Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffygrrl
I don't think this has any merit at all.
If we don't accept that one's own volition is outside, before, and above, any genetic or environmental consideration, then there's no need for freedom, there's no need for the first, second, or any further ammendments, there's in fact no need for civil liberties at all.
And people are no longer people, but machines, robots, running better or worse code, in better or worse environments.
I can't prove this isn't the case, and quite frankly I don't even care if it is or not. I'll happily die with the counterthesis around my neck before I'll even consider this.
|
I am drunk by now, so excuse me if my reply sounds a bit odd.
If we do accept that one's own volition is outside, before, and above, we essentially need a non-material soul that interacts with the material role.
This is a problem. First, we would need to accept that there is in fact a non-material soul-like thing that, being non-material, cannot be observed, investigated, proven or falsified. Obviously, giving any reasonable, testable argument for the existence for such a thing would be pretty much impossible.
Second, we face an even bigger problem. How would such a non-material soul-like thing interact with the physical? Any answer to that question would require us to abandon the very concept of material causality. After all, somehow, in between sensory stimulation and tangible action, the activation of the neurons in our nervous system would actually have to depart from the material, interact with our non-material soul-like thing, come back to the material, and fire up the neurons needed to initiate physical action.
Moreover, if we were to accept all that - a rather big leap into the unknown, in my opinion - we would still be faced with the problem of defining free will in our soul-like things. After all, decisions come from what one is, one's identity or personality, which raises the question where that identity or personality came from in the first place. Surely we can not simply assume that one chooses ones own personality, since this leads to infinite regression. Therefore, even positing a soul or soul-like thing, that supposedly has entirely free will, would not solve the problem that one did not, in fact, choose the tendencies and reactions of that soul or soul-like thing, and therefore in fact had no choice whatsoever in what that thing would choose to do.
Paraphrasing a famous philosopher, whose name unfortunately eludes me in my current drunken state: People are free to do what they want, but not to decide what they want to do. In other words, one can choose his own actions, but not the considerations he will make in deciding on which actions to take, nor the impulses and desires that drive him towards certain actions.
Take, for example, sociopaths, who do not feel any significant form of empathy. Certainly, they never decided not to feel this. Yet for people like you and me, it is impossible not to feel it, and empathy is one of the major sources for our moral choices. Can we blame them for not possessing this fundamental source of ethical behavior?
Now, as for your conclusions on the implications my view would have on civil liberties and such... I vehemently disagree with those.
First, since certain moral standards are shared among a vast majority of people (perhaps because of genetics?), the community at large can decide to enforce those. After all, even if they do not have some sort of metaphysical, objective basis, they are a large part of the subjective experiences of most people by far, and are therefore actually "real" in the sense that they are experienced and observed by a majority of people.
Second, liberty is essential even if we lack a metaphysical form of "free will" simply because we, as individuals, are most likely to have a good understanding of the things that we, as individuals, consider valuable in life. If we were to accept that value is not an intrinsic property of things, but instead is granted to things by people, it follows that we should allow people to choose for themselves what they consider valuable, and pursue those things.
Of course, there should be a limit to the ways in which they can pursue those things. Namely, the extent to which their pursuit of the things they consider valuable is compatible to the values, goals and freedom of others. So, basically, people should be given the maximum amount of freedom that is compatible with the maximum amount of freedom for all other people.
Also, I can not agree with your assertion that people would no longer be people if they didn't have some non-causal quality driving their actions. With causality being fundamental to deliberate action, I'd argue that the very causality in human life -as well as in existence in general- is fundamental to the very notion of people as free, independent actors.
The only thing we really have to abandon is the thought that there is some higher, non-material, soul-like thing that drives us, and accept instead that our identities, shaped by genes, environment and the decisions that follow from those, are wat drive us. Since we do not know the future, every choice still requires our careful deliberation. I would say that our humanity lies in that deliberation, and ou ignorance of the future, not in some vaguely defined notion of a free will that is entirely independent of the material world.
But anyway, like I said, I'm drunk, so meh.