tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068538607436646740.post119678278983385695..comments2016-07-28T19:59:06.441-07:00Comments on Consciousness and Culture: Freedom, determinism and IndeterminacyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068538607436646740.post-91525824618338292892016-07-24T09:46:15.805-07:002016-07-24T09:46:15.805-07:007:40 PM, January 31, 2006
Blogger edjog said...
No...7:40 PM, January 31, 2006<br />Blogger edjog said...<br />No,no, don't apologise. It's my lack of education that i'm seeking to correct by reading philosophical blogs.<br /><br />I got it though, the "compatibilist" stance. What i'm saying is that there are causes which effectively render will meaningless and with it individual morality. I'd agree that we should not lose sight of morality, in fact, given what we see happening these days, we need it more than ever. But i'm suggesting that we are morally responsible collectively for the immorality committed by individuals reduced to determined behaviour. Trying to hold those individuals guilty, to demonise them, merely feeds into the system of amoral responsibility avoidance, which seems a common feature of many western societies.<br /><br />To take your tracks analogy: it's like the train operator claiming no responsibility for somebody ending up at the wrong destination, blaming the passenger for getting on the only train available. Yes, the other track was there and had there been a train on it, the ultimate destination may have been different...<br /><br />9:16 PM, January 31, 2006Metamorfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16199074976158603981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068538607436646740.post-3155604185378777272016-07-24T09:45:54.785-07:002016-07-24T09:45:54.785-07:00Blogger Steve said...
This is clearly argued.
I ...Blogger Steve said...<br />This is clearly argued. <br /><br />I reject determinism as being based on an inadequate view of causality. <br /><br />But if I thought determinism was true, I could certainly sign on to such a version of compatibilism.<br /><br />7:41 AM, December 02, 2005<br />Blogger Ellis Seagh said...<br />Thanks for the comment, Steve. <br /><br />I'd be interested in hearing more about what you regard as determinism's "inadequate view of causality". For my purposes, I'd be happy to replace simple determinate causality with more of a spectrum model, in which 100% determinate is at one end, 100% random at the other, and in between are various mixtures of more or less determinate "causes" or influences. This would allow, among other things, for the possibility of so-called "stochastic" machines, such as living cells. But it still wouldn't, in my view, make it any more coherent to attempt to introduce the notion of an "agent" into such an orientation.<br /><br />9:10 AM, December 02, 2005<br />Blogger edjog said...<br />I have to say i'm unfamiliar with much of the jargon ellis, but you've laid your article out well enough for a lay person to grasp, i think. Thanks.<br /><br />What about when a person's choices are limited by their environment/experience? If they are unable to contemplate what their true "will" might be, let alone act on it, doesn't that put determinism in the ascendant? If we do accept then that "cause" can trump "will", where does that leave morality, for any person thus affected? Surely it's not logical to expect morality from a coerced person, any more than it would be from a thermostat?<br /><br />6:22 PM, January 31, 2006<br />Blogger Ellis Seagh said...<br />Thanks for the comment, edjog.<br /><br />One of the main points that I wanted to make in this -- and I apologize for the jargon, by the way -- is that will and cause are not in conflict with one another, despite the fact that it can appear as though they are. To use another metaphor, they're just not on the same track but on separate tracks, so that one really can't "trump" the other. What matters for moral responsibility, therefore, is not whether there are factors influencing certain choices -- there are always such factors, after all, for rascists, fascists, etc., as much as for "criminals" -- but whether one is, or should be aware of such choice. It can certainly happen, though, that there are circumstances where will or choice is just not available, whether through coercion, ignorance of options, or some kind of impairment -- and in those cases, as you say, moral responsibility is also reduced or absent. <br /><br />I'm certainly no expert on ethics or morality, by the way, and couldn't even play one, but I would make one additonal point: the concept of moral responsibility doesn't seem to me to be exclusive to either the political right or left, but it does seem important -- and if we let go of it, either for ourself or for others, then I think we let go of an essential aspect of our humanity.<br /><br />Metamorfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16199074976158603981noreply@blogger.com