The assumption here in that article is that the compatabilist assigns morality based on freedom. They don’t. They are not arguing that the person pushed is determined and the person who decides to jump in the pool is not determined. And it’s odd that the author, not Iambiguous, chose a non-moral situation to focus on. So, let’s move it to a situation often viewed as raising moral issues. We have a guy at the pool who is tripped by a friend and stumbles into a child who falls in the pool and gets really scared. We wouldn’t hold him - the one who got tripped - morally responsible for his action. He was tripped. Then we contrast him with someone who doesn’t like kids, and from this atittude goes and pushes a kid into the pool and the kid gets scared. The compatibilist would say that both people who impacted with the child are utterly determined. In the first case, the guy who was tripped, he is not someone who pushes kids into the pool. He does not have the attitude, nor does he have the tendency to violence or the pattern of violence. We have no reason to worry about him based on what happened. He’s not someone, for example, that we would want to ban from the pool. He’s not someone, for example, we would want to send to court-enforced anger-management training or prison. The first man’s impact with the kid was determined by the trip and the trajectories of his stumbling’. The second man who pushed the kid was driven deterministically by his anger and attitudes towards children and noise and other humans in general, we do want to hold responsible. He is dangerous. This particular act was highly determined by internal causes that indicate things about his future activities. This does not make him an exception to determinism, however it does show he is of a violent nature and is aligned with doing violence. So, a compatibilist holds him responsible for his action and not the other person for two reasons: 1) The compatibilist wants to prevent future actions of that type 2) the person is a person who wants to do violence to children. His brain cells are as determined as anyone else’s. He is not an exception to determinsm. But he is a specific guy with a specific threat to children. So, we hold him responsible. The guy who was tripped his friend. No. However his friend!!! He could be held responsible because he shows a lack of care. As far as we know that friend did not intend the child or even his friend any harm. But still he shows a lack of care and he might be held responsible and banned from the pool, for example. We wouldn’t ban the guy on the pool chair next to him who didn’t trip or push anyone. We hold the tripper and the guy who wanted to push the child responsible. Because their actions are connected to who they are, not because they are exceptions to determinism. We wouldn’t ban someone with the same name as the person who intentionally pushed the kid. We hold the person who wanted to push the child like that, even if his wants are determined. But he is someone who wants to do this, we don’t like this, we hold him and not others responsible. The action is determined in all cases. But we hold certain people responsible for both practical and moral reasons.
I’d be surprised both the author and Iambiguous wouldn’t hold people responsible for their acts, even if determinism is the case. I would guess they would dislike the guy who got up to push the child and not feel animosity towards the one who got tripped, and that both the author of the article and Iambiguous would support taking steps to remove the pool priviledges from the one who got up to push the kid, even if his attitude and action are determined. But I could be wrong. Perhaps if someone shot one of their family members because of an argument in a shopping aisle they would argue, on the grounds of determinism, that the guy should not be held responsible. They would go so far to demand the prosecutor and the judge drop the case based on determinism. But I think that’s rare. I think most reasonable people, even if it could be demonstrated to them so they had no doubt we were in a deterministic universe, would still want to keep people who like to push children out of the pools where children are. They would take steps to hold those people responsible for the pushing and either punish them or restrict their priviledges for practical reasons. And most reasonable people would probably dislike the pushers. The complete certainty that determinism is the case might lead to greater empathy for people that we neverthess hold responsible for their actions.
And this cuts the other way also for acts we like. Someone who, for example, protected out kid from a rabid pit bull, we would be grateful to and perhaps even try to reward, even if their actions were utterly determined. I can’t imagine any determinist even the hard ones simply ignoring saying anything to them like ‘thank you so much’.
Why didn’t you thank that guy, honey?
I’m a hard determinist. I don’t consider him responsible for his actions.
But, honey, he’s the guy who put himself at risk for our child. He is that person and that was his action. I got him a 100 buck gift certificate for the mall.
Further it’s important to ask why free will adds responsbility. This may seem obvious, but actually it’s not.
If someone has free will in the libertarian sense - they can do anything physically possible and neither internal nor external causes stop them from doing anything nor do they lead to their actions - why would we punish anyone or hold anyone responsible. This would mean, the guy who shot your relative did not do it because of their desires, intentions, goals, attitudes. They just randomly chose based on NOTHING in their nature. The action is not caused by their personality, tendencies, attitudes NOTHING. This would mean that everyone is as likely to shoot random people as anyone else. We are not in the least guided in our actions by our nature or nurture. There’s certainly no practical reason to put anyone in prison. We’d all be equally likely to do anything. Further the action would have nothing to do with us.
But no one seems to look at this aspect of libertarian free will. They just assume things about what it entails. Most people who believe in free will are actually compatiblists: they just don’t realize it.
In any case, I’d like to see an argument based on determinism that says it is wrong or confused to hold people responsible for their actions in the ways we do. What is wrong with holding the person who pushes kids around responsible for his actions and what do you recommend we do, given your philosophy?
Not mere incredulity and questions, but an actual attempt to demonstrate why holding people responsible would be wrong or confused, with concrete examples, so not just up in the clouds as you would say. What’s wrong with holding people responsible in the concrete and attitudinal ways I mentioned about the kid pusher? And would you not hold him responsible in a determinist universe? What would that entail in concrete terms, not in up in the clouds terms?