How do we deal with the most heinous crimes?

[quatona]

Agreed.


Agreed. But it still renders the query moot; it's just that we wouldn't be able to stop ourselves from debating it.

I´m not sure what you mean when saying "moot". They are part of the predetermined course just like everything else, and they are as "moot" (or not) as everything else. It´s the same as with our actions: we do them because we are determined to do them. I don´t really understand how that makes them "moot".

Not really. What morality does not require us to have free will?

Well, pretty much any moral idea does not require us to have "free will".
"This is a good thing to do, this is a bad thing to do" works with or without "freewill".
The only thing that doesn´t work is blaming someone for what they did.

I didn't say we should stop thinking about it (indeed, we couldn't if we tried (nor could we even try... anyway)), since it is logical to assume we do have free will.

I do not think it´s logical at all. I even think that "freewill" (if defined as part of the human condition) is about the most illogical idea ever.

It's just that, in the case where free will doesn't exist, our philosophical ponderings on morality are for nought:

Just like I struggled with understanding what exactly you mean by "moot" in this context, I struggle with understanding what you mean by "nought". These statements suggest to me that you have some unmentioned expectations or prerequisites for "morality" that I am not aware of and/or don´t share.

there is no such thing as 'moral' or 'immoral' actions, merely those we are predestined to do.

I don´t seem to understand the dichotomy "moral/immoral vs. predestined". I can find an action good or bad no matter whether it´s predestined or not.
Just like I will do my best to win a badminton match even though I am convinced the result (including my strategies and efforts) is predestined. Neither my premeditaions, strategies and efforts nor the result are moot/nought just because they are predestined.
The only thing that´s pointless would be to say in retrospective "I could have done better".

I really fail to see the problem.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I´m not sure what you mean when saying "moot".

Your questions only apply if free will exists. Since you start with the assumption that free will doesn't exist, your questions are moot: they don't apply.

Well, pretty much any moral idea does not require us to have "free will".
"This is a good thing to do, this is a bad thing to do" works with or without "freewill".
The only thing that doesn´t work is blaming someone for what they did.

You misunderstand. The very notion of 'good' and 'bad' break down without free will: a 'good' thing is something that should be done in preference to a 'bad' one. 'Should' and 'ought'. How can such notions make sense if there is only one thing that can possibly come to pass?

I do not think it´s logical at all. I even think that "freewill" (if defined as part of the human condition) is about the most illogical idea ever.

Consider the two possibilities:

1. We do not have free will. In this case, there is nothing more to say: we do what we are destined to do, and that's that.
2. We have free will. In this case, we can make one of two assumptions:
   1. We assume free will doesn't exist.
   2. We assume free will does exist.

Thus, it is logical to assume we have free will: if the assumption is false, then we never had any choice to begin with. But if it's true, we do have a choice about what to assume, so why would we assume otherwise?

Just like I struggled with understanding what exactly you mean by "moot" in this context, I struggle with understanding what you mean by "nought".

"Fruitless", "pointless".

These statements suggest to me that you have some unmentioned expectations or prerequisites for "morality" that I am not aware of and/or don´t share.

So what is your understanding of 'morality'?

I really fail to see the problem.

I just don't see how the questions in the OP make sense without free will being part of the picture. In an ethical dilemma, we decide what is the most moral action, and we take it. We choose which action is fairest. If free will does not exist, it makes no sense to ask what we should or should not do, what is or is not fair: there is only what will come to pass. There is no decision to be made (only the illusion of one), no options to weigh.

Barring sociopaths, of course .

 

[quatona]

Your questions only apply if free will exists. Since you start with the assumption that free will doesn't exist, your questions are moot: they don't apply.

Sorry, WC, but this is just another term (like moot/nought) that I don´t understand in this context if not specified. They don´t apply to what, they don´t apply why?

You misunderstand. The very notion of 'good' and 'bad' break down without free will: a 'good' thing is something that should be done in preference to a 'bad' one. 'Should' and 'ought'. How can such notions make sense if there is only one thing that can possibly come to pass?

Since I don´t know what it is that will come to pass I think wishes, desires, ideas what should be and shouldn´t, hopes do make sense - unless you expect them to alter that which is predetermined.
If a researcher puts up a chemical experiment that´s never been done before, he also has his ideas what "should" happen (not only in the sense of "what would I expect to happen, to tell from previous experiments - hypothesis -, but also what he would prefer to happen), even though hardly anyone will ascribe "freewill" to chemical elements., and even though he´s not deluded into thinking that his anticipations and hopes will change anything about the fact that that which will happen must happen.

Consider the two possibilities:

1. We do not have free will. In this case, there is nothing more to say: we do what we are destined to do, and that's that.
2. We have free will. In this case, we can make one of two assumptions:
   1. We assume free will doesn't exist.
   2. We assume free will does exist.

If not having "freewill" we also can make the assumptions that "freewill" exist or that it doesn´t exist (we can even change our position on that question) - only that this is predestined.Thus I don´t understand what the "that´s that" in #1 means. That which you postulate as the difference, isn´t different, after all.

Thus, it is logical to assume we have free will: if the assumption is false, then we never had any choice to begin with.

So what? If the assumption is false, we have no choice either way, to be precise.

But if it's true, we do have a choice about what to assume, so why would we assume otherwise?

I don´t understand the question. Why? E.g. because we would be mistaken about the existence/non-existence of „freewill“. Or because „freewill“ strikes us as an illogical concept, a logical impossibility.
Your argument escapes me completely, to be honest.

"Fruitless", "pointless".

In regards to which „fruit“ or „point“? (I suspect that this is the keyquestion, the answer to which would tell me what you expect from morality that I apparently don´t expect from it).

Another question, if I may:
If everything is predestined – would you think it would make sense/be reasonable/logical to learn mathematics? To tell from what you have said so far I´d expect you to say no: Whether I´ll learn mathematics or not is predestined, so how is logical/reasonable to do it?
If everything is predestined – would you think that a discussion is pointless (whether I - or the person opposite – will change my/her mind is predestined after all). So why even try it?

Personally, I fail to see how you get to question arbitrary elements in the predestined cause-effect chain(s), and don´t question others. Premeditations aren´t any different than actions in this respect.

So what is your understanding of 'morality'?

Basically, the differenciation between human behaviours that I find desirable and human behaviours that I find undesirable.

I just don't see how the questions in the OP make sense without free will being part of the picture. In an ethical dilemma, we decide what is the most moral action, and we take it.

I don´t think we decide it. We premeditate, and the result is another one of those causes and effects that are part of that which „must“ happen (just like the course of the premeditation is).

We choose which action is fairest.

What at which point in time we think is fairest is predestined.
I fail to see how preferring something is „moot, nought, point- and fruitless/doesn´t apply“ just because the preference is predestined.
Hardly anyone will claim that how tall everyone is is subject to their „freewill“. Yet, I can weigh up the advantages/disadvantages of being tall against those of being short quite fine, and come to the result „Being tall (or small, or average) is preferrable/is best.“, and noone would call these considerations „moot, nought or pointless/doesn´t apply“ – unless they assume (for whatever reason) that I expect these considerations to affect my height.

If free will does not exist, it makes no sense to ask what we should or should not do, what is or is not fair: there is only what will come to pass.

I still don´t understand this argument. I think I can have an idea of what´s fair even though there is only what will come to pass. Like, I could say „It would be fair if wealth and resources would be equally distributed among all persons living on earth“. I fail to see how having an idea of „fairness“ is negatively affected by the fact that whether things are or are not fair (according to my idea) is predestined.

There is no decision to be made (only the illusion of one), no options to weigh.

Since I don´t expect to make any decisions, in the first place, and I am just premeditating on the preferrability of hypothetical options – not knowing what it is that will come to pass – I don´t see a problem.
The result of the lottery is certainly not a matter of my „freewill“ (even if assuming for a moment there were such), yet I can find it desirable/preferrable to be the winner next week.

Barring sociopaths, of course .

I am afraid I have no clue what you are trying to communicate with this remark. If it´s material to the question, would you care to explain?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sorry, WC, but this is just another term (like moot/nought) that I don´t understand in this context if not specified. They don´t apply to what, they don´t apply why?

It's like saying "What colour is your dog?" to a person who doesn't have a dog. The question is moot, since it's initial premise ("You have a dog") is false.

Since I don´t know what it is that will come to pass I think wishes, desires, ideas what should be and shouldn´t, hopes do make sense - unless you expect them to alter that which is predetermined.
If a researcher puts up a chemical experiment that´s never been done before, he also has his ideas what "should" happen (not only in the sense of "what would I expect to happen, to tell from previous experiments - hypothesis -, but also what he would prefer to happen), even though hardly anyone will ascribe "freewill" to chemical elements., and even though he´s not deluded into thinking that his anticipations and hopes will change anything about the fact that that which will happen must happen.

Then we disagree on the word "should". The chemist has expects certain things to happen, since she can make predictions using the relevant chemical and physical theories: the experiment should yield certain things.
But this is different from the ethical and philosophical notion of 'should': this is the action to be taken above all other possible options. We should take the moral action over the immoral action.
However, in a world without free will, there are no plethora of actions: there is only one possibility. There is no 'should', since there is no superior action which we can take in preference to an inferior one.

If not having "freewill" we also can make the assumptions that "freewill" exist or that it doesn´t exist (we can even change our position on that question) - only that this is predestined.

Agreed.

Thus I don´t understand what the "that´s that" in #1 means.

I meant that, in the case where we don't have free will, we have no choice as to what assumptions we make: whether we assume free will exists or doesn't exist, we have no say in the matter. We assume what we assume, and that's that.

So what? If the assumption is false, we have no choice either way, to be precise.

Indeed: but we are considering the case where free will exists, where the assumption that we have free will is true. Since this is the only scenario in which we can choose what to assume, we should choose to assume we have free will.

I don´t understand the question. Why? E.g. because we would be mistaken about the existence/non-existence of „freewill“. Or because „freewill“ strikes us as an illogical concept, a logical impossibility.

Why is free will an illogical concept? More importantly, why is it a logical impossibility?

Your argument escapes me completely, to be honest.

I'm explaining that it is logical to assume we have at least some vestige of free will, and that ethical queries only make sense if we have free will (in the same way that asking someone about their dog only makes sense if they have a dog).

In regards to which „fruit“ or „point“?

I said: "It's just that, in the case where free will doesn't exist, our philosophical ponderings on morality are for nought". The 'fruit' or 'point' depends on just what it is we're pondering, doesn't it.

Another question, if I may:
If everything is predestined – would you think it would make sense/be reasonable/logical to learn mathematics? To tell from what you have said so far I´d expect you to say no: Whether I´ll learn mathematics or not is predestined, so how is logical/reasonable to do it?
If everything is predestined – would you think that a discussion is pointless (whether I - or the person opposite – will change my/her mind is predestined after all). So why even try it?

The answers to these questions depend on your comprehension of the above.

Personally, I fail to see how you get to question arbitrary elements in the predestined cause-effect chain(s), and don´t question others.

I don't understand. What am I ignoring?

Basically, the differenciation between human behaviours that I find desirable and human behaviours that I find undesirable.[

And why do you make such a distinction?

I don´t think we decide it. We premeditate, and the result is another one of those causes and effects that are part of that which „must“ happen (just like the course of the premeditation is).

But this assumes we don't have free will: if we do, then we do decide. At the moment, we are not in a position to determine whether we do or do not have free will. We can only ponder the consequences of either scenario.

What at which point in time we think is fairest is predestined.

Only if we don't have free will. Since I'm talking about the scenario in which we do have free will, your point is moot.

I am afraid I have no clue what you are trying to communicate with this remark. If it´s material to the question, would you care to explain?

Sociopaths have a tendency to flaunt rational thought. That's why logical puzzles tend to include the line "Given the above, what would a rational person do?": it ensures that a logical solution is given (an irrational person could technically run around in her own filth; not quite the solution one is looking for).

 

[CGL]

*Takes off Barr '08 shirt* You torture the s--- out of them.

 

[Im_A]

Working under the premise that free will doesn't exist and we are all a result of our biology, experiences etc when someone does commit a terrible crime, such as a savage murder, is sentencing them to life imprisonment or even the death sentence, a satisfactory way of dealing with them, considering the fact that it wasn't really their choice that they turned out the way they did? Is it fair, or do we just have to accept that life isn't fair?

i'm only answering under your premise:

the issue isn't about being fair in my opinion because society to exist has to erradicate what makes a society fall apart. that doesn't mean death sentence, for some people it does, but it just means, society has to have a standard of success if you will in my opinion and those who commit heinous crimes break the fabric of a successful society. so they get sent away, exiled from society. so it may be seen as unfair to that individual, but at the same time, their action whether it couldn't have been stopped because they had no choice in it or not, would have to be exiled so they don't become a problem for the society they are in that breaks the fabric of how their society is successful. in this case, the fairness is more geared towards the society as a whole and to the people who's natural ability is for the successfullness of the society and not the ones predetermined to break it.