And you have an overwhelming desire to mindlessly attack other people.
She’s saying that we can say that you had free will at some prior point in time t if and only if you were able to make a different choice than the one you made at that point in time t. She’s also adding that the circumstances must be exactly the same ( nothing about the universe is allowed to be different, not even your mind. )
It’s merely one of many different ways that the concept she’s attaching to the term “free will” can be defined. She didn’t really have to define it in terms of some past moment, it’s merely a common and a convenient way to do it. It has absolutely nothing to do with your pathetic psychologisms.
As an example, she could have said that we can say that you have free will at some future point in time t if and only if you are able to make a different choice than the one you will make at that point in time t. No past is mentioned at all, and yet, we have just described the same exact concept. You can also define it in terms of the present moment if you want, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
If you raise everyone’s awareness, from the time they are babies, to consider themselves as others & vice versa… for both whatever harms and whatever helps… these things will happen less… kids will call adults out on their shit more… “economics as a discipline” will be completely transformed… the language of “human resources/capital” will fade away…
…which is why the blind destroy religion to keep the world blind.
If will is not free (which the author has proved), the question is: how can we blame anyone for anything? This impasse confounded philosophers down through the ages, for if we don’t blame, they believed responsibility would decrease and people would take advantage left and right. This is not true, as the author clearly shows.
How is this not determinism, and how does this allow some to get away with exerting their will over others … some getting away with exerting their will over others (i.e., the bullies and the criminals) when this is the very behavior that is prevented? He demonstrates that once it is confirmed by science that will is not free and, as a result, the world veers in a completely new direction of no blame (which involves many changes that must take place before this principle can work effectively [such as revamping the economic system whereby no one is without the basic necessities of life]), then the desire to strike others with a first blow (an unprovoked strike) will no longer be desirable.
¿so how does he account for the fact that here we are in a situation where there was definitely a first blow before any of the crap happened that he wants to change?
Before this principle can be effective, we have to remove all blame from the environment. We also have to remove all critical judgment by others since this is an advance accusation that gives justification to do that which is being judged.
As we follow the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, which will act as an infallible slide rule and standard as to what is right and wrong while solving the many problems that lie ahead, we will be obeying the mathematical wisdom of this universe which gives us no choice when we see what is truly better for ourselves. By removing all forms of blame which include this judging in advance of what is right and wrong for others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice from being struck. This corollary is not only effective by your realization that we (all mankind) will never blame you for any hurt done to us, but also by our realization that any advance blame, this judging of what is right for someone else strikes the first blow since it is impossible to prevent your desire to hurt us by telling you we will never blame this hurt when we blame the possibility by telling you in advance that it is wrong. In other words, by judging that it is wrong to do something, whatever it may be, we are blaming the possibility of it being done which only incites a desire to challenge the authority of this advance accusation that has already given justification. Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want which hurt us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right for someone else.
.
That is true, but only under certain conditions. If we just stopped blaming right now, all hell would break loose. That’s why it’s so important to read what he wrote in its entirety, not just read small excerpts that can easily be taken out of context.
You are claiming that if you stop blaming people they will stop hurting others, right?
“Blaming” people for their crimes is not the cause of them committing said crimes.
People don’t hurt others because they are blamed for hurting others, they are blamed because they hurt others. You are putting the cart before the horse. That is NONSENSE!
You know why someone is blamed for a crime they committed? Because they committed the crime. You know why they committed the crime? Because they needed cash and that was in their opinion an easy way to get cash.
They killed someone trying to get easy cash because the person resisted giving them the cash.
When the store owner pulled a gun and sounded the alarm the robber shot and killed them. When the police viewed the video they arrested the robber and BLAMED him for killing the store owner.
What you are trying to say is that the robber killed the store owner because the police blamed him for the crime. OUTRAGEOUS!
Ok, so s/he does agree there is free will. And we can know that right now.
There is absolutely nothing you can know by looking forward/back that you cannot know by looking at now.
Can you say yes/no? Then you have free will.
Is someone stopping you from saying yes/no? Then they are violating what you have: free will.
Hence, withholding opportunity/information (not giving proper informed consent) is a violation of free consent/refusal (pull/push)… free will. Did she give you power of attorney? That’s the release part. DNRs without consenting over power of attorney… violation of free will.
Your disbelief is understandable. I just hope people will give this author the benefit of the doubt.
That’s not it at all. Knowing in advance that, if caught, he would be blamed and punished, gives this individual the advance justification he needs in order to follow through with what he is contemplating. I refuse to type the entire chapter just because you don’t believe that the author has a discovery. It’s right here to read. declineandfallofallevil.com … APTERS.pdf
[i]“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it was not for the laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will be no consequences or explanations necessary? In the previous example it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”
“These are thoughtful questions but they are like asking if it is mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would you do if it is done? How is it possible for B (the father) to retaliate when it is impossible for B to be hurt? Contained in this question is an assumption that deliberate and careless hurt will continue. As we proceed with this investigation you will understand more clearly why the desire to hurt another will be entirely prevented by this natural law.”
“Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far, I still don’t understand how or why this should prevent man from stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered; and how is it humanly possible for those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse his conduct?”
“We are right back where we were before, the fiery dragon – but not for long. Now tell me, would you agree that if I did something to hurt you, you would be justified to retaliate?”
“I certainly would be justified.”
“And we also have agreed that this is the principle of an eye for an eye, correct?”
“Correct.”
“Which means that this principle, an eye for an eye, does not concern itself with preventing the first blow from being struck but only with justifying punishment or retaliation, is this also true?”
“Yes it is.”
“And the principle of turning the other cheek, doesn’t this concern itself with preventing the second cheek from being struck, not the first cheek?”
“That is absolutely true.”
“Therefore, our only concern is in preventing the desire to strike this first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”
“It’s very easy, in fact. I am not a college graduate, and I can even see that relation.”
“Let us further understand that in order for you to strike this first blow of hurt, assuming that what is and what is not a hurt has already been established (don’t jump to conclusions), you would have to be taking a certain amount of risk, that is, you would be risking the possibility of retaliation or punishment, is that correct?”
“Not if I planned a perfect crime.”
“The most you can do with your plans is reduce the element of risk, but the fact that somebody was hurt by what you did does not take away his desire to strike a blow of retaliation. He doesn’t know who to blame but if he did, you could expect that he would desire to strike back. Consequently, his desire to retaliate an eye for an eye is an undeniable condition of our present world as is also your awareness that there is this element of risk involved, however small. This means that whenever you do anything at all that is risky you are prepared to pay a price for the satisfaction of certain desires. You may risk going to jail, getting hanged or electrocuted, shot, beaten up, losing your eye and tooth, being criticized, reprimanded, spanked, scolded, ostracized, or what have you, but this is the price you are willing to pay, if caught. Can you disagree with this?”
“I still say, supposing there is no risk; supposing I was able to plan a perfect crime and never get caught?”
“I am not denying the possibility but you can never know for certain, therefore the element of risk must exist when you do anything that hurts another.”
“Then I agree.”
“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to reveal a third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay the fiery dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal my discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles “an eye for an eye” and >turn the other cheek, and open the door to this new world.”[/i]
Outrageous. To claim you are justified in commiting a crime because you will be blamed and punished when caught is quite frankly stupidity. If you really believe that then you should seek professional help immediately. You clearly have some chemical imbalance thing going on inside your head.
It’s not blame that causes a person to strike a first blow, but knowing in advance that he will be blamed and punished, if caught, allows him to shift his responsibility to something other than himself. This allows his conscience to permit said behavior. You don’t understand yet (because you haven’t read it) why conscience will not permit the behavior when it cannot be justified. Once again: Removing the blame takes away his ability to shift to someone or something else what IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY because no one is blaming him. This would be a terrible position to be in because there would be no justification for the act, which conscience cannot handle and would not allow.
Philosophy forums aren’t about books. They are about arguments. So instead of asking people to read Lessans’s book ( or worse, to buy it ), you should actually present well written arguments in favor of the ideas that are expounded in the book. Thus, if you want to convince others that if we all stopped blaming people at the same time that there would no longer be any crime in the world, you should present a clear argument in favor of that claim. I don’t see you doing that. Instead, all I’m seeing is you claiming that it’s impossible to do so ( which I highly doubt ) and you complaining about other people not reading the book.
What the hell are you talking about, Magnus? That we need to go back in time, prove that we could have made other decisions, otherwise Free-Will cannot exist? How ridiculous is this? Is this really what you believe? Peacegirl has her own excuses, you don’t.
She could have said that…
…but she didn’t. So she’s not free under her own conditions. But at least she actually answers the question in this thread, unlike you. Feel free to do that, anytime, when you’re ready. Maybe use peacegirl as your inspiration for philosophical courage and exposition??
I’m glad that peacegirl answered and defends her position. If she has ulterior motives, then so be it. Nobody is perfectly unbiased anyway. Everybody has some small flaws of some kind; others have big flaws that cannot be overlooked. Psychology does matter when it comes to ‘Determinism’ because the rational processes by which people justify their actions, differ from person to person, group to group, society to society. Morality is diverse. People are beholden to it. In the case of peacegirl, it’s obvious that her moral system is very rigid and extensive, and prevents her (completely) from how she views “free-will”. She admits that she has none, but incorrectly believes her case applies to everybody else.
She does this because she erroneously believes her moral virtues apply to everybody else, and her values are above others’. This is why peacegirl seems incapable of taking a criminal’s rationalization or justification ‘equally’ to her own. It’s not a matter of “Truth”, as she recently claimed. Because if it were, then the criminal’s justification can be equally valid to her own. This is why free-will, Determinism, etc. all become muddy when it comes to morality, virtue, righteousness, and the values people live by. A drug dealer has a different set of values.
That doesn’t say much about who is Free and why, versus who is not. Can a drug dealer “freely” choose his profession and lifestyle. I don’t see why not. Where’s your opinion?
And you’re missing the point. They are EQUIVALENT definitions. They are describing ONE AND THE SAME concept in different ways. There is no difference between “the ability to make a different choice than the one that was made if one was able to go back in the past” and “the ability to make a different choice than the one that will be made”. They refer to one and the same ability. They are merely two different descriptions of it.
Sure, let’s forget about the fact that, beside being a clueless moron, you’re an ass that any group of self-respectful people would have kicked out by now.