Is free will real?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As an attorney, I'm very critical of this view. It is entirely possible for a legal system to incorporate both elements of retributive and rehabilitative justice, and I think focusing on either aspect to the exclusion of the other is a miscarriage of justice. Honestly, I think that rehabilitation requires an element of retribution as well--if the criminal does not recognize that there's a debt to be paid, how can they correct course in any meaningful way? This doesn't require draconian retributative measures, but we cannot jettison an entire element of legal theory altogether.

I also think it's problematic to suddenly focus on petty crime when I have exclusively been talking about rape and murder, specifically in the context of situations where the perpetrator has an institutionalized advantage over the victim. Sexual abuse by the wealthy, police brutality against marginalized communities. As long as these problems exist--and they will likely always exist, simply because of the nature of power--you cannot expect those who are suffering from a degree of institutional abuse to be satisfied if society is unwilling to admit that there is more going on than "understandable emotions and motivations."

Refusing to hold people in power accountable for their crimes doesn't lead to their victims passively accepting that there are reasons why they do the things they do. Eventually it leads to a public lynching disguised as justice. This is what happens when society reneges upon its responsibility to actually punish people in a reasonable fashion.

I also don't think that Norway is a paragon of criminal justice. There are significant problems with sexual abuse there: Women in Nordic nations deal with high levels of rape and abuse even as the countries lead in gender equality

I wasn't intending to 'suddenly focus on petty crime', just to give an example of alternatives for some forms of crime.

As I said, Norway's system isn't perfect, they clearly need to work on the abuse of women, but the overall figures speak for themselves.

 

[durangodawood]

No, I wasn't. I was never stipulating that free will wasn't real, though I don't think it would eliminate the need for retributive justice if it were not.

People still feel wronged when they are victims of a crime, for obvious reasons. This is true regardless of whether or not someone believes in free will, so it's something that a society has to take into consideration. Even from a purely utilitarian perspective, a state that holds people responsible for their actions and punishes them accordingly--no more or less--is going to have much less instability than one that chooses to forego with punishment. We see this as it is in the many ways our criminal system fails--look at the issue of police shootings, for example. Black communities are rightly more concerned with institutional violence against them being recognized and punished by the state than they are with the rehabilitation of the guilty police officer. Forego with retributative justice and you will eventually have people going after blood themselves.

Honestly, I think the very notion of justice relies upon the (fairly self-evident) assumption that agency is real. That is the deepest intuition of human existence, and all our ideas of justice and redress are built upon it in the first place. To build a legal system that denied agency would require being a different species, and in that scenario, there's really no reason to expect that rehabilitation would be much of a concern either. After all, you're unlikely to put much of any emphasis on the value of the individual if there's no underlying belief in agency or personhood. Liquidating the non-compliant would be much more cost-effective than rehabilitating them. Cold, but true in a world without free will. (And we already saw hints of this in that most infamous of deterministic societies, the Soviet Union.)

I think you were implicity stipulating for the moment that free will wasnt real because you were extrapolating the implications of holo's no-agency worldview.

But for now I doubt anyone here thinks that the legal system should adopt a no-real-agency philosophy while the rest of the world holds that we do have agency. I certainly dont. But... if we ever get to the point where agency is widely and genuinely regarded as an illusion, then crime victims typically wont feel wronged when we dont "punish the (non-existent) agent".

I'm not as certain as you about the negation of personhood and humanity in a no-agency world. Would the recognition of the illusion destroy our subjective sense of individual identity and desire for life and happiness? I doubt it. And so those would remain as base values in any successful society.

As for me, I do believe that agency is real - even if somewhat less powerful than typically assumed.

 

[Silmarien]

I wasn't intending to 'suddenly focus on petty crime', just to give an example of alternatives for some forms of crime.

As I said, Norway's system isn't perfect, they clearly need to work on the abuse of women, but the overall figures speak for themselves.

I don't really think they speak for themselves in any meaningful sense. If the aim of a particular criminal justice system is primarily to reduce incarceration, then the fact that it does so doesn't prove that the underlying theory of justice is sound.

Now, I never said that I favored incarceration for every form of crime. I wouldn't in situations like drug abuse, prostitution, or other contexts where the criminal has been harmed by society to a greater extent than they have themselves harmed society. What I'm defending is the viability of a partially retributive theory of justice, because I don't think the way we approach the notion of justice makes any sense without it.

How would you explain movements like Black Lives Matter without any notion of retribution? How about white collar crime where there is no danger of actual violence? There's really no reason to ever incarcerate corrupt officials or Ponzi schemers if we don't think they have a debt to repay to society. Let them stay in their mansions and have them attend regular therapy sessions and that ought to suffice.

 

[Silmarien]

But for now I doubt anyone here thinks that the legal system should adopt a no-real-agency philosophy while the rest of the world holds that we do have agency. I certainly dont. But... if we ever get to the point where agency is widely and genuinely regarded as an illusion, then crime victims typically wont feel wronged when we dont "punish the (non-existent) agent".

Yes, I think this is true. I've actually seen hints of this with hard determinists on the far, far left, who end up having more empathy for their attackers than they do for themselves, at least under certain circumstances. Even in these situations, though, I don't think anyone consistently considers agency to be an illusion, though, and a society in which people really stopped believing in it would be an extremely alien one.

I'm not as certain as you about the negation of personhood and humanity in a no-agency world. Would the recognition of the illusion destroy our subjective sense of individual identity and desire for life and happiness? I doubt it. And so those would remain as base values in any successful society.

I very much think it would. Modern-day non-compatibilistic determinists don't consistently operate as if agency were an illusion. The view requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance, simply because we're hardwired to believe in agency. If we're talking about a hypothetical world in which people genuinely and completely ceased to believe in agency, with no cognitive dissonance, then I don't see how related ideas like individual personhood would survive. It's tied to the same intuitions.

You seem to be trying to hold as universal the sort of liberal values that underlie modern society, but they're all the result of a strong focus on freedom. Remove the intuition of agency, and all of that collapses.

As for me, I do believe that agency is real - even if somewhat less powerful than typically assumed.

Yeah, that's probably fairly close to my own view. (Or, you know, possibly completely differently. )

 

[durangodawood]

...You seem to be trying to hold as universal the sort of liberal values that underlie modern society, but they're all the result of a strong focus on freedom. Remove the intuition of agency, and all of that collapses....

Not so sure. I mean, the realities of suffering and satisfaction as subjective experiences could easily survive the demise of real agency. And those could well be the basis for the endurance of our cherished social values. Freedom could then remain not as a root value, but as one thats subsidiary to satisfaction.

 

[Silmarien]

Not so sure. I mean, the realities of suffering and satisfaction as subjective experiences could easily survive the demise of real agency. And those could well be the basis for the endurance of our cherished social values. Freedom could then remain not as a root value, but as one thats subsidiary to satisfaction.

I don't think that a focus on suffering and satisfaction would necessarily survive either. There are already philosophies out there that challenge such things--Buddhism advices against seeking satisfaction, and stoicism is somewhat similar.

The problem with our modern social values is that they're not really that universal across human experience. There have been more collectivistic societies--I'm thinking of Japan, for example, where group harmony does outweight individual expression as a value. I don't see why any society that not only deemphasizes but out-and-out rejects agency and personal identity as illusory would still prioritize subjectivity at all. (Granted, if it did, I think the obvious result of focusing on satisfaction and rejecting agency would be a drug state.)

 

[zippy2006]

Systems that are rehabilitative and have a restorative component, rather than being punitive or retributive, can be far more successful than traditional punitive systems. When crimes are treated as health problems on a spectrum from social health (e.g. maladjustment) to mental health (e.g. criminal psychopathy), rehabilitation into society is the objective, and reparation is part of rehabilitation for both criminal and victim, it is possible achieve humane and effective results with low levels of crime and recidivism.

Another thing to keep in mind, though, is the relation of the individual to society on different systems of justice. That is, how is the autonomy of the individual understood relative to the autonomy of the society? On a strong rehabilitative model the individual is ordered to the society, "societal autonomy" reigns supreme, and the freedoms of the individual are always subordinate to the values and goals of the society. On a strong retributive model the individual and society are more on par with one another, and if the individual breaks a societal law or norm he will need to pay a price, but his autonomy is respected insofar as he is not expected to conform wholesale to the societal will (or to be changed in a deep, internal way so as to be aligned with the societal will).

Obviously a balance needs to be struck, but there are some pretty serious dangers to wholesale rehabilitative systems, especially from an individualistic vantage point. Strangely enough, it is the secular parallel to the "religious" notion of inculcating morality via legislation. It is the secular exception to the claim that morality cannot be legislated. When I see such a strong emphasis on rehabilitation I cannot help but think that sociology has run amok, and that there is a basic transgression against individual autonomy.

 

[renniks]

The concept of free will popped up in a discussion I have with @Sanoy. I think it should have its own thread to keep things a little tidy.

Is free will real? Can it be real, given what we know about natural laws? Is it truly possible, philosophically speaking?

There are different conceptions of what free will means. What I mean by it is something like this: the ability to make a choice (or think of something) without that choice being determined by something else. For example, you can use your will to choose pizza over tacos, but is it a free choice? Do you pick one over the other for no reason? Or is it in fact determined by, say, that you just don't happen to like the taste of one of them (which obviously isn't something you freely chose)?

What would be an example of truly free will being exercised?

(Posted in this subforum because it has implications for how we think about morality.)

It's real, is just has limits, like anything.

 

[durangodawood]

It's real....

Is that faith speaking? Or have you found something we can all see?

 

[Silmarien]

On a strong retributive model the individual and society are more on par with one another, and if the individual breaks a societal law or norm he will need to pay a price, but his autonomy is respected insofar as he is not expected to conform wholesale to the societal will (or to be changed in a deep, internal way so as to be aligned with the societal will).

I wouldn't really say that the individual and the society are on par in a strongly retributive model. A society in which starving people are hanged for stealing fruit is not one that is respecting their autonomy in any meaningful sense, after all.

Otherwise, I agree. Granted, if the rehabilitative model is being combined with a denial of agency, then it not respecting the autonomy of the individual and focusing exclusively on the societal level is really just it working as intended. Individual autonomy doesn't matter if individual autonomy never existed in the first place.

 

[zippy2006]

Granted, if the rehabilitative model is being combined with a denial of agency, then it not respecting the autonomy of the individual and focusing exclusively on the societal level is really just it working as intended. Individual autonomy doesn't matter if individual autonomy never existed in the first place.

The problem with that, as Lewis points out in The Abolition of Man, is that individual autonomy is implicitly acknowledged to exist insofar as the autonomy of the society is inevitably derived from the autonomy of the leaders, movers, and shakers of the society. When a society denies individual autonomy, what is really happening is that some people are denying the autonomy of others while asserting their own. The societal vision comes from someone, after all.

 

[public hermit]

Nah, it's just an illusion. Science has shown that our brains first make an automatic decision and then create the illusion of us choosing. It's just a magic trick to keep you from going insane.

Benjamin Libet's work has come under significant scrutiny. At this point, I doesn't look like the notion that our brains decide prior to conscious choice is supported by science.

A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked

 

[Silmarien]

The problem with that, as Lewis points out in The Abolition of Man, is that individual autonomy is implicitly acknowledged to exist insofar as the autonomy of the society is inevitably derived from the autonomy of the leaders, movers, and shakers of the society. When a society denies individual autonomy, what is really happening is that some people are denying the autonomy of others while asserting their own. The societal vision comes from someone, after all.

I think they can get away with saying that they're deterministically programmed to carry out their social project due to their own circumstances, and then can scream "Vive la Révolution!" while simultaneously denying their own autonomy. The mauvaise foi is off the charts in this sort of situation, but I suppose that's to be expected. (I have dialectical materialism in mind here, not any sort of modern, mainstream approach.)

 

[renniks]

Is that faith speaking? Or have you found something we can all see?

Both. I believe that we could not be held accountable for our actions if free will wasn't reality.
And on the other hand..I'm not a scientist, but quantum physics proves free will is real, IMO.

 

[Strathos]

If someone tells you they don't believe in free will, then punch them in the face, and if they complain, say that you have no free will so you can't be held responsible for it.

NOTE: This is a joke, as I don't actually advocate punching anyone in the face.

 

[durangodawood]

Both. I believe that we could not be held accountable for our actions if free will wasn't reality.
And on the other hand..I'm not a scientist, but quantum physics proves free will is real, IMO.

No no no.

The lack of rigid determinism is necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate free will. You still need to find the autonomous "agent". A physical structure subject to atomic randomness is not necessarily a freely choosing agent. All MK showed is that its fate is not pre-determined.

 

[durangodawood]

If someone tells you they don't believe in free will, then punch them in the face, and if they complain, say that you have no free will so you can't be held responsible for it.

NOTE: This is a joke, as I don't actually advocate punching anyone in the face.

Free will or not, we cant have people going around punching each other.... so there would be consequences that the puncher probably wont like.

I do agree with this much tho: dont try this at home, kids!

 

[renniks]

Free will or not, we cant have people going around punching each other.... so there would be consequences that the puncher probably wont like.

i do agree with this much tho: dont try this at home, kids!

But it makes guilt impossible. Why would you punish people if they do what they can't no do?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Free will or not, we cant have people going around punching each other.... so there would be consequences that the puncher probably wont like.

Just earlier today, I watched just because it was on where I was people punching each other on purpose. They all liked it.


They were all trying to punch harder and harder, each one,

in training.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think that a focus on suffering and satisfaction would necessarily survive either. There are already philosophies out there that challenge such things--Buddhism advices against seeking satisfaction, and stoicism is somewhat similar.

The problem with our modern social values is that they're not really that universal across human experience. There have been more collectivistic societies--I'm thinking of Japan, for example, where group harmony does outweight individual expression as a value. I don't see why any society that not only deemphasizes but out-and-out rejects agency and personal identity as illusory would still prioritize subjectivity at all. (Granted, if it did, I think the obvious result of focusing on satisfaction and rejecting agency would be a drug state.)

Buddhism is highly satisfaction motivated. It was the Buddha's enduring dis-satisfaction that motivated him to seek ultimate satisfaction in the first place.

Maybe youre thinking of pleasure rather than satisfaction? Even then, I think Buddhism advocates that satisfaction comes from pursuing a pleasure-middle-path, and not shunning pleasure altogether.

Whether the human is a free will agent or not, I dont see the human as ever becoming neutral toward the subjective experience of suffering. And that could be the basis from which values emerge in a no-agency world.