or me
and are without purpose.
Everything. A few minutes after we began last time
a shaft of light suddenly descended and an angel
or other heavenly being appeared
and revealed to us what each woman or man must do
to attain divine wisdom in this life and
the hereafter.
This is the last time the class will meet
before we disperse to bring the good news to all people
on earth.
Nothing. When you are not present
how could something significant occur?
Everything. Contained in this classroom
is a microcosm of human experience
assembled for you to query and examine and ponder
This is not the only place such an opportunity has been
gathered but it was one place.
And you weren’t here 2) The crowd at Jerry Coyne's blog debating whether determinism negates moral responsibility. The idea that free will is an illusion is the Gordian knot for the philosophical naturalism gang O' nattering nabobs of negativism. Watch them as they try to connect the unconnectable: that we should choose to hold people morally culpable for their choices even though they had no choice (nor do we) because free will is an illusion.
This is a "get the popcorn ready" moment on Coynes's blog. There are already some beautiful insights, such as:
As for moral responsibility, it remains intact under determinism, but our responsibility practices might become more effective and compassionate if we gave up the myth of libertarian freedom,
and the succinct, dogmatic assertion:
Determinism != Fatalism
Jerry's kids sure do know how to bedazzle.
For (2), I'll only note that we can hold people responsible for actions whether or not free will exists (I don't think it does, determinism or not). The question is how one treats responsibility.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of dogmatic assertions:
"Watch them as they try to connect the unconnectable: that we should choose to hold people morally culpable for their choices even though they had no choice (nor do we) because free will is an illusion."
Wouldn't a more accurate restatement be something like "does it make sense to hold people responsible for their actions without free will? If so, in what way?"
I don't see why you felt the need to treat the topic so uncharitably. It is trivial to conceive of ideas, correct or not, which are worth considering in this context. For example:
Given that we do not want murder in our society, we should punish murderers. "Free choice" murderers can be contrasted with "apparently incapable of acceptable response to social norms" murderers.
Not that this is enough, but it's a little better than dismissal.
Zachery,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. However I have trouble understanding something like:
Given that we do not want murder in our society, we should punish murderers. "Free choice" murderers can be contrasted with "apparently incapable of acceptable response to social norms" murderers.
If we have determinism (the premise of the Coyne blog post) then how can there be a distinction between "free choice" murders and what I think you are describing as the alternative--psychopaths. Neither had a choice. The universe's differential equation simply spit out one murderer who looked like he made a moral choice while sound in mind and spit out another who looked like a psychopath.
And of course our "choice" to treat them differently is not a choice and all. There is no point to debate whether we should hold them morally culpable--except we have no choice but to engage in a predestined debate that the universe's initial conditions made inevitable.
Sorry... Zachary not Zachery. I still haven't learned the lesson: always cut-and-paste names. Always.
ReplyDelete"If we have determinism (the premise of the Coyne blog post) then how can there be a distinction between "free choice" murders and what I think you are describing as the alternative--psychopaths. Neither had a choice. The universe's differential equation simply spit out one murderer who looked like he made a moral choice while sound in mind and spit out another who looked like a psychopath."
ReplyDeletePsychopathy is not the general alternative, though I do think they comprise a particularly illustrative case of my point: responsibility - especially in the sense of "condition which merits a corrective action" - does not necessarily imply choice. Whether or not a psychopath is freely choosing to torture babies for pleasure is secondary to whether or not we should hold him accountable or restrain him.
You are demanding the free choice condition without directly addressing the need or lack of need for free choice in talking sense about responsibility. Since this is the implication in question, "but neither had a choice" is already accounted for, not a rebuttal.
I'll use a much more basic example: we don't think that rocks have free will, but nevertheless it's perfectly coherent to say something like "we should put up a wire mesh on the cliff face to prevent rocks from falling on the highway." Goal-oriented statements remain a sensible class of normative statements.
"And of course our "choice" to treat them differently is not a choice and all. There is no point to debate whether we should hold them morally culpable--except we have no choice but to engage in a predestined debate that the universe's initial conditions made inevitable."
What you're saying is that given that there is no choice, we need not bother discussing it. Is this not the other side of the absurd coin? You seem to be claiming that accepting determinism implies that we must adopt a rather pessimistic fatalism. This does not follow. No given attitude is made normative by determinism.
Your objection is ultimately emotive. That's fine and relevant, but not convincing.
No worries. It's a pseudonym anyways.
ReplyDeleteZachary,
ReplyDeleteWhat you're saying is that given that there is no choice, we need not bother discussing it.
Not at all. What I am saying is that if there is no choice, then we'll discuss ad nauseum and passionately if and only if that is what the diffyQ of the universe unrolls.
"Not at all. What I am saying is that if there is no choice, then we'll discuss ad nauseum and passionately if and only if that is what the diffyQ of the universe unrolls."
ReplyDeleteRight, and in this form, this is just an application of the accepted premise of determinism. I took it as being intended as an objection of some sort. It was in that case that it doesn't qualify as an objection save the emotive connotations, which I perceived in your mentions of fatalism.
And I am compelled to wait for the SHO of acronyms to flip the inane "diffyQ" back the more sensible DE of my college days. BTW, what is the current way to say PDE?
ReplyDeleteBill,
ReplyDeleteBTW, what is the current way to say PDE?
Extremely cool people say: "PeedyQ"
David
ReplyDeleteHaving only recently discovered your blog through a link someone sent, it seems you take an unhealthy interest in delivering ad hominem attacks on those who question your faith. Simply lobbing bricks at Coyne and PZ might be fun for you, but it hardly elevates the reasoning you uniquely claim for yourself in contrast.
As for free will? Whilst it is easy for you to "know" that god was the source of this, as a scientist I'm surprised that you accept this without showing any curiosity regarding potential naturalistic explanations. This seems like an argument from, and for, ignorance.
Holding these tenets so uncritically, whilst castigating (or projecting ignorance towards) those who do not, leads to a genuine criticism of your approach that it is you who is philosophically inconsistent - prepared to accept theologically arguments on no evidence that you wouldn't give the time of day to as a physicist. I don't see Coyne or PZ doing this. Maybe denigrating them is all you can do...but you must understand that it is the only thing you are doing, because whatever argument you have seems to be absent.
Maybe if I check in more often I'll see what it is.
Regards
Barry
David
ReplyDeleteHaving only recently discovered your blog through a link someone sent, it seems you take an unhealthy interest in delivering ad hominem attacks on those who question your faith. Simply lobbing bricks at Coyne and PZ might be fun for you, but it hardly elevates the reasoning you uniquely claim for yourself in contrast.
As for free will? Whilst it is easy for you to "know" that god was the source of this, as a scientist I'm surprised that you accept this without showing any curiosity regarding potential naturalistic explanations. This seems like an argument from, and for, ignorance.
Holding these tenets so uncritically, whilst castigating (or projecting ignorance towards) those who do not, leads to a genuine criticism of your approach that it is you who is philosophically inconsistent - prepared to accept theologically arguments on no evidence that you wouldn't give the time of day to as a physicist. I don't see Coyne or PZ doing this. Maybe denigrating them is all you can do...but you must understand that it is the only thing you are doing, because whatever argument you have seems to be absent.
Maybe if I check in more often I'll see what it is.
Regards
Barry