dmb said to Steve:
...Yes, there is a point to repeatedly stressing the relation between freedom
and morality. It sure would be nice if you got that point.
Steve replied:
But "agent" is not the same thing as a "free agent." The fact that humans are
agents--that we make choices--does not do anything to link free will and
morality. Choices are necessary for morality, but whether our choices are free
in some meaningful sense can be held as a separate question.
dmb says:
Yes, choices are necessary for morality. That's the point I've been trying to
make. If you have no choice in what you say or do, it makes no sense to blame
or praise those acts. That's all I mean by the logical necessity. But as soon
as you concede this point, you take it back in a way that simply doesn't make
any sense. If our choices are not free then how can we even call them choices?
If your actions are determined, it means you have no choice but to act that
way. I think it's very weird to argue against such an obvious point. Like I
said, "If you are willing to admit we make choices, then that's all we need to
say we make choices. If you saying we had no choice but to make that "choice",
then you are simply defying the meaning of the word "choice". And that's
nonsense..."
Steve:
I never said that, but it is a common usage of the word "choice." For example,
though someone might say, "I have no choice but to...," another might say, "I
see only one choice here." It is an everyday word that gets used in lots of
ways. What I mean in saying that we make choices is that we do one thing and
don't do another thing in cases where alternative histories seem plausible.
dmb says:
What? Now you're really reaching. C'mon Steve. When people say they "had no
choice" they simply mean the other options were totally unacceptable or that
somebody was holding a gun to their head. In any case, such forms of expression
have nothing to do with free will and determinism.
Steve said to dmb:
Perhaps you can't make sense of it because I am pointing out that the position
of free will is somewhat nonsensical or redundant when you look at it deeply.
And it isn't just me who is saying so. I've quoted Harris quoting Einstein
quoting Schopenhauer saying so. None of them are disposed to spout nonsense.
dmb says:
Right. You're way too deep for me. That's gotta be it. The fact that you're
defying logic and using terms in such a way as to defy their definitions by 180
degrees couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
dmb said to Steve:
Man, you are so not getting the point. It seems like you really don't
understand what moral responsibility is. I mean, the idea that praise and blame
are just a means of modifying behavior is not about moral responsibility.
Steve replied:
I am not saying that they are _just_ a means of modifying behavior. I just
mean that that rather than retribution is how the concept applies to the
criminal justice system for those denying free will. We can have a forward
looking rather than retributive justice system, and that would be an
improvement rather than a major problem if everyone stopped believing in free
will. As pragmatists, you and I don't take moral responsibility as the
praise or blame of a fundamental essence of who a person really is deep down
somewhere. Pragmatically, praise and blame are a matter of identifying good or
bad actions and inferring from the actions that the people performing them are
themselves good or bad which just means (since we deny any metaphysical self)
that the person is likely to do other things that are good or bad or that
badness or goodness are typical of the person's acts.
dmb says:
What? Why do we have to posit a fundamental essence (whatever that is) to have
morality or agency or freedom of choice?
Look, Steve, Sam Harris is talking about how to treat dangerous people after
abandoning the belief in free will. He's talking about criminal justice system
IN THE ABSENCE OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. If the acts of criminals are
determined, then we can't rightly praise or blame those actions. All we can do
is retrain their power to act. To use blame and praise as a way to modify
behavior is to use blame and praise as rewards and punishments. Since he is a
determinist, he is not going to be any help in clarifying pragmatism or the
MOQ. Quite the opposite. Sam is just presenting a neurological version of the
classic determinist position. Pirsig rejects that position and so does James.
James called it "medical materialism", among other things, and nearly took his
own life over the idea that determinism might be true. And that's a big part of
why your position just doesn't make any sense. You're mixing very opposed
positions. It's like trying to find support for Communism is the writ
ings of Ayn Rand or support for religiosity from physics.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
