Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Post Reply New Topic

in my experience, free will is an illusion.

I have no choice but to believe in free will.

The problem with arguments regarding free will is there’s no way you can definitively say whether the will is ACTUALLY free or if it’s an illusion. You end up pretty much accepting free will as self-evident and building other arguments on that axiom. You aren’t going to prove to anyone that free will exists. You have no need to.

I also think it’s useful to define what free will actually is. I don’t define free will as total freedom. There are rational and physical limits to one’s freedom. You don’t get to choose your biological parents or what sex you were born or what home you lived in as a child or your genetics or your school, etc. Theologically the problem of free will is that, even if you say you are free to choose, God is omniscient and already knew what you would FREELY choose. Plus, God choose how or if He would intervene in your free choices, so...were you actually free to choose?

The opposite also holds. If you assume that there is no free will at all, how can you know that had you been free to choose that you would have freely chosen any other way? The outcome is always the same whether the will is free or not.

Because of that, it’s more useful to go with the free will paradigm. Whether or not it’s an illusion, it has the most explanatory power.

Your not understanding. If your parents were programmers, you’d be better positioned to learn deep programming beginning at an earlier age and possess a high level of skill before pursuing a degree or a career. Heck, you might not even need to go to school at all if you WANTED a programming career. Or if you wanted a different career and you were already breaking even in programming, you could easily support yourself on the way to doing something else. Or if for whatever reason you just had no talent for programming in spite of your parents, you ought to be able to study or apprentice with someone who does what you ARE good at.

The world we live in doesn’t really work that way. I’m just saying how I choose to train my own kids, but a few specialized fields like music and race car driving do benefit from multiple generations having worked in them and accrued decades or even centuries of experience. There are famous pianists who can trace their “lineage” back to Chopin or Beethoven, for instance. Not literal bloodline, but instructional. Czerny’s pedagogical works are absolutely priceless and show direct influence from how Beethoven approached teaching the piano. Bach came from two or so generations of musicians, and some of his children became renowned musicians and composers. Miley Cyrus owes a lot of her fame to being born into the entertainment industry.

People “make it” all the time without being born into it. I’m not opposed to kids studying hard, working hard, and doing whatever they want. I prefer a meritocracy provided everyone has the freedom to merit something. I’m just saying that parents, inherited wealth, and early work and accomplishment helps. A child would be foolish not to exploit what he’s born with and stand on his parents’ shoulders. I think what more often happens is parents use school more as a babysitting service so they don’t have to bother with actually raising their kids, most jobs don’t allow kids at work, anyway, and parents allow their kids to decide for themselves what they’d rather do and just leave them to it. If you’ve had children and insisted that they learn to do what you do and don’t allow them to choose otherwise, you’ll know how difficult it is, how firm you have to be, and how much patience it takes. It’s much more difficult to place demands on kids like that because it takes freakin WORK. Most people just prefer going the old participation trophy route. I don’t do that, but it means that my life has been more difficult as has my children. Thing is...and this is my main point...there’s no owner’s manual that tells you in definitive terms what to teach or how to teach. There’s just a bunch of people who have their own little ideas about what worked for THEM but really have no idea what to tell YOU. Same for parenting. My mom was born while WWII was raging and remembers picking cotton and milking cows by hand—education and marriage were tickets to a life away from the farm. I was born about the time personal computers were showing up in people’s homes. My children were born just before the bottom fell out of the housing market—their first computer was a single-board that cost $35. Unlike my parents, we didn’t have the luxury of grandparents who could help out or offer advice. My grandmother raised me while my own mom can’t put enough distance between herself and my children. We’re just making this up as we go. So we ask the questions: what did our own parents do RIGHT? Ok, let’s do that. What made me hate my own dad so much? So let’s NOT do that. What matters the most to us? Let’s make sure that same thing matters most to our own kids, or at least raise them demonstrating our values.

Dang it...was there not another reply here somewhere?

I was trying to edit but somehow it got deleted.

The thing is though AngelRho is with all of your responses you're proving my point. The control over our own lives is limited and constrained. Personal responsibility presumes that we have all of this control when it is not so. All of your words on this thread don't refute what I say but give credence to what I say.

The american version of personal responsibility is a crock and life, existence or whatever you want to call it is more complex then how people in the USA view it.

It is true that I do have control over my life but that control is constrained.

Free Will:

Let's say I have the numbers 1-10. I create a random number generator that randomly picks out a number. But, Here is the thing I can code the generator to where I can have it pick out a number 1-4 more times then any other number.

That's the thing with free will as well. To me the answer to the free will vs determinism argument is that life consists somewhat of both free will and it is somewhat determined as well. If certain conditions exist a person is more likely to choose out of a subset of a set of decisions he has. And, these decisions help to influence what decisions he will have and what he thinks he has in the future.

Now let us complicate this up. Other people's decisions depending upon who they are influence the decisions I think I will have and I will make as well. Similar to the random number generator. This is the problem with personal responsibility. Choice is constrained.

My opinion: I feel as though personal responsibility advocates are unreasonable and unfair towards others and demand things which are impossible.

Another thing, if certain things can't be explained that is key to living and functioning in life, and that person can't derive it himself then is it his fault or lack of responsibility for his circumstance? If there are certain cases in which one doesn't know right from wrong and it can't be explained then is it my fault that I do wrong? If there are no steps that guarantee one anything and he fails in life then how can one claim lack of personal responsibility? How does it make sense?

My answer. It does not. The USA's standards and values contradict themselves. The culture makes it seem like one has more control over one's life then one really does. What you have is a culture that not only lies to each other but lies to themselves and believes their own lies. The truth of the matter is not everyone can and will make it in the USA no matter how hard they work. Best hope some can have is to simply scrape by if even that.

The USA is an extremely individualistic and opportunistic environment with no sense of community at all. And, objectivism and randianism is the epitome of this.

Here is what objectivism is. It is a rational sounding philosophy that is the philosophy of me. What is the gain for me? How may others benefit me? It is a philosophy in which benefitting oneself is the greatest cardinal virtues and doing for others w/o expectation of return is the greatest of sins. It is a philosophy in which if it would benefit oneself, one would lie. There is no sense of we or any sense of community at all. There is no sense of helping someone because it is simply the right thing to do.

What kind of society could you all imagine that is like this? A society of where it is all about me? Well, you don't have to. It's what we have today.

Your main problem is you’ve already chosen to see it your way. You won’t reasonably consider the possibility another view might actually be right.

There are some tremendous flaws in your thinking regarding objectivism. Ayn Rand did not write much about compassion or generosity because a lot of what people think of in terms of those is bound up in deadly altruism. Societal and church DEMANDS that people be compassionate towards others and generous benefitted anyone but the individual. Society and church defined those things a certain way such that people through guilt gave up their agency and supported governments and church without even asking where the money was going or what those entities were doing. Mother Theresa was a classic example. Rich Catholics gave generously so they wouldn’t have to worry about the flames of hell, but beyond that could not be bothered to actually help those in need. That’s what Mother Theresa was for. And rather than working to get medical treatment for people in need, she taught patients suffering and death were good for them. Rather than trying to save lives, she focused on helping people die. She took all that money to help the dying and couldn’t even be bothered to buy painkillers. That’s not compassionate or generous. That’s corrupt. Ayn Rand never would have had a problem with altruism if people willingly gave in support of each other and all needs were met. But she recognized the inherent corruption within that system. At the bottom you have needy people who are easily manipulated into feeling envy and hatred for those among them who achieve. At the top you have greedy people grabbing at things they haven’t earned. The flow of wealth is always away from the poor into the hands of those who make empty promises to help while the only people they help are themselves. Ayn Rand basically said that what is good for society is NOT good for the individual, but rather what benefits the individual ultimately benefits society.

By extension, compassion and generosity are the result of those who achieve having the freedom and ability to reinvest into society based on their values for society. We always CAN achieve more by working together, and true generosity and compassion is bound up in meaningful trade among individuals. According to Rand, love is a manifestation and expression of value for another person, something they have earned by simply being who they are. My wife doesn’t owe me anything for being my wife. It’s the opposite. I owe her BECAUSE she’s my wife, and she’s already given me what I want by just being my companion. Compassion and generosity are products of love, which is not possible unless people act selfishly. Jesus said, “love your neighbor as yourself.” People get caught up with the love your neighbor bit and forget about the rest of phrase. If you don’t love yourself, you cannot love another person.

The other HUGE flaw in your thinking is the assumption that the USA is an individualistic nation. If the most recent election is any accurate indication, it is that Americans prefer others do their thinking for them. Objectivists are by far in the minority here. Americans prefer collectivism and mob rule. I’d love to see a shift in popular opinion away from that, but this has a been a steady pattern in American society for the last century, and I think it will take something catastrophic to change that.

With free will, to use your random numbers analogy, sure, there is no complete freedom with random numbers when you give them limits. However, you are acting as an independent, individual agent in choosing how to limit those random numbers.

The argument over free will has to do with relevancy. You cannot prove free will any more or less than you can prove determinism. There is ALWAYS a valid counter argument, and you cannot simply “win” because you get the final word. Free will or determinism must be ASSUMED in order to make other arguments based on them, but they themselves cannot be rationally argued. I do not accept the premise of determinism beyond the power of the individual to behave according to his own freely-chosen, predetermined limits. Is determinism really relevant to a discussion of free will? No, because in the sense that both terms are normally used, they are just ways of expressing the same thing while creating the illusion that they are opposites. If free will is an illusion, then determinism is just the illusion that one can escape his own responsibility. Determinism has no place in a free-will discussion unless one can allow for self-determinism.

Free will, however, can still be free even if the sense intended is limited. I have the ability and freedom to commit murder. I simply lack the desire to do it, plus I value human life too much to ever want to do it. Laws and law enforcement do exist as a deterrent, but no law can stop me if that’s what I set my mind to do. Deterministic limits to free will are, more often than not, self-imposed. As another example, I did not choose the circumstances of my birth. I do have control many other things that that happen after. I chose to get married, I chose to impregnate my wife, I chose my career path, my church, etc. You are not free to NOT have free will, but you are free to use it. Deterministic arguments for things tend to be more difficult, whereas free will is less so, hence why I prefer free will over determinism.

Oh, and no...that was not a logical argument intended to prove why everyone should just go with free will. It was simply an explanation of why I think it is EASIER. The logic is how one might have a preference for what is most expedient, not what would be most logical in and of itself. As I said, if one is an illusion, so must the other one be. So I CHOOSE free will based on personal preference. You COULD choose determinism, but that’s your choice (yes, that was internally inconsistent. See what I did there?)

There is no 100% free will.

There is no 100% determinism, despite what the Calvinists want you to believe.

It’s all relative and individual, really.

Philosophical speculation and analysis will not yield THE answer.

Indeed.

Free will in theology is too often misunderstood, I think, and there's not much point in getting into those kinds of debates. Of course the will is not completely free, but that does not mean that it isn't free at all. I've had this discussion before with someone who pointed out that God is omniscient and knows all choices we'll ever make. Basically, I said that humans are NOT omniscient, though, and without having knowledge of God's will or any direct predetermined paths God has for us, we cannot be said to behave in any obviously deterministic way. If, however, we were omniscient, we'd already know all about God and the proper relationship we have with God and fall right in line with our roles in that plan. We would essentially be pre-programmed robots incapable of any real desire to explore God's will and would lack freedom to accept or reject God. With free will, you can say that while God already knows what you are already going to freely choose, by no means does that negate free will itself.

From the Treatise of Zera Yacob (1599-1692), Ethiopian philosopher...

... God created man to be the master of his own actions, so that he will be what he wills to be, good or bad.  If a man chooses to be wicked he can continue in this way until he receives the punishment he deserves for his wickedness.  But being carnal, man likes what is of the flesh; whether they are good or bad, he finds ways and means through which he can satisfy his carnal desire.  God did not create man to be evil, but to choose what he would like to be, so that he may receive his reward if he is good or his condemnation if he is bad.  If a liar, who desires to achieve wealth or honours among men, needs to use foul means to obtain them, he will say he is convinced this falsehood was for him a just thing. To those people who do not want to search, this action seems to be true, and they believe in the liar's strong faith.

Just sayin'.

Is it true that free will is often misunderstood or is it not explained that well by those who spread the message of Christianity?

If you all believe that a good chunk of the population don't understand this concept and possibly others and if you all want to get your message out then explain things better.

Actually, you're right about this. It is not a true individualistic nation at all as claimed. The weird thing is we're expected to be ourselves like everyone else. When you question this people will deny this.

The strength of the USA is its openness to opportunity and achievement. The down side is that by logical necessity that openness must include the conscious rejection of that same level of opportunity. A truly free society must accept that achievement cannot be forced on anyone, nor can anyone be compelled to succeed. The prevailing thought expressed by those in power is that everyone MUST succeed equally without the usual effort made in gaining success. For young people these days, this takes the form of entitlement. It’s also evident in identity politics and victim classes (I’m [minority] and therefore special, therefore you owe me wealth just for breathing). Even if objectivism happened to be the predominant philosophy, it still has to accept that some people will freely choose to be losers. The difference between a collectivist society such as ours and an objectivist one would not be less compassion and generosity. There would actually be MORE compassion and generosity. But at the same time there would be less tolerance and reward for looters and parasites. And no, I do NOT believe disabled people are parasites. What I mean is mediocrity and laziness are actually REWARDED and the efforts of achievers are diminished by participation trophies in various forms.

Objectivists in the USA manage to live worlds apart from those opposed to individual achievement. Staying apart from the influence is the only thing that keeps us optimistic about humanity. Now if we can limit taxes to only funding a minimalist government, law enforcement, and military/emergency services, we’ll be in great shape.

i didn't choose to be a "loser" and nobody really does, that is a big objectist FAIL for any to actually believe 1]free will is infallible, and 2]that people consciously choose to be down and out and homeless. it just happens. it happened to me no matter what i wanted. $#!+ happens for any reason at all. or for no reason. it just does. a lucky few elude it. but most at least get a splashback from the S#!+ that attacks us mere mortals who were children of a lesser god.

There are those who do choose to be losers. Even objectivists acknowledge there are life circumstances that really are beyond our control.

i did NOT choose it, IT chose ME.