Sounds like the argument we are hearing from some of the crazier church leaders right now.

Fate(god) already knows whether you will live or die in the pandemic, so come to church and pray instead of going to the hospital.

If it is fated that I will get fatter by abstaining from eating food, then it is fated.

If it is fated that I will bear a child as a man, so it is fated.

If it is fated that nothing is what it seems, so it is fated.

Medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America.

If it is fated that the doctor errors in treating me, so it is fated.

Seems to fall apart pretty easily. The problem is that "fate" is an ambiguous term here if we prefer to think about life in terms of causal chance vs causal determinism.

A tossed coin could land heads or tails. By design of the coin and the toss, chance rather than determination rules the outcome. It is "fated" that whichever happens, the path to get there is properly treated as a matter of indifference.

Alternatively, if we are talking about deterministic causal processes, then the opposite applies. Now the path matters as two counterfactually opposed outcomes can’t be arrived at by the very same route. Fate is an active choice. Or at least our best attempt at placing constraints on a chance outcome.

Recovery from an illness is a mixed situation as there is both the "chance" factors we can't control and the "determined" factors that we can aspire to manage. There are elements of both that allow the lazy argument to get its traction.

So "fate" is a good enough causal explanation when you are saying leave it all in the lap of the Gods. Any by that, you mean you don't really have any idea whether natural outcomes are a matter of divine indifference or divine intent, or some whimsical combination of the two.

But once we come to prefer a world modelled in terms of chance causes and deterministic causes, then either the path to an outcome matters completely, or not at all. And from those two bounding extremes, we can formulate some more accurate balance that applies to actual mixed situations we might encounter, like recovery from illness. We can count up the chance factors and the deterministic factors, do a sum, decide overall how things lie and what we can expect from action vs inaction.

Long version: If by "fate" you mean determinism, then you would either be determined to see the doctor or not; in which case you should do everything in your power to see the doctor if you are sick; even though you may still fail to see her.

Short version: it's a stupid argument.

Determinism is a philosophical concept often confused with fate. It can be defined as the notion that all intents/actions are causally determined by the culminations of an agent's existing circumstances; simply put, everything that happens is determined by things that have already happened.[7] Determinism differs from fate in that it is never conceived as being a spiritual, religious, nor astrological notion; fate is typically thought of as being "given" or "decreed" while determinism is "caused." Influential philosophers like Robert Kane (philosopher), Thomas Nagel, Roderick Chisholm, and A.J. Ayer have written about this notion. (wiki)

@Janus @apokrisis

It’s simply fatalism. It is characteristic of religious cultures like India’s, where everything that happens is thought to be a consequence of actions from previous lives. ‘What can I do, it is his karma to suffer and there’s no use trying to prevent it.’ That also manifests as the caste system, which determines an individual’s station in life according to their birth. It’s not only lazy, it’s also pernicious, but almost impossible to refute by argument in the mind of those who really believe it.

Determinism has different connotations because it’s associated with Enlightenment philosophy i.e, that everything that occurs has determinable antecedents. Its clearest expression is the infamous ‘LaPlace’s Daemon’, which, however, got torpedoed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which shows an element of caprice at the most fundamental levels of reality (hence Einstein’s lament about ‘God playing dice’).

Both are radical oversimplifications of the complex interplay of cause, effect, intention and action at all levels of the universe. They are both ‘dogmatic viewpoints’ (what Buddhist philosophy would call dṛṣṭi - a rather good wiki article on that here).

I know that concept of fate is different than determinism; but I thought you must be thinking of fate as determinism because I didn't imagine anyone taking that other concept of fate seriously enough to want to try to do philosophy with it.

Note: Being a lazy arguer myself I failed to note the wiki link, and so failed to realize the Stoic provenance of the argument, so please disregard what I have said. (I still think it is an obviously stupid argument, so what @StreetlightX notes seems plausible).

The argument attempts to show how absurd the concept of fate can be.The idea that it is futile to consult a doctor is clearly wrong. Therefore, something isn't correct. — Wheatley

Perhaps this is where you go wrong. To think "it is futile to consult a doctor is clearly wrong" is to deny the existence of fate and amounts to rejecting the central assumption - fate - of the lazy argument.

There are two options available:

1. Reject that fate is real, as you've done (without argument), but this isn't too much of an issue because the lazy argument isn't trying to prove the truth of fate but only exposes what belief in fate entails.

2. Retain fate but demonstrate our choices and what they involve alter our fate. Self-contradictory, no?

Because you only asked for thoughts and not a proof or contraction I feel safe in responding without justification. I have analyzed the statement as best I can and came to the following conclusions.

It's called "the lazy argument" not because the argument is lazy but because it advocates for ultimate laziness.

In using the term "fated" he is referring to "that which will occur in the future". It seems he is saying "whatever will be will be" so just accept it and take no action at all. His specific conclusion is 'don't see a doctor" but his general conclusion is "don't do anything".

Most people would consider anyone not making a sufficient effort to accomplish anything as "lazy".

My current understanding of the argument suggest that just because you might not succeed implies you should not try at all. Which is an excuse to not act at all. Is pure inaction without justification a philosophy I don't know about?

If that is not "Ultimate laziness" then I don't know what is.

I think it should be emphasised just how much the lazy argument was meant to be refuted. The Wiki article rightly notes that it was used by the Stoics to try and think about a more rigorous notion of fate, and it's point is precisely to provoke one into thinking harder about how 'fate' ought to be conceived.

If it is fated that you will recover from this illness, then, regardless of whether you consult a doctor or you do not consult [a doctor] you will recover. But also: if it is fated that you won't recover from this illness, then, regardless of whether you consult a doctor or you do not consult [a doctor] you won't recover. But either it is fated that you will recover from this illness or it is fated that you won't recover. Therefore it is futile to consult a doctor. — Wheatley

1. "But either it is fated that you will recover from this illness or it is fated that you won't recover."

This is a false dichotomy. We might not be fated either way.

2. "Therefore it is futile to consult a doctor."

Even if the final outcome can't be changed it doesn't then follow that everything in between doesn't matter. Whether I recover or don't recover, consulting a doctor may quicken the recovery or extend my life, or be the difference between suffering in pain or having some degree of relief.

Of course you might then try the same argument to say that either I'm fated to suffer in pain for 6 months or I'm fated not to, but then to be consistent you'd have to accept that either I'm fated to consult a doctor or I'm not, and so framing this as a reason to choose not to consult a doctor is self-defeating.

It is futile to make such arguments. I am too lazy to explain.

It is futile to make such arguments. I am too lazy to explain. — unenlightened

Ha, a fellow lazy arguer! I did try to explain, though, but due to my laziness the explanation turned out to be inapt.