|
@WilberK:
When we as a society accuse someone of a crime, it is actually a superficial type of blame, because we're not taking into account that people don't have any control over their actions. I was using the words truly and fundamentally to distinguish between this superficial blame and the real blameworthiness that I'm talking about. If we had any free will, then we could truly and fundamentally be blamed for our actions. Sorry if that was unclear.
@Seltsam:
Thanks for the reading suggestion. I'll look into it later.
|
I disagree that the type of blame we were talking about is superficial, but let's get on with it.
So you're saying that there needs to be free will in order for an action to be 'truly' and 'fundamentally' blameworthy. The very idea of free will would contradict your proposed deterministic world view, as free will implies that there's multiple options that could be realized. That wouldn't be a change over time, but that would be changing the future. I'm sure you realize this, but I'm repeating it because I think it's important.
So, if (I'm not saying you are) you're looking for a justification for blame that is in your eyes 'true' and 'fundamental', and such a justification needs free will to exist, you will have to look for a justification that is outside the naturalistic world you proposed. That's why I said it seemed like you were looking for a supernatural justification.
Now I don't mean to imply that you are secretly looking for supernatural causes, and that you aren't a true deterministic naturalist. I'm just saying that from the perspective of a deterministic naturalist, nothing gets more true than matter and stuff, and nothing is more fundamental than cause and effect. So a punishment (or blame) that's real in the physical sense, and is justified by the effects it has on society is quite literally as true and fundamental as it gets from a deterministic naturalistic point of view.
:EDIT: In the end, I think we're basically arguing the same thing. I understand that it doesn't feel like someone is truly responsible if he didn't have a choice in the first place. But in a deterministic world, responsibility as defined through free will is meaningless. So I just want to make clear that there's nothing wrong with blame and punishment in a deterministic world. If there's no free will, responsibility as you would intuitively use the word would not exist, but that doesn't mean we aren't truly or fundamentally justified in blaming and punishing people for their crimes.
|
I don't see why you think I'm looking for a justification for blame. My argument is that there can be no such justification. No one can truly be blamed because such a justification does not exist. You seem to be saying that my thinking differs from common "deterministic naturalist" points of view, but if you have a concrete argument, please state it plainly.
|
I'm not going to be able to make myself more clear than I did in my previous post. I'd like to reiterate that I'm not saying your stance on the matter isn't deterministic or naturalistic, I just have a problem with your observation that the only possible blame in a deterministic world is superficial. I think it's as real as it gets, for reasons mentioned in the previous post.
We can continue to argue about this, but it's going to be largely an argument about semantics, and that's really not my cup of tea, so I'd rather don't go there.
|
That is why no one can truly be blamed nor praised for what he does, because in a fundamental sense, he has no control over what he does. His decisions, choices, and actions are all products of nature.
If you believe this is true, how can you expect me to change my mind and feel pity for things I don't care about? No one deserves anything at a fundamental level and basically everything is pointless. Stop worrying about it and just do what you want to do.
|
On December 23 2010 00:53 Sotamursu wrote:Show nested quote +
That is why no one can truly be blamed nor praised for what he does, because in a fundamental sense, he has no control over what he does. His decisions, choices, and actions are all products of nature.
If you believe this is true, how can you expect me to change my mind and feel pity for things I don't care about? No one deserves anything at a fundamental level and basically everything is pointless. Stop worrying about it and just do what you want to do.
Let me quote my conversation with Aesop:
On December 22 2010 03:37 NeVeR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 03:25 Aesop wrote:On December 22 2010 03:21 NeVeR wrote:
@Aesop: First off, thank you for subtly correcting me. I called it "predetermination", but you are right: it is indeed determinism. I fixed it in the OP.
I'm not sure I understand how what you quoted is inconsistent with everything else I've said. What I'm basically pointing out is that, fundamentally, no one deserves neither blame nor praise. However, I do think it's unavoidable that people be blamed and punished in society. A society needs to punish to deter actions that go against its moral standards. I just want people to realize that no one actually has control over who they or what they do, so they should be thought of not with so much contempt, but rather with pity. You are pointing stuff out to us as if it would change anything. If you were consistent with your own ideology, you wouldn't do that since it's pointless anyway. Ahhh, I see what you're saying, but no, that's actually a common misconception regarding determinism. This goes for you as well, Wohmfg. Just because everything is already determined doesn't in any way mean that we shouldn't try to change our lives, or the opinions of others for that matter. People are certainly capable of change; it's just that they have no control over those changes. We can never know what the future brings until the present moment leads us to it, so there is no sense in denying that we have the potential for change. There is no fatalism here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
