It's about as self evident to reason that rape is wrong as that 2 + 2 = 4. Thus some acts are wrong. — Bartricks
Xing — SolarWind
So if no woman wants to procreate, you think rape is now right? My reason says that'd be wrong.
The human species isn't a human. It doesn't die and you can't kill it and it has no interests. It does not experience pleasure or pain and it has no will. — Bartricks
But anyway, to bring this back to the topic at hand: hard determinism entails that we lack all obligations, as free will is surely something obligations require? — Bartricks
Correct. Inclination is any internal force that drives, though does not compel, you to do something. — Samuel Lacrampe
Indeed, I think that may work. The following assumptions would have to be true:[...] A low frequency of recidivism, on the other hand, would mean we can override our "programming." — TheMadFool
That sounds correct. The robot would have to be virtually the same as the human subject in every way - e.g. same memories, inclinations, situation, etc. - minus free will.we can compare humans with artificial entities — TheMadFool
Yes, as along as that the drive to sleep is merely an inclination and not a necessity. E.g. if you pass out from exhaustion, then this is too strong to be an inclination. — Samuel Lacrampe
Inclination is an "internal force", not in the sense of a physical force F=ma, but a drive, desire, or temptation. Free will can resist temptations no matter how strong, but not physical forces like lifting boulders. Passing out from exhaustion would be more like a physical force. — Samuel Lacrampe
[...] A low frequency of recidivism, on the other hand, would mean we can override our "programming."
— TheMadFool
Indeed, I think that may work. The following assumptions would have to be true:
1. The inclination for recidivism would always or almost always have to be present.
2. If free will exists, many criminals would freely choose to not repeat the crimes.
we can compare humans with artificial entities
— TheMadFool
That sounds correct. The robot would have to be virtually the same as the human subject in every way - e.g. same memories, inclinations, situation, etc. - minus free will.
Hopefully there exist arguments on free will that don't rely on waiting on this level of technology haha. — Samuel Lacrampe
Was this meant to refute something that I have previously said? Otherwise, I agree with that description of free will. I would just add that you also have the ability to say yes to the will of others, if that is also your will. — Samuel Lacrampe
To recognize that there are reasons to do things involves recognizing that one has options - that there are alternative possibilities available and thus one needs to consider what one has most reason to do or believe. — Bartricks
Second, it is manifest to the reason of most that if you ought to do something, then you can do it. And if you ought not to do x, then you can refrain from doing it. — Bartricks
Yes, we choose the option that seems to maximize our pleasure and minimize our pain (according to our evaluation). We are programmed that way. An autonomous car is programmed to stop at red lights and go at green lights; it too has options when reaching a crossroad: stop, go, turn left, turn right... — litewave
An autonomous car is programmed to stop at red lights and usually it can do it. But if it malfunctions it can keep moving. — litewave
Well, that's a highly controversial and fairly obviously false pyschological thesis. — Bartricks
It's not clear what bearing it has on the current issue - if we're programmed to behave in any way, then we lack free will in that respect and thus will lack any obligations. — Bartricks
Yes, and cars are not agents and do not have obligations. — Bartricks
My car is not obliged to start when I turn the key, is it? — Bartricks
Is it? If you mean cases where someone sacrifices his own pleasure for someone else or for some honorable principle, don't you think such a sacrifice has given him a good feeling of satisfaction that was worth the sacrifice and therefore prevailed over the sacrificed pleasure? — litewave
We still have free will in the compatibilist sense. — litewave
The car is programmed to start when you turn the key, like we are programmed to fulfill our obligations. — litewave
Yes, it is highly controversial - it is known as psychological egoism and has virtually no defenders. It's exposed to so many prima facie counterexamples that it just isn't plausible. — Bartricks
That's confused. If compatibilism is true, then hard determinism is false. This thread is about what hard determinism entails. So it must be granted that compatibilism is false, for compatibilism is incompatible with hard determinism (hard determinists are incompatibilists about free will). — Bartricks
Question begging. We don't have any obligations if hard determinism is true. — Bartricks
What counterexamples? Like the one I gave about self-sacrifice? — litewave
Ok, so what is the difference between hard determinism and "ordinary" determinism (compatibilism)? — litewave
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.