A new spin on an old theory. People are the product of their heredity and experience.
Of course there’s something to it but go... Uh, go rob a few banks and see how it works out for you.
Society has got to protect itself. People too.
“The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over. We’ve got no free will. Stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t there.”
Nonsense, of course, but one suspects that he's trying to convince people that our rights to Free markets, Free enterprise, Freedom of speech, and other rights we enjoy aren't bad and unneeded things, and that punishing criminals is unnecessary.
: virtually.
As they say, the devil is in the details.
“Hamas terrorists, and those who bring 29 items to the “8 items or less” checkout lane.”
Comparing murderers to grocery shoppers. WOW! I’ll bet this clown got his degrees, if any, from “Buy a Fake Associate’s, Bachelor’s, Master’s or PhD Degree right here!”
I contrast to all the free will decisions made by people everyday. What a moron. Do I get drunk tonight? Yes, no? That’s not a choice? So I do, then I drive. Was that a choice? So I do, then I kill somebody. That was *always* going to happen to that person?
Insanity.
“The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over. We’ve got no free will. Stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t there.”
This genius is a moron. Well, he’s half right, there is no free will, and therefore no “responsibility” in the true sense of the word.
Where he’s absolutely wrong is that people’s behavior can’t be changed.
You may not have free will but you react to stimuli and the expectation of stimuli, in a particular way, and you “learn” from that experience.
The choices you make depend heavily on your perception of the consequences of those choices, and you adjust your behavior based on whether those consequences make you happier or sadder - the old “pursuit of happiness” - the driving force behind all human behavior.
Nature imposes consequences and you learn from them. You touch a hot stove, you just learned not to touch a hot stove, and odds are very high you won’t do it again.
Humans (society) can also impose consequences that can cause you to change your behavior. In order to promote a semblance of peaceful coexistence, societies impose certain good or bad consequences (rewards/punishments) on choices you make depending on whether those choices advance or decrease peaceful coexistence. You steal something, you lose your freedom for a period of time. Most people see that as a sufficiently negative consequence so that they don’t steal.
Some don’t and continue stealing, so society imposes harsher consequences. And if the person still doesn’t alter his behavior society will remove him from circulation by keeping him jailed.
So this guy is completely wrong in saying that rewards and punishments are somehow “unfair”. He doesn’t understand the role of rewards and punishment - it’s about controlling behavior, not punishment per se. Regardless of whether people are “responsible”, in the real sense of the word, for their behavior, behavior can be changed by applying certain consequences of those behaviors. And therefore society imposes consequences (rewards/punishments, ie, laws) to advance “domestic tranquility”. And that’s absolutely necessary or you’d have constant chaos and strife.
Well, if true, why do some people choose to live righteously while others take to darker more self-destructive paths? Is it just a differences of chemicals in the individuals’ brains? And if so, can it not be then simply treated?
To deny one has no free will, is to deny one’s humanity.
So I take it this guy is trying to convince me that I shouldn’t support punishment for people committing crimes “they had no control over”.
It’s almost like he’s assuming I have the free will to change my position on that matter or something.
We all experience free will. In a broad sense, we all observe it in ourselves. We are seldom disappointed when we infer free will in others.
The burden of proof is upon those who tell us that free will is an illusion. I see my hands and feet. They can tell me that is an illusion also. They’re selling, but I’m not buying.
The same arguments apply to self-awareness. I take self-awareness as direct evidence that I am a self - something immaterial. Self, mind, soul are related terms, possibly synonyms.
Is anything right or wrong? If you’ve lived a little, you know the answer is yes.
Self, free-will, good and evil, are real yet immaterial. If you believe in one or all (and we all do), then you believe in the supernatural. That does not mean that you have to believe in ghosts, etc.
so then...it isn’t free will to claim there’s no free will? good to know. of course that means that no free will leads to no consequences for actions because there’s no free will. circular arguments are a hallmark of the the progressive mind but at least now we ALL know why...No free will.
The world as college professors wish it was...
There are many variations of this debate.
First, children and people in dependency or co-dependency do not have free will as the have surrendered their will to another person.
People who have taken their power from others and have self actuated think they have free will, but they do not. It is an illusion.
Then people go through a mid-life crisis and get frustrated as they find their free will is very limited.
Next a person transcends self or ego self and experiences a greater reality where their free will is much greater as long as it is aligned with Divine Will.
Thus the question of free will is not simple..
When a person is possessed, they lose their free will.
Then he doesn’t have one either and he is just an automaton.
free will is the choice to focus or not and the choice to think or not
So, if I punch his lights out, it ain’t my fault. I had no choice.
Don’t blame him: he didn’t have a choice in saying that.
That’s odd. I made the conscious decision to quit cigarettes and alcohol. Was that not an act of free will? The nicotine addiction did not evince a strong example of free will.
Today Sapolsky, I chose not to kill.
Tomorrow I will have the same choice.
5.56mm