You're conflating two different meanings for "free will".

In your Mary & Jack example, of course it can be said that, when coerced by threat, Jack didn't act from free will, but, when merely bribed, he did..

Philosophical free-will and legal free-will aren't the same.

Everything you do is determined by your predisposition/inclination/likes/wants and your surroundings/circumstances. Your only role in determining your choices is a judgment regarding which choice is most in keeping with your wants, likes, predispositions and inclinations, and the circumstances. Primarily and really, you're governed by those pre-determinations and circumstances. They're what really determine your choices.

You're a purposefully-responsive device.

Michael Ossipoff

(We are in the "after hours" for this thread now!)

OK so we got two meanings. I'm trying to figure out what the significance of lacking "philosophical free-will" is? I mean in terms of attitudes of blame towards the agent. Is it the same or different to the significance of lack of "legal free-will"? If different then how different?

(P. S. "two different meanings"?? I'm worried there might be three. At least! :smile: )

(We are in the "after hours" for this thread now!) — tinman917

I've been away from the forum for a while.

OK so we got two meanings. I'm trying to figure out what the significance of lacking "philosophical free-will" is?

Good significance, I'd say.

It removes from us the illusory burden of "our" choices. Our only choice-making task is the relatively minor one of making a determination, usually a guess, about which choice best suits our already-had likes.

And besides, as purposefully-responsive devices, we aren't here for things to happen to. We do our best in service of our likes. That's it. We don't have the power to fully determine outcomes, so why should we worry about what we don't have power over.

I mean in terms of attitudes of blame towards the agent. Is it the same or different to the significance of lack of "legal free-will"? If different then how different?

The criminal, too, is only a purposefully-responsive device. What he did was either the result of his own predisposition, or the circumstances. But he still did it. If someone harms people, then, regardless of what caused it, it isn't desirable to allow people to be harmed, and society still has to protect itself against him. And if someone wants to and likes to harm people, that's still malice, regardless of whether it's innate or environmental in origin.

(P. S. "two different meanings"?? I'm worried there might be three. At least!

Maybe. but I'm only up to two so far.

Michael Ossipoff

It does not seem logical that one can have 'soft determinism' or 'philosophical determinism' or any other kind of determinism. Determinism is absolute, it is like pregnancy in that one cannot be partially pregnant. Any compromise to determinism causes it to collapse.

All these attempts at turning it upside down and adding some frills to it, seem rather ludicrous. Our reality is either determined or it is not determined.

Schopenhauer has conclusively proven that although I may think I am free to do what I will, I am not free to will what I will. My ultimate behavior or choice is an event in nature and all events in nature are preceded by all of the necessary causes that led up to the particular 'choice' and consequent material action that we fool ourselves into believing was somehow 'free'


Nietzsche has confirmed that we do not know from whence our thoughts come, they simply arise. One cannot stop oneself from thinking. One 'makes' choices but one cannot claim that one has willed those choices, only that one has acted or taken those choices.

There is no free will.

Why does Philosophy prove something and then continue to doubt it. A scientist does not get in his car and wonder if the laws of thermodynamics will apply today.. if perhaps they are soft or hard laws? He or she accepts the proofs of his peers and then adds to them. Was Schopenhauer wrong? Are we smarter than he? Do e know something about reality that he has not considered?

If so SHARE? Please inform where he was wrong and determinism is compromised?

The question to be considered is this: 'What aspects of human existence might well be free, outside of our collective inability to affect our behavior and the evolution of the material, via choice? There may indeed be some freedoms beyond human behavior, and the determined material evolution of the Universe. We feel good about things and bad about things but how we feel does not invariably correlate with what we do. Therefore between feeling and doing there may be a functional space where freedom exists. Philosophy needs to find this space and evolve the determined thought of Schopenhauer for the possible if not inevitable benefit of all.

We may for example have the freedom to 'feel'. We do things that we feel are wrong and indeed continue to do them despite our feelings... therefore some aspects of feeling, some aspects of thought might well be free. We are free to think upon how we have lived and there is no evidence to directly connect feeling with our behavior. They are sometimes connected but not always.

Therefore it would seem that we may be free to 'feel' and evaluate on some level the determined and inevitable evolution of our individual lives?

M

So (sorry to repeat, but just to be clear) what is the answer to the "is it the same or different?" question in my last post. Using the Jack being bribed and Jack at gunpoint scenarios from my earlier posts as examples of (the absence of) "philosophical" and "legal" free-will respectively.

So (sorry to repeat, but just to be clear) what is the answer to the "is it the same or different?" question in my last post. — tinman917

It's different.

You have legal free-will. You don't have philosophical free-will.

Using the Jack being bribed and Jack at gunpoint scenarios from my earlier posts as examples of (the absence of) "philosophical" and "legal" free-will respectively.

Legally:

If you're being threatened, the law wouldn't call it your will when you comply with the ultimatum that comes with the threat. If you're merely being bribed, then the law would blame you for choosing to accept the bribe.

You have legal free-will.

Philosophically

Whether you're being threatened or bribed, your compliance will depend on your predispositions, inclinations, and the circumstance. Your choice will be determined by those things. Your role in that choice is merely a judgment (typically a guess) regarding which choice would be more favorable to your likes and goals.

You don't have philosophical free-will.

As a famous philosopher once said, you can do what you will, but you can't will what you will.

Michael Ossipoff:

Sorry to persist but I’m not sure you answered the question. (If you think you have answered then it might just be me being dense so ignore this.)

Where the question was: what’s the difference in terms of attitude of blame in each of the cases of absence of “legal free will” and absence of “philosophical free will”?

In particular, in the case of absence of “philosophical free will” (using the Jack being bribed example) what’s the attitude of blame towards the agent who lacks that sort of free will? (I think that’s the bit I don’t quite understand.)

Jack accepted the bribe because he's a sleazy, uncaring crook. Say, just for example, that he was born that way. It isn't Jack's fault that he was born as a sleazy, uncaring crook., but he still is one, and, as such, he deserves a penitentiary sentence.

He committed the crime because he wanted to. No, he didn't will to will it. But he still willed it.

Or maybe he's that way because his parents raised him to believe that anything that he does is ok, and let him get away with everything. It wasn't his fault that he was raised that way, but he nevertheless is what he is...and what he is isn't something that I like, or someone I want to be outside of a penitentiary.

Michael Ossipoff

But then it seems as if saying that Jack has no "philosophical" free will isn't saying anything at all.

Because we are still going to treat him as blameworthy ("deserving" of imprisonment etc) in the same way we would if we had said he does have "philosophical" free will. Which suggests that really we think he does have such free will.

But then it seems as if saying that Jack has no "philosophical" free will isn't saying anything at all.

Because we are still going to treat him as blameworthy ("deserving" of imprisonment etc) in the same way we would if we had said he does have "philosophical" free will. Which suggests that really we think he does have such free will. — tinman917

Jack had no choice about what he is. He's despicable. It wasn't his choice to be born or raised to be despicable. But he's still despicable.

Let's say that Jack is someone who likes to harm people. He didn't choose to be born or raised to like harming people. But he still likes it, and does it because he chooses to because he likes it.

Because he likes harming people, he deserves imprisonment. Though, through no choice of his own, he was either born or raised to be someone who likes harming people, he still likes harming people, and deserves imprisonment.

Michael Ossipoff