Sure there would be practical outcomes that result from praising and blaming behavior, just as there are from any behavior. In a deterministic world things are not done for reasons but accompanied and rationalized by reasons and everything that happens is what it is and never could have been otherwise.

In any case my point was not about behavior at all but about attitudes and feelings of praise and blame.

By removing the intent from punishment, you remove causation (final cause). This is what you said before:

What we are doing in punishing someone is simply inserting a cause to change their behavior, and others, in the future. — Harry Hindu

If you remove the intent (final cause), you no longer have reason to use the words "cause" or "causation", in accordance with what andrewk was arguing.

Exactly. You value certain people's trust more than others. Losing their trust would be a dire consequence that causes you to think twice before doing something that would jeopardize losing that trust. — Harry Hindu

That's not true. The idea of losing someone's trust doesn't cause me to think, I am thinking all the time anyway. It may be one of the many things which I will consider within my thoughts, but there is no such causation. Neither does punishment cause me to think in any particular way. Your argument is nonsensical. Punishment and consequences have no such causal power.

Sure there would be practical outcomes that result from praising and blaming behavior, just as there are from any behavior. In a deterministic world things are not done for reasons but accompanied and rationalized by reasons and everything that happens is what it is and never could have been otherwise. — John

So you don't have reasons for what you do? You don't have intent prior to behaving in some way? My intent doesn't occur after I behave in some way. I intend to communicate my idea in my head to you prior to me typing in out on the screen and clicking submit. If I didn't then how did the ideas in my head get converted to scribbles on a screen with my forum name next to it?

In any case my point was not about behavior at all but about attitudes and feelings of praise and blame. — John

How are attitudes and feelings of praise and blame useful without the actual act of praising or blaming?

↪Harry Hindu
By removing the intent from punishment, you remove causation (final cause). This is what you said before:

What we are doing in punishing someone is simply inserting a cause to change their behavior, and others, in the future. — Harry Hindu


If you remove the intent (final cause), you no longer have reason to use the words "cause" or "causation", in accordance with what andrewk was arguing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please, rephrase. Maybe Andrewk could do a better job of making his own case?

Exactly. You value certain people's trust more than others. Losing their trust would be a dire consequence that causes you to think twice before doing something that would jeopardize losing that trust. — Harry Hindu

That's not true. The idea of losing someone's trust doesn't cause me to think, I am thinking all the time anyway. It may be one of the many things which I will consider within my thoughts, but there is no such causation. Neither does punishment cause me to think in any particular way. Your argument is nonsensical. Punishment and consequences have no such causal power. — Metaphysician Undercover

Give me a break, MU. You do know what the phrase, "think twice" means, no? Here, let me help you because you seem to be having a very difficult time with using your terms and understanding commonly used metaphors:
https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&q=think+twice+meaning&oq=think+twice&gs_l=serp.3.0.0i71k1l8.0.0.0.3174.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1..64.serp..0.0.0.VRiqmNQyaHk

So what you are saying is that you would make the same decision if you weren't aware of the negative consequences as you would have if you were aware of the negative consequences that would follow your act?

If you were about to perform some practical joke on your best friend and your best friend noticed what you were going to do before you did it and said, "If you do that, I'm not going to be your friend anymore.", that wouldn't prevent you from doing what you were going to do? That information - that your best friend will no longer be your friend - is causing you to re-think performing that action.

If you were about to perform some practical joke on your best friend and your best friend noticed what you were going to do before you did it and said, "If you do that, I'm not going to be your friend anymore.", that wouldn't prevent you from doing what you were going to do? That information - that your best friend will no longer be your friend - is causing you to re-think performing that action. — Harry Hindu

It's not exclusively one way or the other. At least some people, with some actions, will hesitate because of possible consequences. But others, or even the same people, with at least some actions, will act far more impulsively, sometimes where they have little control over their actions, especially with outbursts, anger, etc., and they won't consider the possible consequences at all, even though they might be otherwise aware of those possible consequences.

So you don't have reasons for what you do? You don't have intent prior to behaving in some way? My intent doesn't occur after I behave in some way. I intend to communicate my idea in my head to you prior to me typing in out on the screen and clicking submit. If I didn't then how did the ideas in my head get converted to scribbles on a screen with my forum name next to it? — Harry Hindu

IIn a causally closed, deterministic world there is no you making prior decisions; that also is a rationalization after the fact, or an illusory epiphenomenon, if you like.

I'm not arguing for this position just trying to elucidate its logic for you, so you can see that the logic of the idea of moral responsibility is not and cannot be a compatible logic. This is because the logic of moral responsibility says that your decisions and acts must have their origin outside the causal order, but that is impossible if the causal order is closed.

How are attitudes and feelings of praise and blame useful without the actual act of praising or blaming? — Harry Hindu

Their usefulness is irrelevant. The point was there can be no rationally consistent justification for feelings of praise or blame under the assumption of determinism. You might, in fact you inevitably will, have feelings of praise and blame regardless of whether determinism is the real case, though. And under the assumption of determinism you could even say that feelings of praise and blame, translated into actions have practical consequences.

The further point, though, is that under the assumption of determinism, all human decisions, feelings, experiences, thoughts, desires, volitions and even actions are not really causally efficacious (the real causation happens at the 'bottom', at the invisible microphysical level that really determines everything), but are really just illusory epiphenomena.

So what you are saying is that you would make the same decision if you weren't aware of the negative consequences as you would have if you were aware of the negative consequences that would follow your act? — Harry Hindu

That all depends on the situation.

If you were about to perform some practical joke on your best friend and your best friend noticed what you were going to do before you did it and said, "If you do that, I'm not going to be your friend anymore.", that wouldn't prevent you from doing what you were going to do? That information - that your best friend will no longer be your friend - is causing you to re-think performing that action. — Harry Hindu

Sorry to disappoint you, but I would have thought of that before planning the practical joke, and I would already be prepared for the likelihood that my best friend would no longer be my best friend if I carried out the action. So no, it wouldn't cause me to rethink, because it would just be a statement of what I already thought.

Give me a break, MU. You do know what the phrase, "think twice" means, no? — Harry Hindu

I don't know about you, but all of my serious thinking is thinking twice, as per the definition you referred me to. And, it's not other people who cause me to think twice, I do this of my own volition, because I think it's a good thing to do.

.

Sure there would be practical outcomes that result from praising and blaming behavior, just as there are from any behavior. In a deterministic world things are not done for reasons but accompanied and rationalized by reasons and everything that happens is what it is and never could have been otherwise.

In any case my point was not about behavior at all but about attitudes and feelings of praise and blame. — John

I take it you are an incompatibilist, then?

The further point, though, is that under the assumption of determinism, all human decisions, feelings, experiences, thoughts, desires, volitions and even actions are not really causally efficacious (the real causation happens at the 'bottom', at the invisible microphysical level that really determines everything), but are really just illusory epiphenomena. — John

I don't believe it is coherent to say that feelings are illusory. When it comes to feelings, there is no difference between perception and object. There is nothing for feelings to be illusory about.

That's a good point; logically, feelings as such, as distinct from reflexive awareness of them, or attitudes about them, cannot be illusory in the strict sense. Still, under the assumption of eliminative materialism consciousness is considered to be epiphenomenal, and feelings are part of consciousness. And please note, this is not my standpoint.

I am. The logic of determinism and moral responsibility as understood in a kind of substantive, as opposed to a merely conventional, sense are certainly incompatible, as far as I can see. I have never seen a convincing or even a minimally coherent explanatory argument for their purported compatibility. As I see it, it's just that determinists can't face the logical entailments of their preferred worldview, or they.want to have their cake and eat it too.

It's not exclusively one way or the other. At least some people, with some actions, will hesitate because of possible consequences. But others, or even the same people, with at least some actions, will act far more impulsively, sometimes where they have little control over their actions, especially with outbursts, anger, etc., and they won't consider the possible consequences at all, even though they might be otherwise aware of those possible consequences. — Terrapin Station

This just means that consequences are subjective. What is a consequence for one, isn't for another. You have to find that negative consequence that is harmful enough to the actor to prevent them from acting. Fining $100 is more harmful of a consequence to a poor person than to a wealthy person. A stranger not trusting you is less harmful than your best friend not trusting you. So you may perform that act with the stranger, but not with your best friend.

IIn a causally closed, deterministic world there is no you making prior decisions; that also is a rationalization after the fact, or an illusory epiphenomenon, if you like. — John

This makes no sense. Are we talking about "deterministic" differently? My determinism includes the will as a causal power in the world. It's quite obvious that my will causes things to happen. It is also quite obvious that "external" (or causes that aren't my will) have an influence on my decisions. I don't make distinctions between physical and mental causes. How else do you explain your will influencing the will of others? How is it that we have "leaders" that others follow if will isn't a causal influence? It's just that the choices you make, are the one's you were designed to make in every circumstance due to the experiences you've had up to that moment of decision, and how you were designed.

I'm not arguing for this position just trying to elucidate its logic for you, so you can see that the logic of the idea of moral responsibility is not and cannot be a compatible logic. This is because the logic of moral responsibility says that your decisions and acts must have their origin outside the causal order, but that is impossible if the causal order is closed. — John

This is preposterous. Again, the will is part of the causal order. There is a decision-maker and then there is the information one has access to make that decision. The information one has is dictated by one's experiences over time. This accounts for how we make mistakes where we made a decision in which we never intended to harm, but we did. This is because we didn't have access to the information that would have prevented the harming. We only have a limited amount of information, and time, in which to make a decision. This is what makes our decisions deterministic.

So what you are saying is that you would make the same decision if you weren't aware of the negative consequences as you would have if you were aware of the negative consequences that would follow your act? — Harry Hindu


That all depends on the situation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you provide an example where what I said wouldn't apply?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I would have thought of that before planning the practical joke, and I would already be prepared for the likelihood that my best friend would no longer be my best friend if I carried out the action. So no, it wouldn't cause me to rethink, because it would just be a statement of what I already thought. — Metaphysician Undercover

LOL! You didn't disappoint me at all, MU. You finally agreed with me that knowledge of a consequence causes you to behave in certain ways and not in others. It doesn't matter the way in which you came to know the consequence.

You have to find that negative consequence that is harmful enough to the actor to prevent them from acting. — Harry Hindu

No. You're still assuming that people always think about consequences before acting. You're just thinking that sometimes the consequences aren't severe enough to prevent them from acting. That's not the case. Some people act impulsively/uncontrollably at times where there's zero thought of consequences at the moment. So no consequences would make a difference in that situation.

And I know this from personal experience, because I sometimes act impulsively/uncontrollably. It doesn't happen near as often now as it did in the past--just because I've aged and mellowed, but it does still sometimes happen. And I'm not the only person in the world who is that way.

"Why is the sky blue?" an explanation for why it is blue and not red can be given, but you cannot explain why that explanation and not some other explanation is possible... the explanation of why physical properties are the way they are that is to my mind the difficulty. Perhaps it's the laws of the universe that make it so, but why these laws and not some others? Perhaps because inductively that is the way the universe is. Causality, I think, is a lot like the blue sky, yes it is blue, but why is it blue.

but it can be the case that the consequences are not severe enough. It can also be the case that there wasn't enough time to think about the consequences or the consequences weren't part of the information used in making the decision to act.

None of this takes away from the argument that I have made in that knowledge, or maybe a more accurate word would be "prediction", of consequences influences one's decisions and actions. After all, we could make decisions with anticipated consequences that would have never happened.

but it can be the case that the consequences are not severe enough. It can also be the case that there wasn't enough time to think about the consequences or the consequences weren't part of the information used in making the decision to act. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, I'd agree with that. It's important to remember that it's not the same in all situations

None of this takes away from the argument that I have made in that knowledge, or maybe a more accurate word would be "prediction", of consequences influences one's decisions and actions.

As long as you don't mean that it influences all of everyone's decisions. It certainly influences some decisions, and maybe all of some persons' decisions.

Now we get to the point where I ask why we make decisions in the first place and what does the process of making a decision entail. Don't we make decisions to achieve some goal and couldn't we then say that the achieving or not achieving the goal itself are consequences to our decisions? In other words, making decisions incorporates a significant amount of predicting the outcome of our decisions and that the predicted outcome is what drives us to perform a certain action, or make a certain decision.

It is precisely those decisions we make without incorporating the outcomes of our decisions into the decision-making process that leads to us harming others with our decisions, or one could say that leads to bad consequences, or outcomes. There is a correlation between the amount of time we take to make a decision (mulling over the outcome of the decision and how the outcome compares to our intended goal), and the chance the predicted outcome has of coming about. The less you think about the outcome of your decision, the higher the chance that your goal won't be achieved in the way in which you intended, or won't be achieved at all.

This is a conversation that I'm sure you could understand:
Actor: "I'm sorry. I didn't intend to hurt you. I didn't think that would happen"

Victim: "It seems to me that you didn't think at all. You just did it without thinking about the consequences."

Often when people act on impulse they're not really making a decision. Sometimes acting in rage, say, feels like not only not making a decision but like you have zero control over your actions.

People can also make whim decisions. I do that often because I enjoy it. Making a whim decision often doesn't have a goal beyond itself.

Often when people act on impulse they're not really making a decision. Sometimes acting in rage, say, feels like not only not making a decision but like you have zero control over your actions. — Terrapin Station

I can agree with this to a point. Emotions tend to hijack the decision-making process. One could say that when you aren't thinking about the outcome of your actions, you aren't making a decision, or thinking, at all. It's more like a motor response to some stimuli, or a conditioned response.

People can also make whim decisions. I do that often because I enjoy it. Making a whim decision often doesn't have a goal beyond itself. — Terrapin Station

Can you provide an example of one of your whim decisions? How did it appear in your mind and in what order?

Whim decision examples: what exact route to take while bike-riding or hiking. What album to listen to.

in these examples the choice you make could be a result of a particular bias you have. Maybe you've taken one route but not the other so you want to experience the route you haven't taken yet. Or maybe you might say you know this route so you choose this one instead of one you don't know. Maybe you like one album more than the other as it makes you feel better or influence your mood in a way that you intend.

Now, if you havent been on either route, or havent listened to either album, then it would be safe to say that you don't know the outcome of your decision. You don't know what will happen when you listen to this album or that album or take this route or that route. In this case, you wouldn't have a reason to choose one or the other. One might say that you don't actually make a choice at all. You just go with the first thing that pops into your head. It only seems like you had a choice because there were two options you were aware of. If you went with the 2nd thing that pops into your head, then that must mean that there was something about the first that you didn't like, in which case the decision was no longer a whim decision.

↪Terrapin Station
in these examples the choice you make could be a result of a particular bias you have. Maybe you've taken one route but not the other so you want to experience the route you haven't taken yet. Or maybe you might say you know this route so you choose this one instead of one you don't know. Maybe you like one album more than the other as it makes you feel better or influence your mood in a way that you intend. — Harry Hindu

But then they wouldn't be whim choices. I'm talking about whim choices. The mental equivalent of rolling dice.

It's quite obvious that my will causes things to happen. — Harry Hindu

Nothing you say is relevant to what I have arguing. You say that other external causes "have an influence" on your decisions. This is equivocal language. Do other factors exhaustively determine your will, or is it to at least some degree, free and self-originating? That is the salient point.

If you want to say that will is free and self-originating to some degree, then how is that possible if the causal order is closed, and the will originates entirely within that order. How does will get to be free when everything else, in the final analysis, is rigidly determined by external factors? That is what you would need to explain. Further bare assertions couched in ambiguous language are not going to help your case.

Can you provide an example where what I said wouldn't apply? — Harry Hindu

Whenever I feel strongly about a particular act, I will proceed despite the negative consequences. So for instance, if something like moving a heavy object, which requires physical labour, and imminent pain, is required, I will proceed despite knowing about the negative consequences. It is very often that we proceed despite knowing about imminent negative consequences. This is a power of the will, it manifests as a virtue called "courage".

LOL! You didn't disappoint me at all, MU. You finally agreed with me that knowledge of a consequence causes you to behave in certain ways and not in others. It doesn't matter the way in which you came to know the consequence. — Harry Hindu

That I consider something within my thoughts, doesn't mean that this particular thing "caused" my conclusion. When I think, I consider many different things before coming to a conclusion. None of them can be said to cause my conclusion.

Your claim that knowledge of a consequence causes me to behave in a particular way is categorically false. That is because the things I consider within my mind, are passive thoughts, ideas and beliefs. Being passive, none of them have any causal power. I move these thoughts around within my mind, they do not move me around, because they are passive and I am active.

↪Terrapin Station
in these examples the choice you make could be a result of a particular bias you have. Maybe you've taken one route but not the other so you want to experience the route you haven't taken yet. Or maybe you might say you know this route so you choose this one instead of one you don't know. Maybe you like one album more than the other as it makes you feel better or influence your mood in a way that you intend. — Harry Hindu

But then they wouldn't be whim choices. I'm talking about whim choices. The mental equivalent of rolling dice. — Terrapin Station

But you are making a decision. You are making a decision to make a decision. You can either do nothing, or choose one of the other two options. Time is probably a factor, so you need to make a decision now, or it will be taken out of your hands. Because you have no reason to choose one or the other, you resort to choosing one instead of choosing neither, because you do have a reason to choose to do something rather than nothing, or rather than choosing to stand there not able to choose between the two options when there isn't a reason to choose one over the other. When someone tells you to hurry up and make a choice - a choice in which the outcome isn't known - you better choose one, or you get neither.

Which is why I was asking if we are talking about the same thing when taking about "determinism" and "free will". You are making a circular argument in defining "free will" as something that is "free" and "self-originating". What is "free"? - just self-originating? If the will were self-originating, that would mean that it was the first cause. Is that your argument? It seems to me that even the first cause itself would have some features or qualities about it that define it, that make it what it is, and that would itself be a restraint on it's "freedoms". Human beings are designed a certain way, to do certain things. Our design is a limit on our "freedoms". Our will is really no different than the central executive inside a computer that makes the decisions based on it's programming and the information currently occupying it's working memory.

None of what you said hurts my argument that consequences of past actions, and the consequences observed happening to others as a result of their behavior, are incorporated into the decision-making process. Not all the time, but much of the time. After all, the consequences are just information that is part of the decision-making process that sometimes gets left out because of limited space in memory, or there wasn't enough time to make a decision where you thought about the consequences. The idea of the consequences can change people's behaviors in the future. Praising and blaming others for their actions has no teeth in making them change their behavior. It seems that praising and blaming without the consequences is redundant because most of the time the person knows they are the reason the action took place. They know what they did wrong, and they know that it was they that did it. In the case where one doesn't know what they did wrong, or don't know that the bad outcome was a result of their actions, what does praising or blaming do - just inform them that they are the cause of the bad outcome. That's it? How is that useful in either a world with free will or one without?

Whenever I feel strongly about a particular act, I will proceed despite the negative consequences. So for instance, if something like moving a heavy object, which requires physical labour, and imminent pain, is required, I will proceed despite knowing about the negative consequences. It is very often that we proceed despite knowing about imminent negative consequences. This is a power of the will, it manifests as a virtue called "courage". — Metaphysician Undercover

MU, I'm getting in the habit of responding to your posts by simply referring you to a post that I already wrote in this thread. This argument is easily handled by pointing you to where I talked about how consequences have to be harsh, or pleasurable, enough to make you change your behavior. Again, the goal itself is a consequence. What are the consequences that you want to follow your action - that the heavy object gets moved? That is the goal and if it hurts a little, then so be it, moving the heavy object is more important than experiencing a little pain. However, if you had a bad back then the consequences of the pain may prevent you from moving a heavy object. Letting the heavy object stay there, or getting someone else to move it, would be more preferable than throwing your back out. We all make decisions based on the predicted outcome of our actions and how it matches our goal in the moment.

That I consider something within my thoughts, doesn't mean that this particular thing "caused" my conclusion. When I think, I consider many different things before coming to a conclusion. None of them can be said to cause my conclusion.

Your claim that knowledge of a consequence causes me to behave in a particular way is categorically false. That is because the things I consider within my mind, are passive thoughts, ideas and beliefs. Being passive, none of them have any causal power. I move these thoughts around within my mind, they do not move me around, because they are passive and I am active. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then how do you learn anything, MU? What is it that makes you learn to do things and not others? All of your actions have consequences. Isn't the consequences, the end result of your action, and how that matches your present goal, what you are choosing? If not, then what do you hope to accomplish when you make a decision?

But you are making a decision. You are making a decision to make a decision. You can either do nothing, or choose one of the other two options. Time is probably a factor, so you need to make a decision now, or it will be taken out of your hands. Because you have no reason to choose one or the other, you resort to choosing one instead of choosing neither, because you do have a reason to choose to do something rather than nothing, or rather than choosing to stand there not able to choose between the two options when there isn't a reason to choose one over the other. When someone tells you to hurry up and make a choice - a choice in which the outcome isn't known - you better choose one, or you get neither. — Harry Hindu

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm not saying that they're not choices. It's just that they're not choices for reasons or biases, etc.