The kind of people who believe they had no choice are the worst because it shows a total lack of remorse for their selfish decisions.
Phrases like “Look what YOU made me do” and “It’s societies fault” are warning signs that they learned nothing and you have a likely repeat offender on your hands.
You're missing the point: you don't always have a choice about which choices are given to you, and that has consequences too.
(To the GP of this reply, you might have misunderstood. I'm not really talking about you, personally, just using this short conversation as an example. Please don't take it personally.)
You're making the assumption of how your choice could have been anything different. That's an illusion and studying determinism is helpful in understanding why you're simply a biological input/output machine in a system being society. Even with the possibility of randomness existing as quantum mechanics suggests possible.. it wouldn't make a person have any choice. Personally I think quantum mechanics is just a result from a deterministic system that at this point in time is too complex for humans to analysis as determinism.
It's common knowledge that an outcome results from an action and maybe even consequences happen when the world is under the free will illusion. The problem is the actions were all based on the preceding outcomes and where nobody had any control.
> The kind of people who believe they had no choice are the worst because it shows a total lack of remorse for their selfish decisions
> Phrases like “Look what YOU made me do” and “It’s societies fault” are warning signs that they learned nothing and you have a likely repeat offender on your hands.
Ethics & morals help society strive for the best interest of humanity. The majority of society at any point in time, hasn't understood free will is an illusion and from my understanding of history. We're only capable of theorizing but from my experience, I have been able to remove resentment to persons who wronged me and because they had no control in how they became who they are with the actions they produced against me. I don't believe persons should be punished when they had no control. The best outcome is society learning how to prevent a similar unfavorable outcome and people rehabilitating the persons who were unfavorable by the universe to do a wrong.
I's a huge assumption to assume people will be repeat offenders under the belief of knowing free will is an illusion and when you're contrary to the ideology as you haven't been able to live under it for an extended period of time.
As for quantum mechanics allowing for the introduction of non-determinism; what part of the human body do people think they can influence? The brain is a neuron-neurotransmitter system, muscles expand and contract based on electrochemical signals, etc. Where in the mind-body connection is the mind/self capable of enacting this non-deterministic influence?
That being said, believing in a non-deterministic universe doesn't make life any less fun nor surprising. It does concretize my sympathy for people who are faced with unfortunate circumstances and carry out actions with unfortunate outcomes.
Are there times where I have thoughts that contradict that belief? Sure. I've accepted the highly contradiction-prone way the mind works. In the end it just makes the most sense to me.
Taking your thought process and building off the idea that everything is deterministic, we can frame the concept of “free will” as something that’s defined within that image of reality. In this case, why should you deny the concept of “free will” within a deterministic environment? Why not just define it as the random process that governs all of our ideologies? Additionally, why should you show sympathy to those in worse situations if everything is deterministic?
If society feels a need to punish criminals and remove them from society that’s another deterministic outcome that you yourself should know makes no difference either way in the grand scheme of things. Why someone would be deterministically wired to counter an argument by using their belief of a deterministic world on HN is beyond me though.
No, it's a huge assumption to create the "free will" theory with no evidence and then argue against the opposite position where I'm using what is observable in nature with science. It's like religious people that argue against people that don't believe in a god.
> but I can definitely say that you’re putting a lot of belief in it being true without any real evidence
No you can't, physics, neuroscience, computer science, and mathematics all favor determinism. If you chime out quantum mechanics, go search my comment history.
> Taking your thought process and building off the idea that everything is deterministic, we can frame the concept of “free will” as something that’s defined within that image of reality.
Yah if you acknowledge you're a puppet by external forces and love your strings. Your freedom is love for how your controlled because it fits you and how you have no real control yourself but are fine with it. Yet, I myself don't consider that definition of free will what most people think and to me it just doesn't exist because that definition would be nonsense.
> Additionally, why should you show sympathy to those in worse situations if everything is deterministic?
Humanity makes progress when removing illusions from society and being rational. Society shouldn't be punishing persons who were unfortunate by the universe. Society should fix the problem of what resulted in a person having an undesired outcome and then rehabilitating the person back into society. Same goes for social, health, and financial problems.
> If society feels a need to punish criminals and remove them from society that’s another deterministic outcome that you yourself should know makes no difference either way in the grand scheme of things.
Yah, whatever happens is destined to happen and similar to how society once viewed the world as flat and until some persons came along to get the idiotic majority to understand. Time brings progress or the opposite and it's all fated to happen. I hope you're not trying to make an argument against understanding reality by the mere premise of you would dislike how it really is.
> If society feels a need to punish criminals and remove them from society that’s another deterministic outcome that you yourself should know makes no difference either way in the grand scheme of things.
See above.
> Why someone would be deterministically wired to counter an argument by using their belief of a deterministic world on HN is beyond me though.
Short answer: Go study determinism.
So if you believe in group selection has a large role in how society is shaped and will evolve then perhaps society's best interest is only to rehabilitate the troubled person only if the expected cost is lower than the expected reward. If you don't believe in group selection is that crucial then maybe it would be apparent why people like to punish if you take a look at game theory and experimental results with public good games. Keep in mind you are also making the mistake of assuming society has some sort of telos, or that moralism realism is true. So in that sense, if you ask me China's government seems very sensible in several policy areas because it doesn't give a shit about individuals.
Anyway cost of society is something I don’t even believe is worth pursuing a discussion about with me anyway. I have witnessed from my own personal experiences with how medical treatments are handled completely irrational to fixing my issue. I’m not fully aware to understand why but I assume some unknown agenda. I’m doubtful in any case, the persons going into professions from the start want that to be so.
China is interesting and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out their leaders operate with the knowledge of free will being an illusion. However it doesn’t mean they’re doing it how everyone would and with the same knowledge. Some people will treat the misfortunate as praedamnation and not care to make that go away. Believing birth into royalty of some sort is all that matters and shouldn’t change. However the deterministic universe has been progressing in the opposite direction of that.
But besides that, how can you ever believe such a thing without appealing to authority or religion. There cant be any free will; You are fully determined to execute on the given path. But that does not remove any responsibility - your unfree will is still yours just as the concequences, no...
(I mean, your will is determined in part by your gut. Everything you ever ate could tip the balance in some way.)
> Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
But I feel that biological parents that raised children, who later on become evil and take other people lives -- are responsible, some how.
I am mentally, far from being contempt, with all these psychopaths (who (most of them), also have seen at some point in their lives, have seen a professional phycologist, regularly) -- go and kill defenseless kids or church/synagogue goers.
These evil humans (if they can be called that) -- should not have existed, and if they existed -- their evilness must, somehow, have been detected earlier. And that's where the parents, and, perhaps, the meds-prescribing phycologists/physiatrists come in.
I realized, that in not too distant past -- the kings and czar's suppressed uprising by executed not just the active uprisers, but their whole families, including wives and kids. As a deterrent.
I am not talking about that, but, may be there a way that parents can be held accountable to the actions of their children (even if they are more adults by the time they commit heinous crimes).
May be that will also act as deterrent against pure evil that visits those humans.
Here is a very hypothetical scenario, I am struggling with:
A parent shows a pattern of drinking an driving under influence. As luck had it -- nothing bad happened. Then the child, does the same (when already having a valid driver license) -- and a horrible accident happens.
Is there some moral responsible that the parent carries? Is there criminal responsibility?
Just as in my initial comment, I do not know if this line of thinking has any merit at all.
Perhaps it is a 'bunch of baloney' as you put it.
I also have no idea on how to detect, that there in what instances there is an implied accountability of a parent (or a treating phycologist/psychiatrist).
I am hoping that some folks reading this thread , have historical, or even literature prospective that explores this angle.
How far the accountability of a parent or a treating phycologist goes/overlaps with the accountability of the perpetrator of a heinous act.
I can see that out of all the feedback on my comment so far -- there is 0 overlap of accountability suggested.
Thank you for your feedback.
> A parent shows a pattern of drinking an driving under influence. As luck had it -- nothing bad happened. Then the child, does the same (when already having a valid driver license) -- and a horrible accident happens.
Children definately imitate parents. But I think your argument was the opposite. Parents reporting on Children's behaviour if they fall out of line.
> How far the accountability of a parent or a treating phycologist goes/overlaps with the accountability of the perpetrator of a heinous act.
World is a messy and scary place but trying to control for every variable might make it unlivable.
I do not know how to detect this stuff, but I feel morally responsible , for behavior of my children, for example.
Why should I not be partially criminally liable for their misdeeds?
God forbid, a child drinks alcohol or smokes some chemical substance, then gets behind a wheel of a car -- and kills a family going to a picnic.
I am not even thinking of more serious premeditated horrible crimes.
As I said in the beginning of my post, I do not know how to express this correctly -- but I feel that there is more role (and accountability) that parents and doctors treating mental illness/behaviors -- should bear.
But I would like to put forth the argument that people get closer to gaining the required awareness that would make them free as time passes and they gain experience. This is similar to limits in math.
That is not to say that everyone moves in that direction at the same speed - that part is indeed out of one's hands. But it is undeniable that experience increases, and with it, awareness and thus freedom.
I don't think I believe this because of ego. I just think it happens to be true.
Just to clarify my view: I think there is a threshold of experience beyond which one becomes "formed" (as in, the word formative). Beyond that point, I think free will, and consequently, personhood is real and we're not just automatons. This is not a new argument; I just wanted to clarify my view.
Now even if we could perfectly, objectively rank it, should we immediately jail the bottom 1/3/10%, or should we wait for them to commit a crime? Should we give lighter sentences to more empathetic people who commit crimes, assuming they had better reasons to do it?
This kind of discussion leads down a path where we try to quantify something that's incredibly hard to quantify in a vacuum.
The question of willpower is also only relevant when you try to find an appropriate punishment for immoral offenses. And because this is hard, every country on earth has courts and trials - which can take forever for good reason. Because it's already hard on a per-case basis, let's not try to find an answer that would be applicable to every offence ever.
Once you're through with your offender you should give them a probable path to redemption and back into society regardless of whether they lack willpower or not - especially if they lack willpower. Punishing someone for their lack of willpower and then closing every door in their face is a sure way to make them a criminal for life. And it's also petty.
Tell that to holocaust survivors.
If you want to redefine commonly used words like "evil" until they no longer have any sort of meaning, go ahead, but in that case you might as well accept a nihilistic existence as an automaton obeying the deterministic time evolution laws of physics. I feel like the rest of society will ignore you in that case, and that's probably for the best.
> I probably already engage in acts that future generations will consider evil
It's nothing to do with new insights coming about. If for example you reap the benefits of wars of aggressions and don't speak out against wars of aggression, what future generations think of it doesn't matter.
When you see a homeless person sleeping in the cold, and you put a warm blanket over them and they don't wake up and nobody sees it, was it a good deed? I would say yes. It will even remain a good deed if you yourself forget about it.
So why would that be different for bad deeds? It can only be bad for reasons that are present at the time. If someone is getting deceived it's hard to blame them. But if someone is ignorant because they made many little choices to remain ignorant, it's different. If someone couldn't have possibly known because of scientific discoveries made later, it'd be silly to "blame" them. But that's hardly relevant to the Holocaust.
And nobody "statistically" does x murders and y good deeds each year. We do nothing statistically, we just do what we ourselves actually do.
> Of course, the terrible things I heard from the Nuremberg Trials, about the six million Jews and the people from other races who were killed, were facts that shocked me deeply. But I wasn't able to see the connection with my own past. I was satisfied that I wasn't personally to blame and that I hadn't known about those things. I wasn't aware of the extent. But one day I went past the memorial plaque which had been put up for Sophie Scholl in Franz Josef Strasse, and I saw that she was born the same year as me, and she was executed the same year I started working for Hitler. And at that moment I actually sensed that it was no excuse to be young, and that it would have been possible to find things out.
-- Traudl Junge
While we might "pity" people in the past for not knowing many things, moral judgement has to do with the options someone has. Even if the majority is using their options badly, that doesn't mean those options didn't exist, just like there being less stars wouldn't make the rest of the night sky brighter.
> The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.
-- Hannah Arendt
Believing in evil is its own kind of privilege. I for one have now seen a lot of criminal cases, and I've only seen sick people and people following the path laid before them. No evil in sight, but the concept's very existence allows for a certain social stability, to the detriment of some in favor of others.