We no more have a choice about whether to hold people accountable than we do for any other decision. — T Clark

Not sure how there is anything else to be said by a non-determined agent about a determined agent. Arguments feel much like they presuppose an agent to argue with that has some ability to agree or disagree on the basis of something other than the causal chain. If we have a choice in the matter, there is free will, and we can be “accountable”, if not, it seems we are determined to hold people accountable anyway.

If we have a choice in the matter, there is free will, and we can be “accountable”, if not, it seems we are determined to hold people accountable anyway. — Ennui Elucidator

Perhaps what I'm looking for is a more personal statement from someone who believes there is not free will. An answer to the question - Do you hold other people accountable for their actions? Does it make sense that you do that? Is the only answer that you have no choice?

I guess my answer to the question is that it makes no difference whether or not we have free will in any aspect of our lives. It certainly makes no practical difference.

I suspect that despite your comments to the contrary, the existence of free will, will (no pun) arise.

But, putting that aside, and assuming there isn't, there's no answer. For you could argue that, given no free will, I as judge, have no choice but to hold you accountable for your actions, given the risks involved in letting you go.

On the other hand, given that you are not responsible for what you did, then it makes no sense to me as a judge to punish you, because what happened could not be avoided, and locking you up wouldn't would be unnecessary punishment for an unavoidable outcome, so I'll be gracious and let you go.

But these options don't really make sense, so the assumption of no free will has to be modified or admitted.

accountable — T Clark

Once that word pops up in a offices (government/private), everyone takes a moment to (re)assess their work/performance. I've seen remarkable changes in attitude and performance in response to these ideas (the other word being "responsibility"). Granted that it has zero effect on some folks, it still triggers neural rewiring in most. Free will or is it a deterministic causal loop? God knows.

So, what’s the answer? Does it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions given that there is no free will? — T Clark

If there is no free will, then this question is equally non answerable because what sense does it make to decide whether to hold someone accountable or not, if there is no free will?

Wouldn't answering that question imply free will?

.

In a generally civilized society, the members of it are already held accountable, by means of the tenets of an agreed upon administrative code. Such code, and the voluntary adherence to it, is predicated on the mutual desire to live under some set of conditions as a community, and has nothing to do with an individualized personal will.

The question as to whether or not the individual ought to conform to the code willingly, is irrelevant, when the only interest he has in it, relates to the mere desire for its benefits. There is no need to will himself to comply, when a want suffices for the same end.

Public accountability can be given without any consideration of will. Or....will has nothing whatsoever to do with public accountability.

I hate discussions of free will. The same old arguments over and over and over with no resolution ever. — T Clark

You know why that is? Because people who take part in these discussions fail to do the most basic philosopher's due diligence, like asking themselves what free will is, why it is that and not something else, and how it is relevant to whatever they really want to talk about, because, as in your case, what they really want to talk about is something else.

If we come to a satisfactory conclusion, it may be possible to dispense with any future such discussions. Ha. — T Clark

Nope. See above.

If there is no free will accountability becomes a mere social convenience and not a moral issue.

it makes no sense to me as a judge to punish you, because what happened could not be avoided, and locking you up wouldn't would be unnecessary punishment for an unavoidable outcome, — Manuel

If a criminal can not avoid committing criminal acts (say, arson, rape, and/or bloody murder), would that not be an excellent reason to lock him or her up? Call it punishment or prevention--some people should not be at large.

:up:

I think so too.

Why accept reasons though? There's no reason a person was killed, there's no reason to judge, it just happens.

If you remove free will for everyone, then there's not even a point in going to trial. Either get locked up immediately or not.

If there's no freedom, then it's kind of "involuntary manslaughter", there was no choice. And the judge and jury have no choice either. They do or do not put them in jail, for no reason.

I think such views make the law redundant.

But these options don't really make sense, so the assumption of no free will has to be modified or admitted. — Manuel

Which is sort of what I'm trying to get at. Hardly anyone has any real commitment to a "no free will" position. Not to the extent that it changes their attitudes or behavior significantly. So it's purely a philosophical, "rational" position.

I have heard of philosopher types who committed suicide after convincing themselves they have no free will. Ironic, I guess.

If there is no free will, then this question is equally non answerable because what sense does it make to decide whether to hold someone accountable or not, if there is no free will?

Wouldn't answering that question imply free will? — SpaceDweller

Yes. I guess what I want to examine is the contradiction between what a lack of free will implies and people's actions and behavior. Does anyone actually believe there is no free will?

In a generally civilized society, the members of it are already held accountable, by means of the tenets of an agreed upon administrative code. Such code, and the voluntary adherence to it, is predicated on the mutual desire to live under some set of conditions as a community, and has nothing to do with an individualized personal will. — Mww

This is a very small part of what constitutes holding someone accountable. It applies in all sorts of situations where there may be no specific rules - in employment, in personal relationships, in business relationships, basically in every aspect of human interaction.

The question as to whether or not the individual ought to conform to the code willingly, is irrelevant, when the only interest he has in it, relates to the mere desire for its benefits. There is no need to will himself to comply, when a want suffices for the same end. — Mww

This raises a question I hadn't thought of - Does acting on desire require free will? I would have thought the obvious answer is "yes." Perhaps not. I'll think about it.

I agree. And those who deny it assume we do have some form of it.

Otherwise, why argue to make a point? There's no reason to, there are only causes.

If they do argue, they assume I'm willing to change my views. But if I'm willing to change my views, I have to judge and choose each reason accordingly.

people who take part in these discussions fail to do the most basic philosopher's due diligence, like asking themselves what free will is, why it is that and not something else, and how it is relevant to whatever they really want to talk about, because, as in your case, what they really want to talk about is something else. — SophistiCat

I don't disagree. I do think that what I am trying to do in this discussion is just the kind of due diligence you are talking about.

If there is no free will accountability becomes a mere social convenience and not a moral issue. — EnPassant

I agree.

So, what’s the answer? Does it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions given that there is no free will? — T Clark

If a criminal can not avoid committing criminal acts (say, arson, rape, and bloody murder), would that not be a very good reason to lock him or her up? — Bitter Crank

The asnwer whether or not we have free will does have implications for criminal law. I would contend that in criminal law the absolute presupposition (in the sense of Collingwood) is made that we have free will. That it is such an assumption of criminal law is not uncontroversial, but I contend that it is, so will accept it for the purpose of this thread. If anyone would disagree we can discuss of course. Anyway, criminal law knows a number of justifications for punishment. One is prevention, but the second is retalliation. Prevention of course, as Bitter Crank noted, is still a perfectly justifiable reason for 'punishment'. However, the rationale for punishment shifts. It is not really 'punishment', but a policy measure. Out of policy concerns we would lock up criminals and apply the criminal law to them.

The second one though, retalliation, seems pointless without free will. Why would we reproach someone if he is not in control of his actions and free choice is illusory? It seems to be adding insult to injury because the perpetrator has not asked to have a crime prone character. Possibly that causes more harm than good and then we also reproach him for being who he is and doing what he does without a choice.

The question than becomes whether it matters whether you are locked up as a policy concern, or because society reproaches you for doing something wrong, which you should have avoided doing. I would reckon yes, for two reasons. The first one is practical: If punishing becomes a policy concern it means we should only look at effectivenes. Punishment should be tailored to the perpetrator solely an maybe to the obtaining the best results for society. Concerns of fairness, which are germane in criminal law, become less of an issue, because it is not out of fairness that we punish. We merely look at the perpetrator and what is a most effective means of stopping his criminal activity. Secondly we might also entertain social concerns. there might be outrage whe we do not punish a murderer because we know he does not kill again. So we should mediate social concerns with individual ones and find a tailor made pnushment in this specific case. Punishment becomes a utilitarian calculus.

The second reason is that punishment out of policy concerns relegates the perpetrator as an object of policy. The interesting thing about punishment is that it is also a kind of redemption. Yes, we rebuke what you have done but take you sseriously as a perpetrator. Contast that with peretrators that plead an insanity defense. They contend that at that point they were not being themselves, they did not have control of their actions. An insanity defense is nothing else than a request to be treated as policy concern and to be absolved from moral blameworthiness. When we judge that someone is culpable, then we also at the same time say 'we take you seriously' we accept that you are a person who is rational, who is capable of making right and wrong choices. I do think it is more humane to punish out of resentment. The perpetrator may lose his freedom but not his right to be viewed as a human being who is in control if his action. It is actually for this reason that mass murderer Aders Breivik from Norway resisted heavily to be declared insane and Ithink he is right. Calling him insane would amount to an extra punishment, above the life sentence he got.

So yes, I think it matters whether one rejects free will in criminal law. Maybe it this not totally answer your question, whether, given there is no free will, does it make sense to hold people accountable. The short answer based on the view above would be yes, it still makes sense, but only out of policy concerns. Criminal law in this case should be reformed to reflect only utilitarian concerns in dealing with perpetrators.

If a criminal can not avoid committing criminal acts (say, arson, rape, and/or bloody murder), would that not be an excellent reason to lock him or her up? Call it punishment or prevention--some people should not be at large. — Bitter Crank

I think you might treat someone who has no choice in what they do differently than one who does. Perhaps more kindly. If we got rid of punishment and just performed social control, criminal justice might be much more humane.

I think such views make the law redundant. — Manuel

The law and any moral or ethical consideration at all.

We are compelled to talk about free will and determinism--we have no choice in the matter. The keystone in our mental structure is either free will or determinism, and the color of the rock that hold the arch up doesn't matter. Free will is determinism. Determinism is free will.

Nonsense?

The thing called "free will" is as deterministic as the cartoon safe plunging to the sidewalk. The source of our free will, whatever it is or is not, are the intricate and immensely complicated transactions of physics and chemistry within our brain cells--which are deterministic.
Accepting the dry determinism of the universe (freely or not) doesn't change anything. We still have to choose all sorts of things during the day: brown socks or black socks; broccoli or asparagus; robbery or burglary; put fake data in the report or let the facts show that one is a lazy bureaucrat; have sex with a stranger or not; read the New York Times or the Boston Globe; stop at Aldi's or Trader Joe's; watch another episode of the Sopranos or not.

We might want to say squirrels are subject to crude determinism. Still, squirrel X has to decide whether squirrel Y has watched X bury a walnut. The transactions in the squirrel's neurons are pretty much the same as ours. Evolution has seen to that. But evolution is merciful and the squirrels can not decide to read boring, difficult existentialist texts. We can, so there are limits to evolution's mercy.

The law and any moral or ethical consideration at all. — T Clark

The law not necessarily. If it works to keep people from committing behaviour we consider unwanted it can still be there. also here only utilitarian concerns will count.

Ethics would be kind of pointless if free will is not accepted (in some form).

Law would dish out punishment or reward, but the reasons given wouldn't make sense. Because even if you say you're doing it for societal purposes, one is assuming that people have a choice in obeying the law.

If they have no choice in obeying or rejecting the law, then it's as if the law did not exist.

Good post.

I would contend that in criminal law the absolute presupposition (in the sense of Collingwood) is made that we have free will. That it is such an assumption of criminal law is not uncontroversial, but I contend that it is, so will accept it for the purpose of this thread. — Tobias

I was thinking of this when I started this discussion - I've read about jurisdictions where mitigating factors; e.g. childhood abuse, poverty, hardship; can not be be brought up during the trial, but they can be considered during the penalty phase when punishment is determined. This would be especially applicable for cases where the death penalty is under consideration.

Contast that with peretrators that plead an insanity defense. They contend that at that point they were not being themselves, they did not have control of their actions. An insanity defense is nothing else than a request to be treated as policy concern and to be absolved from moral blameworthiness. — Tobias

I think there are situations when people clearly are not in control of their actions, e.g. schizophrenia with delusions and hallucinations.

I think there are situations when people clearly are not in control of their actions, e.g. schizophrenia with delusions and hallucinations. — T Clark

Certainly and in those cases we cannot hold people account at all. This means we may take 'measures' against them, expedient actions out of social concerns such as forced care in a mental institution. We may not punish them in the proper sense, i.e. cause them harm because we resent the choices they made. (Dutch legal theory makesa difference between 'measures' and 'punishment', which is helpoful here. It does not mean measures are necessarily milder. Being locked up potentially indefinately in a mental health institution is of course onerous to the perpetrator, the rationale is different though.

I was thinking of this when I started this discussion - I've read about jurisdictions where mitigating factors; e.g. childhood abuse, poverty, hardship; can not be be brought up during the trail, but they can be considered during the penalty phase when punishment is determined. This would be especially applicable for cases where the death penalty is under consideration. — T Clark

Many jurisdictions take the circumstances of the perpetrator into account when meeting out punishment. Gradually in criminal law attention has shifted from purely reagrding the act to regarding the actor. Many people recognise that in some situations we are so pyschologically strained that we cannot think clearly. The problem is that it is not very consistent. It recognises that some circumstances influence your choice, but that that choice is then 'compromised' to some degree. It does not entertain the idea that people have no chocie at all to begin with, because they have no free will.

The thing called "free will" is as deterministic as the cartoon safe plunging to the sidewalk. The source of our free will, whatever it is or is not, are the intricate and immensely complicated transactions of physics and chemistry within our brain cells--which are deterministic. — Bitter Crank

Well, this was the question I was avoiding by stipulating at the beginning that there is no free will. I don't mind you bringing it up, but I would rather this discussion not be side-tracked too far.

We still have to choose all sorts of things during the day: brown socks or black socks; broccoli or asparagus; robbery or burglary; put fake data in the report or let the facts show that one is a lazy bureaucrat; have sex with a stranger or not; read the New York Times or the Boston Globe; stop at Aldi's or Trader Joe's; watch another episode of the Sopranos or not. — Bitter Crank

So, you are proposing free will as applicable at a day to day level, even if not absolutely. Kind of a pseudo-free will or free will as result of statistical mechanics. I was going to say I don't think it's relevant to the question at hand, but I'm not sure that's true. What forces control us; gravity, the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism; evolutionary drives such as aggression and sex; medical factors such as brain damage or congenital defects; social forces such as childhood abuse; or some other types of forces. Which ones matter? Which ones count? A really interesting question that I don't remember being discussed before. Maybe I missed it - I often avoid FW discussions.

If we get into that here, I think it will distract from the discussion I'm trying to have.

Many people recognise that in some situations we are so pyschologically strained that we cannot think clearly. The problem is that it is not very consistent. — Tobias

Yes, that brings us back to the question I considered in my response to BitterCrank previously:

What forces control us; gravity, the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism; evolutionary drives such as aggression and sex; medical factors such as brain damage or congenital defects; social forces such as childhood abuse; or some other types of forces. Which ones matter? Which ones count? — T Clark

Which of these do we take into account? The ones you and I are talking about are the medical and social forces I discussed. On the other hand, some people understand our lack of free will to be dependent on a materialistic interpretation of basic ontology.

I don't disagree. I do think that what I am trying to do in this discussion is just the kind of due diligence you are talking about. — T Clark

I don't see any evidence of that in your OP, nor in most of the discussion.The thread follows the dismal pattern of all such free will discussions, where the subject is obscure and people talk past each other. (@Tobias at least has a definite idea of the sense of "free will" that he is talking about, but is this what you had in mind? I don't know, and I get a sense that you don't know either.)

I don't see any evidence of that in your OP, nor in most of the discussion.The thread follows the dismal pattern of all such free will discussions, where the subject is obscure and people talk past each other. (@Tobias at least has a definite idea of the sense of "free will" that he is talking about, but is this what you had in mind? I don't know, and I get a sense that you don't know either.) — SophistiCat

Alas.