undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfoldr16y ago0 comments

I think a better definition would be "the thing that makes people responsible for their choices." The really hard problem of free will is explaining how on earth people could be responsible for their actions if these actions aren't freely chosen. (Or of explaining what it means for something to be freely chosen if they are indeed freely chosen.) The issue of determinism vs. non-determinism is a complete red herring, IMHO. A belief in free will is not just a belief in non-determinism, or a rejection of physicalism.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

byrneseyeview16y ago· 3 in thread

You can stop thinking in terms of "responsibility" and start thinking in terms of "incentives." i.e. you can still send a criminal to jail even though they didn't decide to be a criminal, if jail time is more likely to discourage other criminals.

If you don't have free will, you still respond to stimuli. So instead of punishing someone for willful action, you subject them to stimuli.

foldrOP16y ago

But I don't want to stop thinking in terms of responsibility.

I just can't view other people as black boxes who "respond to stimuli", because that's incompatible with any kind of moral or human outlook on the world. After all, I don't think of myself as a black box who responds to stimuli. And how can I be a truly moral person if I think others are fundamentally different from me?

joeyo16y ago

Byrneseyeview is presenting an overly simplistic view. It is true that we respond to stimuli, but fortunately we don't respond only to stimuli but also to our internal states (thoughts, feelings, memories, and yes even moral judgments). As a result, I don't think that physicalism is incompatible with morality (even if it is incompatible with traditional concepts of free will) because you can still interpret someone's actions in the context of their mental state--just like the legal system currently does.

1 more reply

joeyo16y ago

Byrneseyeview is presenting an overly simplistic view. It's true that we do respond to stimuli, but fortunately we don't respond only to stimuli but also to our internal states (thoughts, feelings, memories, and even moral judgments). As a result, I don't think that physicalism is incompatible with morality (even if it is incompatible with free will) because you can still interpret someone's actions in the context of their mental state--just like the legal system currently does.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse