The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 3, 2017 14:51:58 GMT
Been rethinking my stance on free will recently and wanted to run the below past people here:
The central tenet of pragmatism is ideas are to be entertained based not on their likelihood or coherency but on their utility. For that reason it seems the usual arguments against the libertarian stance on free will (ie that it is hard to conceive what it might be or how it could come to exist) are not all that relevant to the pragmatist so long as it is more useful to endorse the concept than deny it.
I'm not going to try and convince anyone of how justified the pragmatic outlook in general is here. If you don't accept the pragmatic methodology then you probably won't be able to accept the rest of this argument.
Providing we do lean towards pragmatism though, how does the libertarian stance stack up as regards utility compared to its rivals compatibilism and hard determinism?
The only real assessment as to utility for these positions seems to be their consequences for moral desert: - If libertarianism is true, moral desert is justified and should be implemented
- If hard determinism is true, moral desert is not justified and should not be implemented
- If compatibilism is true, it is debatable whether moral desert is justified and it is debatable whether it should be implemented
I'll put aside the less clear-cut compatibilism for the time being and just focus on comparing libertarianism and hard determinsm. It seems in terms of utility then there would be nothing to choose one position over the other. If libertarianism is favoured despite being false, injustice will happen. If hard determinism is favoured despite being false, injustice will happen.
However there is one other consideration here. If hard determinism is true, any injustice would not be blameworthy. If libertarianism is true, any injustice would be blameworthy.
This means if we adopt libertarianism and we are right, we have done something praiseworthy. If we adopt hard determinism and we are right we have done nothing praiseworthy.
If we adopt libertarianism and we are wrong, we have done nothing blameworthy. If we adopt hard determinism and we are wrong, we have done something blameworthy.
It seems then in a choice between libertarianism and hard determinism, endorsing the former is preferable since it is potentially praiseworthy and definitely blameless, while the latter is potentially blameworthy and definitely unpraiseworthy.
So much for hard determinism then. Now to compare libertarianism and compatibilism.
The main difference in compatibilism and the two incompabilist positions seems to be one of definition - what the compatibilist means by free will is different from what the incompatibilist means. For the pragmatist, this is not a relevant difference, what is relevant is whether defining free will differently means that we can justify moral desert.
I am dubious as to how the compatibilist can justify moral desert but for the sake of this argument, it doesn't really matter. Any compatibilist who thinks moral desert is justified essentially sees no wrong in the libertarian position in terms of its consequences. Any compatibilist who thinks moral desert is not justified sees no wrong in the hard determinist position in terms of its consequences. Therefore for the pragmatist, there is no practical reason to endorse compatibilism over the other two positions or even any reason why it should be considered a position at all. Compatibilism should then be discarded.
This then leaves us with endorsing libertarianism, even if it is an incoherent unevidenced position.
Thoughts?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 3, 2017 15:15:43 GMT
Forgive if I make stupid mistakes as I am no expert on pragmatism.
This is a false trichotomy btw.
1) I would deny that if hard determinismin is true moral desert is not justified. There are hard determinists (Sam Harris for example), who believe moral desert is justified. The only hard determinist I know of who denies this is Derk Pereboom.
2) Why do you think the two consequences (the injustice of someone not being held morally responsible if libertarianism is right and the inustice of somebody being held morally responsible if hard determinism is right) are no more worse then eachother?
3)Why does it matter if something is blameworthy or not. As a negative utilitarian who emphasizes physical/emotional harm I would evaluate something based on the harm caused.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 3, 2017 15:49:57 GMT
Thanks for the feedback. This is a false trichotomy btw Between libertarianism, compatibilism and hard determinism? I think it's more simplified rather than false. I agree with Pereboom that there are actually 9 positions but most of them collapse into these three when we look at their consequences imo. You could also argue there are tons of sub-categories under compatibilism. I don't think Pereboom is the only one (he's a philosopher I rate very highly though unlike Harris who I'm not a big fan of). But yes you're right - I definitely can't take that as a given. Fair point but for the purposes of the argument it doesn't overly matter. Even if it was potentially far more unjust to endorse libertarianism rather than hard determinism, it would still be blameless. Yes this maybe needs fleshed out more. So for a negative utilitarian like yourself an act is just if it causes as little harm as possible and unjust if it causes harm that could have been avoided. I'm not a negative utilitarian but I'm happy to accept that definition for the purposes of this argument. However if hard determinism is true and yet I embraced libertarianism, I was always determined to embrace libertarianism. So even though I would be doing an injustice by your ethical standard, you could hardly blame me for doing so. While as if I embraced hard determinism and libertarianism is true, I would be doing an injustice by your ethical standard which you could legitimately blame me for. It seems reasonable that a potentially unjust but blameless act should be preferred to a potentially unjust but blameworthy act. In fact from a pragmatic point of view, even assessing actions on their morality is a pointless endeavour if praise and blame are not legitimate concepts. If hard determinism is true, saying "the judge locked Bob up unjustly" would have no more meaning than saying "the hurricane blew Bob's house down unjustly". All we can really do in either instance is shake our heads and say "poor old Bob." |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 3, 2017 16:37:15 GMT
Yes this maybe needs fleshed out more. So for a negative utilitarian like yourself an act is just if it causes as little harm as possible and unjust if it causes harm that could have been avoided. I'm not a negative utilitarian but I'm happy to accept that definition for the purposes of this argument. However if hard determinism is true and yet I embraced libertarianism, I was always determined to embrace libertarianism. So even though I would be doing an injustice by your ethical standard, you could hardly blame me for doing so. While as if I embraced hard determinism and libertarianism is true, I would be doing an injustice by your ethical standard which you could legitimately blame me for. It seems reasonable that a potentially unjust but blameless act should be preferred to a potentially unjust but blameworthy act. In fact from a pragmatic point of view, even assessing actions on their morality is a pointless endeavour if praise and blame are not legitimate concepts. If hard determinism is true, saying "the judge locked Bob up unjustly" would have no more meaning than saying "the hurricane blew Bob's house down unjustly". All we can really do in either instance is shake our heads and say "poor old Bob." Re trichotomy: Well that wouldn't be the case with me, I hold very idiosyncratic views on this topic. Well first of all why would being blameworthy matter from a negative utilitarian standpoint? I don't believe in retributive justice, I believe that moral desert is only justifes in that it prevents further harm. Humans are like boxes with inputs, processes and outputs. If you put something different enough in you will get something different out. Humans are effected by their environment, one way is via reinforcers and punishers (See B.F Skinner, operant conditioning, the law of effect). If you apply moral responsibility as a punisher it can prevent further harm. This is the only way something can matter from a negative utilitarian standpoint IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 17:13:26 GMT
Firstly, how is libertarianism defined? Usually its advocates (Libet, Eccles, Popper, Searle ect) are making a specific empirical claim to solve the free-will problem. Are certain things excluded, like machines? Things could get messy quick there.
Whereas compatibilism is rooted in semiosis and language games. Anyone in the game is automatically a player (unless shown severely impaired in some way) and the game simply supervenes on physicalism/determinism in the same way a videogame may supervene on zeros and ones.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 3, 2017 18:00:24 GMT
Re trichotomy: Well that wouldn't be the case with me, I hold very idiosyncratic views on this topic. Fair enough, although from what I can tell you sound like you're something of a determinist? Particularly this: "Humans are like boxes with inputs, processes and outputs. If you put something different enough in you will get something different out." Ok well suppose I did something against your negative utilitarian standpoint - suppose I took candy from a baby. Now assume first that libertarianism is true. I had the free will not to do it but I did it anyway. Now assume hard determinism is true. I did what it was determined I do. The actions are equally bad in both scenarios but it seems the agent (ie me) is worse under the former than the latter. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 3, 2017 18:07:59 GMT
Firstly, how is libertarianism defined? Usually its advocates (Libet, Eccles, Popper, Searle ect) are making a specific empirical claim to solve the free-will problem. At this stage it's vague as it doesn't overly matter how libertarianism works, only whether we accept it as being true. But once libertarianism itself is established, we could analyse which of the various models comes out best pragmatically, including what attitude should be taken to machines, animals etc. Never found that a very satisfying approach. But then I guess none of the approaches are all that satisying! |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 3, 2017 18:10:14 GMT
Re trichotomy: Well that wouldn't be the case with me, I hold very idiosyncratic views on this topic. Fair enough, although from what I can tell you sound like you're something of a determinist? Particularly this: "Humans are like boxes with inputs, processes and outputs. If you put something different enough in you will get something different out." Ok well suppose I did something against your negative utilitarian standpoint - suppose I took candy from a baby. Now assume first that libertarianism is true. I had the free will not to do it but I did it anyway. Now assume hard determinism is true. I did what it was determined I do. The actions are equally bad in both scenarios but it seems the agent (ie me) is worse under the former than the latter. I am not a determinist or an indeterminist, I see no reason to accept one over the other, both could be true but we should be agnostic about it. Well if you want to argue that you are a worse person that is fine but how is this relevant to moral desert? |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 3, 2017 18:39:21 GMT
Well if you want to argue that you are a worse person that is fine but how is this relevant to moral desert? If moral desert is justified, bad people deserve blame and good people deserve praise. If people are not getting what they deserve then that is generally considered a bad thing. As a negative utilitarian, you could I suppose say it doesn't matter if the good are punished or the bad are rewarded even if free will exists, just so long as less pain overall is caused. That's a bit of an extreme step to take though. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 3, 2017 19:10:09 GMT
Well if you want to argue that you are a worse person that is fine but how is this relevant to moral desert? If moral desert is justified, bad people deserve blame and good people deserve praise. If people are not getting what they deserve then that is generally considered a bad thing. As a negative utilitarian, you could I suppose say it doesn't matter if the good are punished or the bad are rewarded even if free will exists, just so long as less pain overall is caused. That's a bit of an extreme step to take though. Why do you think it is extreme? |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 3, 2017 19:46:16 GMT
If moral desert is justified, bad people deserve blame and good people deserve praise. If people are not getting what they deserve then that is generally considered a bad thing. As a negative utilitarian, you could I suppose say it doesn't matter if the good are punished or the bad are rewarded even if free will exists, just so long as less pain overall is caused. That's a bit of an extreme step to take though. Why do you think it is extreme? It just goes quite far beyond the general conception of right and wrong. Not that that's a reason to reject it of course, I just wonder if many could accept such a stance. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 4, 2017 8:32:47 GMT
Why do you think it is extreme? It just goes quite far beyond the general conception of right and wrong. Not that that's a reason to reject it of course, I just wonder if many could accept such a stance. Yeah I know but I suppose you could justify it by saying "it's for the greater good" which is something that everybody believes in. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 4, 2017 9:31:07 GMT
It just goes quite far beyond the general conception of right and wrong. Not that that's a reason to reject it of course, I just wonder if many could accept such a stance. Yeah I know but I suppose you could justify it by saying "it's for the greater good" which is something that everybody believes in. True but most people draw the line at certain acts for that greater good (same reason most people react in horror to thought experiments like the survival lottery).
Regarding negative utilitarianism, do you think it's a system that should be accepted by everyone if they think things through logically or is it just something of a personal stance for you?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 4, 2017 14:12:31 GMT
Yeah I know but I suppose you could justify it by saying "it's for the greater good" which is something that everybody believes in. True but most people draw the line at certain acts for that greater good (same reason most people react in horror to thought experiments like the survival lottery).
Regarding negative utilitarianism, do you think it's a system that should be accepted by everyone if they think things through logically or is it just something of a personal stance for you?
I think it should be accepted by everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Jul 4, 2017 14:53:03 GMT
Useful to whom? Society in general? Okay I agree your position has merit for that but is this discussion even relevant to metaphysics anymore? Correct me if I'm wrong but you're no longer trying to understand the true nature of things but merely asking the question "what will benefit society the most?" It's like deciding that God is real because that worldview will do human civilization as a whole more good than harm. Okay fine. But I'd also like to ponder and discuss if God really does exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2017 15:24:56 GMT
Firstly, how is libertarianism defined? Usually its advocates (Libet, Eccles, Popper, Searle ect) are making a specific empirical claim to solve the free-will problem. At this stage it's vague as it doesn't overly matter how libertarianism works, only whether we accept it as being true. But once libertarianism itself is established, we could analyse which of the various models comes out best pragmatically, including what attitude should be taken to machines, animals etc. Does that mean the selected model would remain unverifiable /unfalsifiable? |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 4, 2017 16:04:28 GMT
Useful to whom? Society in general? Could be. Or perhaps just on an individual basis. For instance it could be useful for you to believe in free will but not so much for me. Essentially yes (with the caveat that these things can be assessed on an individual basis rather than a societal one). So if it were more useful to believe in God than not, then that is what we should endorse regardless of whether we can demonstrate if he does. Of course, it's hard to force yourself to believe even if you accepted it is better to believe in God than not. William James argued that such a leap of faith could only really be done by someone who was at least fairly open to the idea.
Nothing wrong with that if you enjoy doing so. But for a pragmatist this would be navel-gazing unless you could establish that your musings on the existence of God would affect the utility of the concept. So say you were able to show that the Protestant conception of God (ie a God who judges you solely on your faith in him) is 90% likely to be true - Pascal's Wager would suddenly become a very good argument indeed! While as it's a pretty poor argument as it stands with no real idea which conception of God (if any) is likely to be true. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 4, 2017 16:06:07 GMT
At this stage it's vague as it doesn't overly matter how libertarianism works, only whether we accept it as being true. But once libertarianism itself is established, we could analyse which of the various models comes out best pragmatically, including what attitude should be taken to machines, animals etc. Does that mean the selected model would remain unverifiable /unfalsifiable? Quite possibly. It doesn't really matter if the model's truth/falsehood cannot be demonstrated so long as the utility of its acceptance can. |
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Jul 4, 2017 16:56:12 GMT
Useful to whom? Society in general? Could be. Or perhaps just on an individual basis. For instance it could be useful for you to believe in free will but not so much for me. Essentially yes (with the caveat that these things can be assessed on an individual basis rather than a societal one). So if it were more useful to believe in God than not, then that is what we should endorse regardless of whether we can demonstrate if he does. Of course, it's hard to force yourself to believe even if you accepted it is better to believe in God than not. William James argued that such a leap of faith could only really be done by someone who was at least fairly open to the idea.
Nothing wrong with that if you enjoy doing so. But for a pragmatist this would be navel-gazing unless you could establish that your musings on the existence of God would affect the utility of the concept. So say you were able to show that the Protestant conception of God (ie a God who judges you solely on your faith in him) is 90% likely to be true - Pascal's Wager would suddenly become a very good argument indeed! While as it's a pretty poor argument as it stands with no real idea which conception of God (if any) is likely to be true. I get what you mean. I think philosophical pragmatism is great on a societal level. It works like a charm at an individual level too but it seems to me that it's a blue pill solution, which philosophically speaking should not be encouraged. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 4, 2017 17:04:12 GMT
It works like a charm at an individual level too but it seems to me that it's a blue pill solution, which philosophically speaking should not be encouraged. Well philisophically speaking one has to justify why anything should or shouldn't be encouraged. I feel an advantage of pragmatism over its rivals is its self-justifying - the reason we assess concepts on their utility is because that is a useful way to assess something. While as to take logical positivism as a rival, the stance to accept only that which can be verified is itself not a verifiable stance meaning the logical positivist has to make an exception to its own rules to justify itself. Another advantage is that the noumenal is by definition unknowable so why waste time on trying to find out what it is like when one can instead focus on what is worthwhile believing that it might be like. |
|
