In other words, has anyone refuted the idea that someone can be morally accountable for an action without saying that they could have acted otherwise? — thecone137
Moral responsibility, crime and punishment and all that goes with it in a deterministic world is not different in outcome than a hypothetical world in which free-will is supposed to reign. It just leave us to assess what are the implications of a moral world of deterrence, punishment, shame, and blame in a deterministic world.. — charleton
In a deterministic world this SHOULD suggest that the punishment is "correctional"; that it ought o be able to cause a person to change. You are directing the punishment at the person's innate causalities which led them to transgress. This should indicate assessment followed by further sanctions or rehabilitation. — charleton
but hard determinists would not believe that reform is possible because they are not responsible morally for their actions. Determinism here differs from causation. — TimeLine
Determinism is true and when we punish for a crime we punishwho the person is, and not just what they did.Determinism states that at no single nexus of events a person could have acted otherwise. If we suppose that determinism is true, then where does that leave moral responsibility??
Answer exactly where it is. — charleton
This is where incompatibilists would perhaps draw the line and say that it is impossible for determinism and moral responsibility to be compatible in anyway and the objections to his nefarious neurosurgeon example as this 'irresistible force' implies Frankfurt to be begging the question, basically that the Frankfurt controller cannot stop or manipulate alternative possibilities without thinking about epistemic causality and so the neuroscientist will never know what a person will be choosing to do until at that very moment unless he had some prior knowledge. — TimeLine
Determinism states that at no single nexus of events a person could have acted otherwise. If we suppose that determinism is true, then where does that leave moral responsibility??
Answer exactly where it is. — charleton
With that said, my issue is centered more on the requirement of alternate possibilities, given that moral responsibility is true. — thecone137
I utterly disagree. On the contrary. A determinist knows that all things are the result of causes. If you want to effect a change in a person then you have contribute to that by introducing causal factors and by understanding how that person acts in morally irresponsible ways. — charleton
The real problem is with proponents of free will who assert that a person can act IN SPITE of causal factors. For them locking up a wilful person and throwing away the key is the only sure solution. If a person has ultimate choice then you can never trust them that they will not re-offend. — charleton
Further blockage developments involve implanting a device into the neural pathways of Jones' decision making process so that only one conclusion can be made. If Jones' independent deliberation arrives at A, the implant will override the decision, but isn't Jones still responsible for the decision he independently arrived at, whether that decision is interrupted? — thecone137
I like this suggestion, however determinism implies that the actions we commit cannot be other than what it is and therefore the OP is discussing the probabilities and not what follows from this said act. — TimeLine
Upon reflection, it seems to me that the issue simply got pushed back one step (what's next, restricting the action that initiated the neural pathway process... and so on and so forth???). It seems to me that in all of the examples:
1. A decision event occurs by the subject (alternate possibilities exist)
2. The following event is either interrupted (reactive or blockage) or not interrupted at all.
3. Either way, (moral) responsibility and alternate possibilities existed at the decision event.
I think I can come up with examples, but before I do, am I missing something here? — thecone137
Probabilities and what follows from an act are the same thing, just with a different count of repetitions. A 1% chance of something happening is identical to saying the frequency of occurrence is roughly once per hundred iterations. — AngleWyrm
Jones could have done something otherwise and so while the decision may have been changed by this device, it does not challenge in any way the possibilities in advance of the outcome that was determined by an earlier event - implanting this device. Moral responsibility cannot be abandoned because free will and alternate possibilities still exist — TimeLine
Moral responsibility cannot be abandoned because free will and alternate possibilities still exist. This leads back to the problem between responsibility and moral responsibility. — TimeLine
I would be keen to see your examples and maybe we can flesh them out together. — TimeLine
And that is why I struggled with understanding how Robert Kane could describe Frankfurt-style cases as an ongoing problem...Since 1969! — thecone137
Having Jones' hands resting on each button severely reduces the time between the beginning of the act and the end of the act, which almost completely removes the possibility of an objection like "well, Black waits for Jones hand to begin moving towards a particular box and THEN he intervenes". — thecone137
You are making a presupposition here that time exists in a classical framework and this will make it real or objective. — TimeLine
The reactive approach is also about probabilities and not possibilities. There are algorithms where past decisions can be used to ascertain possible or likely choices made in the present (like voting a presidential candidate) and whilst not absolutely accurate, relies both on time (the past) and information. I think it is very complex that only the proactive approach really enables us to discuss the subject in question without it leading to a slippery slope. What do you think? — TimeLine
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.