Beyond Determinism

[Leedsagain]

Hi
I am new to this group and the discussion of determinism. However I have had a quick look around and the the free will debate seems well represented, however I cannot find anything which assumes absolute determinism as a given and heads on from there.

So can I ask if anyone wants to take this idea further or can people point me to suitable places to read up on this.

I take as given, the following:
1. All actions are caused by previous events
2. No free will
3. We cannot live on this basis totally

My question is:

Ethically (not sure about the word but you know what I mean), are there some changes that we can advocate for society or individuals that result from reasonable deterministic thought?

For example it would not go down too well to let off murderers as just robots malfunctioning, however I beleieve the arguement that we should move from a penal system towards one that protects society but also aids those seen as diverging from acceptable behaviour.

On a slightly lighter note, given determinism, should we not be advocating the sharing of resources across the world, specifically say football, where we should perhaps give all teams a centralised payment and they should not recieve any funds from other sources.

There you go.

[scameter]

Well, I'm not really sure about my answer to your second question, so I'll just attempt an answer at the first.

Leed:Ethically (not sure about the word but you know what I mean), are there some changes that we can advocate for society or individuals that result from reasonable deterministic thought?

Well, that sounds similar to karma, since karma is essentially the application of determinism to morality, but if you mean in a more scientific sense, then I think that the application of determinism to morality would invole analyzing and understanding one's desires and views in a given situation before any real moral deterministic action could be taken. For instance, if one is contemplating the morality of getting an abortion, one should first ask, do I think abortion is ok? and, am I willing to get an abortion at the risk to my health and social reputation? etc., but, once one answers those questions, one can proceed: since I know that, say, I think abortion is morally fine and I am also confident that it is not harmful to my health, I will go through with it. Knowing a situation's causes and consequences, as well as the instrument/person inducing those causes and consequences, I think is the backbone to a determinism-involved morality. And, btw, welcome to thebigview. :)

[Leedsagain]

Thanks for the response, however I will now try and be more specific.

Again, taking determinism as given, in theory we cannot be held responsible for our actions, nor can we change them, nor can we predict them (too much data to consider).

Society will not accept the above as a way of living and neither will most individuals. I think I also presume that the illusiion of free will has to be a given, so that people can function.

But if we accept all this to be true (which is presumed in this thread) then our laws, ethics(?) etc should try and reflect this lack of control whilst at the same time allowing the illusion of free will.

Therefore going back to my first practicle point, we could not blame criminals but could still imprison them for the safety of others and in order to help them.

I guess what I am getting at is whether there is any way we can have a determinist influence on a world which "works" on the basis of free will.

Regarding your specific point I do not understand how analysing a situation can help as you will have no control over the outcome in a deterministic world.

Well, I'm not really sure about my answer to your second question, so I'll just attempt an answer at the first.

Leed:Ethically (not sure about the word but you know what I mean), are there some changes that we can advocate for society or individuals that result from reasonable deterministic thought?

Well, that sounds similar to karma, since karma is essentially the application of determinism to morality, but if you mean in a more scientific sense, then I think that the application of determinism to morality would invole analyzing and understanding one's desires and views in a given situation before any real moral deterministic action could be taken. For instance, if one is contemplating the morality of getting an abortion, one should first ask, do I think abortion is ok? and, am I willing to get an abortion at the risk to my health and social reputation? etc., but, once one answers those questions, one can proceed: since I know that, say, I think abortion is morally fine and I am also confident that it is not harmful to my health, I will go through with it. Knowing a situation's causes and consequences, as well as the instrument/person inducing those causes and consequences, I think is the backbone to a determinism-involved morality. And, btw, welcome to thebigview. :)

[schrodinger]

Therefore going back to my first practicle point, we could not blame criminals but could still imprison them for the safety of others and in order to help them.

I guess what I am getting at is whether there is any way we can have a determinist influence on a world which "works" on the basis of free will.




This is one of those controversial subjects which are interesting to discuss, but there is no possible way to solve the riddle, one way or the other. If you believe in determinism, and I don’t, then you are forced to take the position that you have been predetermined to believe in determinism and I have been predetermined to not believe in determinism. This in itself shows that determinism is irrational. If determinism is irrational, then there is no such thing as a rational thought, and if there is no such thing as a rational thought, any discussion about determinism is also irrational and pointless.
As for the sociological aspects, the best we can do is keep dangerous criminals away from society so they can not cause harm. Whether they should be locked up, executed or rehabilitated is another question. If a society can afford the means to care for and rehabilitate dangerous criminals then it should probably do so. If however, such rehabilitation is shown to be ineffective or causes an unacceptable burden on the resources of a given society, a more economical and practical approach must be found including prolonged incarceration and possibly even execution in extreme cases. After all, if everything is predetermined, you cannot blame society for executing criminals any more than you can blame the criminals for committing crimes!

[Taeguk]

This is one of those controversial subjects which are interesting to discuss, but there is no possible way to solve the riddle, one way or the other. If you believe in determinism, and I don’t, then you are forced to take the position that you have been predetermined to believe in determinism and I have been predetermined to not believe in determinism. This in itself shows that determinism is irrational. If determinism is irrational, then there is no such thing as a rational thought, and if there is no such thing as a rational thought, any discussion about determinism is also irrational and pointless.


Nicely done! :thumbsup: I used to be at least somewhat sympathetic toward determinism, but increasingly I find myself rejecting it utterly. Actually, at this point I may be something of a rabid "indeterminist", if there is such a beast. :lol:

David Ray Griffin draws a distinction between "soft"or negotiable common sense propositions and "hard" or non-negotiable common sense propositions.

A hard common sense proposition is a proposition that, in spite of the fact that it is theoretically possible to argue against, is something that we nevertheless all accept as given in our daily lives. Personal freedom, which is denied by determinism, is something that I think is a "hard" common sense proposition. Like it or not, we all behave on the premise that we can make choices and are responsible for those choices.

[scameter]

Leed:Again, taking determinism as given, in theory we cannot be held responsible for our actions, nor can we change them, nor can we predict them (too much data to consider).

Well, that is quite a given and an assumption, though I'm not saying you shouldn't believe it; that's up to you. I personally don't think it's true, but I also don't think that time is real, so my views aren't exactly normal. But, as my attempt to respond to your points with taking into account your views and beliefs regarding determinism. If everything is predetermined in life, everything, then we have no need to consider it when we attempt to be moral. Really, a fully deterministic world as you believe in is one that is essentially in the background when believed in; one simply assumes that everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is entirely predetermined, and thus can essentially do anything they want. It's not as if by doing one thing you're "being more deterministic-minded" than by doing something else, even in morality. Everything's predetermined, regardless of what it is that's determined. So, my verdict for your question is: have whatever morality you want. Now, I would advise not following a religion just because of it's moral system even when it disagrees with your deterministic beliefs, but otherwise, anything would go. I hope that helps. :)

[Leedsagain]

I think I will leave it there. I hoped to have a discussion where determinism is a given.

Then see if and how "society" could deal with that.

I do understand that under determinism even society is all determined by events, however in order for us to ethically deal with the fact of determinsm in a world of illusory free will, I think society should consider defining the rules (even if this process of decision is illusionary free will itself).

Bye



Leed:Again, taking determinism as given, in theory we cannot be held responsible for our actions, nor can we change them, nor can we predict them (too much data to consider).

Well, that is quite a given and an assumption, though I'm not saying you shouldn't believe it; that's up to you. I personally don't think it's true, but I also don't think that time is real, so my views aren't exactly normal. But, as my attempt to respond to your points with taking into account your views and beliefs regarding determinism. If everything is predetermined in life, everything, then we have no need to consider it when we attempt to be moral. Really, a fully deterministic world as you believe in is one that is essentially in the background when believed in; one simply assumes that everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is entirely predetermined, and thus can essentially do anything they want. It's not as if by doing one thing you're "being more deterministic-minded" than by doing something else, even in morality. Everything's predetermined, regardless of what it is that's determined. So, my verdict for your question is: have whatever morality you want. Now, I would advise not following a religion just because of it's moral system even when it disagrees with your deterministic beliefs, but otherwise, anything would go. I hope that helps. :)

[francis]

Again, taking determinism as given, in theory we cannot be held responsible for our actions, nor can we change them, nor can we predict them (too much data to consider).

Ok this may seem naïve, but this is the way I see it. When we are born we come into the world with a clean slate without any programming. As children we become programmed by our instincts to survive. And it’s our parents, friends and environment that dictate the order of survival. Eventually, we become conditioned to act in certain ways, and in time this becomes who we are, our self or ego if you like.

From what I understand about Buddhism, it that through the processes like mindfulness and insight meditation we can slowly start to see who we really are, down below the ego (deterministic programming). Then we can begin to see life as it really is, and become the person we really are.

cheers :)

[the_aphid]

I think I will leave it there. I hoped to have a discussion where determinism is a given.

Then see if and how "society" could deal with that.

I do understand that under determinism even society is all determined by events, however in order for us to ethically deal with the fact of determinsm in a world of illusory free will, I think society should consider defining the rules (even if this process of decision is illusionary free will itself).I have to agree with schrodinger. It isn't that I am unwilling to assume determinism is a given for the sake of discussion, but that once you assume determinism is a given, what is there really to discuss?

You want to assume a deterministic world, and then ask "Now, what should we do about society?" :think: Assuming determinism is a given, then there is nothing to say or do or choose because it is predetermined if and when humans will respond to this 'illusionary free will' and start 'defining' the rules.Nicely done! :thumbsup: I used to be at least somewhat sympathetic toward determinism, but increasingly I find myself rejecting it utterly. Actually, at this point I may be something of a rabid "indeterminist", if there is such a beast. :lol::lol: Funny, because I used to be something of a rabid "indeterminist", but lately I've been more comfortable with a form of compatibilism.

[scameter]

Leed, that is the problem with something like determinism. If everything is determined, it doesn't really matter. Just like how if everything is impermanent, impermanence is permanent and thus not everything is in fact impermanent. I was trying to show you that with my second reply to you Leed, but I was also simply replying to you. I'm sorry you preferred to act as if I was somehow insulting you.

[francis]

Hi Leedsagain, hope you come back soon.

Taking determinism as given, does not mean that we cannot be held responsible for actions, because most of us seem to be living under the illusion that we have free will.

As said previously, it’s the conditioning we get as we grow up that contributes to our deterministic programming. So, while we don’t really have free will, we get our morals from our environment. And while we don't have free will we are we are conditioned to obey the laws in the society we were brought up in.

We can change the illusion through Buddhist meditation.


cheers :)

[Leedsagain]

No offense was meant or taken.

I understand your points. However my understanding says: even if it were univesally accepted that determinism was a given; no one could live like that. Therefore you cannot argue that "it does not matter" because there are more immediate, pressing and stronger drives on people and society - power; sex; wanting to be liked. These drives, I contend need to be married up with and controlled by an ethical code that understands that determinism is true but also understands the natural "urges" people/society has.

In some ways this is what we do already:
extenuating circumstances
tough on the causes of crime
crimes of passion
not guilty as mentally incapable

I am simply offering to close the debate as you appear to feel that determinism itself means the debate is futile.

;86847]Leed, that is the problem with something like determinism. If everything is determined, it doesn't really matter. Just like how if everything is impermanent, impermanence is permanent and thus not everything is in fact impermanent. I was trying to show you that with my second reply to you Leed, but I was also simply replying to you. I'm sorry you preferred to act as if I was somehow insulting you.[/QUOTE]