the question is confused because free will and moral responsibility are two separate issues, however closely you may think they coincide.
some people affirm both, some deny both, some affirm responsibility but not free will, and believe it or not some embrace free will but not responsibility. so let's be clear what we're talking about.
of these two questions, the more fundamental is whether free will exists. our notions of what is legitimate or not in the moral sphere have to come later in the order of inquiry.
I think Spinoza said it best: people think they are free because
(1) they are conscious of their desires and deliberations and intentions and efforts;
(2) they are ignorant of the causal factors that determine them to desire, deliberate, intend, try as they do.
Being ignorant of (2) makes us think we are free, when in fact we simply have a very distorted and self-deceiving perspective on what brings about our actions.
To my mind the sole reason that philosophers argue endlessly, but nonetheless hopelessly and usually incoherently, for the existence of a free will is that they cannot accept being part of the universe. They want their dignity as humans to be founded on their being a separate kind of thing, a separate substance, from everything around them; when in fact we know very well that our minds are one with our bodies, and our bodies belong to the tree of life (see Darwin) and the history of the universe. As Spinoza put it, humans have a stubborn but hopelessly unreasonable tendency to think of human consciousness as a "kingdom within a kingdom," a realm that has absolutely different and separate laws from the laws that govern the rest of nature.
You may be wondering if Spinoza or other strict determinists can affirm a notion of moral responsibility. My opinion is that self-knowledge is still possible under determinism, and self-knowledge, being true and accountable to oneself, is the important part of moral responsibility. As for me being HELD responsible by others, they can deprive me of freedom and lock me in jail if I violate the law, but that's just a function of living in society. Nothing mysterious there. Criminals need to be punished even though they, too, belong to the universe, and yes, could not have done otherwise than they actually did.
One last thing. It does help to feel better about determinism if you see the totality of the universe as an awesome infinite being, as God. This is spinozism, not just a straight up materialistic atheism. In other words, yes I am completely determined in what I am and what I do, but I'm also part of the awesome totality of all that is! And that's cool. So don't hang your head, and for Pete's sake don't waste the better years of your youth trying to solve the riddle of free will; it's insoluble.
Do you believe in free will?
← View full post
the question is confused because free will and moral responsibility are two separate issues, however closely you may think they coincide.
some people affirm both, some deny both, some affirm responsibility but not free will, and believe it or not some embrace free will but not responsibility. so let's be clear what we're talking about.
of these two questions, the more fundamental is whether free will exists. our notions of what is legitimate or not in the moral sphere have to come later in the order of inquiry.
I think Spinoza said it best: people think they are free because
(1) they are conscious of their desires and deliberations and intentions and efforts;
(2) they are ignorant of the causal factors that determine them to desire, deliberate, intend, try as they do.
Being ignorant of (2) makes us think we are free, when in fact we simply have a very distorted and self-deceiving perspective on what brings about our actions.
To my mind the sole reason that philosophers argue endlessly, but nonetheless hopelessly and usually incoherently, for the existence of a free will is that they cannot accept being part of the universe. They want their dignity as humans to be founded on their being a separate kind of thing, a separate substance, from everything around them; when in fact we know very well that our minds are one with our bodies, and our bodies belong to the tree of life (see Darwin) and the history of the universe. As Spinoza put it, humans have a stubborn but hopelessly unreasonable tendency to think of human consciousness as a "kingdom within a kingdom," a realm that has absolutely different and separate laws from the laws that govern the rest of nature.
You may be wondering if Spinoza or other strict determinists can affirm a notion of moral responsibility. My opinion is that self-knowledge is still possible under determinism, and self-knowledge, being true and accountable to oneself, is the important part of moral responsibility. As for me being HELD responsible by others, they can deprive me of freedom and lock me in jail if I violate the law, but that's just a function of living in society. Nothing mysterious there. Criminals need to be punished even though they, too, belong to the universe, and yes, could not have done otherwise than they actually did.
One last thing. It does help to feel better about determinism if you see the totality of the universe as an awesome infinite being, as God. This is spinozism, not just a straight up materialistic atheism. In other words, yes I am completely determined in what I am and what I do, but I'm also part of the awesome totality of all that is! And that's cool. So don't hang your head, and for Pete's sake don't waste the better years of your youth trying to solve the riddle of free will; it's insoluble.
--
Store210
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
5
5
-
robbieforgotpw
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You seem like the kind of person who, if was given a task to write a essay of 2000 words, would go "so few?"
Publish that book