Free will an absurdity
- This topic has 199 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 3 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You want the malefactor to feel shame and guilt because you and I find his actions reprehensible. It is unlikely that you and I can change his will after many years have conditioned it in the direction he has taken. Perhaps a violent shock might work. Most likely not, since he is not shocked by what we find shocking, but probably enjoys it.
Remember that years have gone into producing both him and us, but in different directions.
So we are left with the immediate utilitarian solution: forcing him to stop doing harm, since reasoning won’t work.
If you want to go further by wreaking punishment on him, then admit that that is to soothe the anger and hatred you feel and is about you, not him.If i do something i am unhappy about, i know that philosophically i am not “responsible.” However, i do not use philosophy to justify what i did, or keep on doing it. That’s because i am not the type of person who would do that.
On the other hand, if something i did or neglected to do is causing me self-reproach, i would turn to philosophy to console myself (i e. when grieving: if i had done such and such, maybe my dog would not have died, etc. My philosophy tells me what did not happen could not happen, and that beating myself up about it is useless self-castigation).People like us who are motivated to behave in a responsible manner, are not likely to hide behind Necessarianism in order to justify bad behaviour. Those who would are not likely to think in philosophical terms in the first place; unless they are the fictional villains of De Sade’s novels. (And i don’t think your unrepentant rapist or street thug is that bright).
“If you want to go further by wreaking punishment on him, then admit that that is to soothe the anger and hatred you feel and is about you, not him.”
As I said in my posting, I am not supporting punishment, just pointing out that perhaps you are wrong in saying that punishment doesn’t work.
It may not work on the recipient of the punishment, but the evidence is fairly clear that it does work on many observers of punishment. The reason I am refraining from perloining several bottles of malt whisky from my local Sainsburys (and a large pork pie to accompany it) is not because I feel any moral compunction regarding Messers Sainsbury. It is purely because of the chance that I might get caught and face the punishment and the consequences (loss of job, career, etc.). This is the only thing which stops me from robbing the place blind.
Well yes. The motive of fear of getting caught is heavier on your will than the pleasure of robbing.
Hobbes is however wrong regarding the death penalty. It would deter me from throttling a trophy hunter, but then so would the threat of life in prison too.
But, in the US today, statistics show that immediately following an execution, the murder rate increases. Also, the states which execute the most frequently have more murders than the states which have no death penalty. And there was never more crime in England than during the 18th century, when hanging was the punishment for almost everything.Shelley:
” Were the doctrine of Necessity false, the human mind would no longer be a legitimate object of science; from like causes it would be in vain that we should expect like effects; the strongest motive would no longer be paramount over the conduct; all knowledge would be vague and undeterminate; we could not predict with any certainty that we might not meet as an enemy to-morrow him with whom we have parted in friendship to-night; the most probable inducements and the clearest reasonings would lose the invariable influence they possess. The contrary of this is demonstrably the fact. Similar circumstances produce the same unvariable effects. The precise character and motives of any man on any occasion being given, the moral philosopher could predict his actions with as much certainty as the natural philosopher could predict the effects of the mixture of any particular chemical substances. Why is the aged husbandman more experienced than the young beginner? Because there is a uniform, undeniable necessity in the operations of the material universe. “
Shelley:
” The doctrine of Necessity tends to introduce a great change into the established notions of morality, and utterly to destroy religion. Reward and punishment must be considered, by the Necessarian, merely as motives which he would employ in order to procure the adoption or abandonment of any given line of conduct. Desert, in the present sense of the word, would no longer have any meaning; and he who should inflict pain upon another for no better reason than that he deserved it, would only gratify his revenge under pretence of satisfying justice. It is not enough, says the advocate of free-will, that a criminal should be prevented from a repetition of his crime: he should feel pain, and his torments, when justly inflicted, ought precisely to be proportioned to his fault. But utility is morality; that which is incapable of producing happiness is useless; and though the crime of Damiens must be condemned, yet the frightful torments which revenge, under the name of justice, inflicted on this unhappy man cannot be supposed to have augmented, even at the long run, the stock of pleasurable sensation in the world. At the same time, the doctrine of Necessity does not in the least diminish our disapprobation of vice. The conviction which all feel that a viper is a poisonous animal, and that a tiger is constrained, by the inevitable condition of his existence, to devour men, does not induce us to avoid them less sedulously, or, even more, to hesitate in destroying them: but he would surely be of a hard heart who, meeting with a serpent on a desert island, or in a situation where it was incapable of injury, should wantonly deprive it of existence. A Necessarian is inconsequent to his own principles if he indulges in hatred or contempt; the compassion which he feels for the criminal is unmixed with a desire of injuring him: he looks with an elevated and dreadless composure upon the links of the universal chain as they pass before his eyes; whilst cowardice, curiosity, and inconsistency only assail him in proportion to the feebleness and indistinctness with which he has perceived and rejected the delusions of free-will.”
‘Those who would are not likely to think in philosophical terms in the first place; unless they are the fictional villains of De Sade’s novels. (And i don’t think your unrepentant rapist or street thug is that bright).’
TM – Just to point out that some of the greatest criminals have been highly intelligent. The government is full of highly educated and intelligent people without one moral compass between them.
Well, they, like Sade’s villains, might use Necessarianism as an excuse, were they ever brought to book, but they rarely are. In fact, as it is the poor who are mostly brought up before the beak, these have to face a judicial system that has inherited the dogma of free will, and is in fact based upon it. Our masters prefer this old dogma because it suits them to chastise the poor who rob and kill, whilst the rich do both with impunity.
“The government is full of highly educated and intelligent people”
If you’re referring to the elected members of the government, educated – agreed, intelligent – perhaps not.
‘If you’re referring to the elected members of the government, educated – agreed, intelligent – perhaps not.’
It’s an old leftist cliché based on elitism that ‘if only people were more intelligent they would agree with us.’ Levels of intelligence have little or no influence on political ideologies. Some of the most brilliant scientists have appalling reactionary political views. Nietzsche and Heidegger were undoubtedly geniuses but just look at their politics!
Nietzsche’s politics?
Or his sister’s posthumous Nazification of him?
Read about Elisabeth Nietzsche’s vicious racist distortions of her brother’s writings, including outright forgery.
I would urge you to study this further. Nietzsche hated her and her husband’s racist views. He could be adopted by the Nazis because he was dead and couldn’t make any opposition. He said German nationalism made him vomit.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elisabeth-Forster-Nietzsche
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/06/exploding-nietzsche-myths-need-dynamiting
TM -I refer to his elitist views concerning the ‘Übermensch’ who would rise, through his own will, and become a superior being. I was never able to discern a coherent political thesis in his work which is why he can be interpreted by almost all types of politics as one of their own – this is probably both a strength and certainly a weakness in his writing.
I agree he can be interpreted in different ways because he is somewhat obscure in his messianic vocabulary.
I always perceived his Superman not as any individual but as society, a society which has emerged from its adolescent following of leaders into a rational maturity.
As Zarathustra rejects those who are following him,
“Only when you have all rejected me (ceased to follow), shall I return to you (as one of you).”Superman is about “becoming oneself”, or, society finally becoming itself, coming of age:
in our terms, socialism.Getting back to the theme of this thread would you agree that the problematic concept of intelligence has very little to do with the formation of politcal ideologies? And isn’t it the case that without moral integrity no amount of ‘intelligence’ is a substitute? This places moral agency at the heart of political activity and therefore seems to undermine determinism.
“Levels of intelligence have little or no influence on political ideologies.”
Surely if you wished to decide if there is if there is any relationship between intelligence and political ideologies it would first necessary to define intelligence, and if a connection did exist, so what.
I have observed that some of the most conventionally intelligent people I have met in my life (people with very high academic qualifications, high level roles, great levels of responsibility) have done some of the stupidest things believable. I have also worked with people with quite severe learning disabilities (i.e. an IQ range of 20-35) who have had a level of quite extra ordinarily level of emotional intelligence and interpersonal sensitivity.
People tend to make the assumption that because a person has understanding and skills in some area, they would have similar understanding and skills in another specific area.
This seems to be very much the case in the political field. If a musician is able to produce breathtaking music or lyrics that touch us, people often make an assumption about their personal and or political views or behaviours. We don’t regularly make the same assumptions about other areas.
It would be considered absurd to think that because Bob Dylan has produced some fantastic music and lyrics, I would consult him with regards to the best way to fertilise my allotment and be disappointed that his insights were limited or wrong, but we regularly seek out the political views of our artistic heroes, quite why, I have never been able to fathom.
It is important to divorce the art, the science, the philosophy, the football skills, etc., from the artist, the scientist, the philosopher, the footballer.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.