They say we’re like dominos, doing life deterministically. Yet have no problem saying things like “You could have done otherwise.” Confusing? That’s the point. I call bullshit.
I'm warming to compatabilism but I see the harm in keeping terminology like "they deserve it" As I understand Compatabilism its about acting in a way that is consistent with your own beliefs. You cant choose differently but you also don't want to. I really think the world is mostly if not completely, deterministic. But Compatabilism is a way for me to find meaning and a bit of peace in a deterministic world.
Personally have a hard time sustaining a reactive attitude in favor of punitivity or even moral meritocracy.
I think moral blame and praise might be a net harm. I think we can have deterrent and incentive without “basic desert moral responsibility” language.
Industries and governments rely on it, for reasons that have to do with fear, ignorance and selfishness.
Compatibilism is valid but needs to stop hijacking words. Desert language is loaded with libertarian free will, damaged goods absent a lot of qualification. But if you can admit this and work with me on it, we have a deal.
Love how you nail the linguistic sleight-of-hand here. Compatibilists want to keep desert talk becuase it feels pragmatic, but really they're just protecting the status quo from uncomfortable scrutiny. If "deserve" doesn't mean what people think it means in common usage, then yeah, that gap is doing real work in justifiying cruelty. The refusal to clarify isn't neutral, its a choice.
Thanks. Yes that’s the crux of my point. In fairness, some comps go on record denying that people mean “deserve” in the folk sense. That just doesn’t ring true to me. I merely look back on my own usage of deserve back when I believed wholeheartedly in “basic desert moral responsibility,” prior to having thought it thru or prior to being emotionally ready to do so. When Dennett for example denies that desert-language ever means basic desert, I think he’s flat wrong. But that’s sort of where his agreed to disagree, in his debates with Sapolsky, Caruso, and Harris. Would have loved to been in on that debate to push him on that. If you want to see it play out, the Caruso one was made into a book. And the others can be found for free on YouTube or various podcasts.
Not sure it’s realistic to evolve the language quickly, my point is more exactly what you said, simply acknowledging that gap is doing work in justifying cruelty and it’s a choice.
What distinction between subj obj and determinism? Don’t know about that. I do know that I’m a hard incompatibilist so regardless of whether determinism is false I still don’t intuit that moral responsibility is a coherent concept.
Maybe but we still have to decide what to do. We can’t just think forever. When time is up and we’re faced with whether to morally blame or not, we have to pick a side. Not picking a side is itself picking a side. That’s called a forced choice and it’s very real. Pointing out the limits of our wisdom and knowledge, the egocentric predicament, is fine until a decision must be made.
If I see a person shoved from behind into a shelf of fine glass china, I’m not going to blame the person who got shoved. Because I don’t think that person who flew into the shelf and broke everything could have done otherwise. It was caused in a way that, ultimately, all things are caused. It informs us on how to prevent it in the future but to me it’s morally neutral.
Thus, when I am forced to decide how to handle it, I’m going to take that on board, regardless of the subject/object problem.
It’s where real life collides with our beliefs that we must act with vigor even when perennial disputes aren’t fully resolved. Wisdom is the art of figuring out what to do based on what we believe and feel. We ought do what is sustainable and reduced suffering and increase wellbeing at scale, over the long arc and in accordance with our values.
So concerning free will, to me that means sorting out our intuitions and the operationalizing them such that we can maximize wellbeing and not be plagued by cognitive dissonance whispering in our ear, and we don’t want permission to blame and praise beyond what our best angels already tell us about fairness. I understand reasons-responsiveness and why some think that alone warrants moral responsibility. I just don’t share that intuition. Most don’t, as evidenced by x-phi and post reflective states, post Pereboom. I think that’s more actionable than involving subject/object problems when figuring out what to DO, rather than just navel gaze about what is.
Both matter, one seems more urgent, and that’s why it seems best to approach free will discussion ina normative applied way rather than only muse about it under the Bodhi tree.
Great piece! I’m totally taking the invitation to keep the debate going…
Go for it, but I read you piece and I’m not sure you’re understanding mine.
I'm warming to compatabilism but I see the harm in keeping terminology like "they deserve it" As I understand Compatabilism its about acting in a way that is consistent with your own beliefs. You cant choose differently but you also don't want to. I really think the world is mostly if not completely, deterministic. But Compatabilism is a way for me to find meaning and a bit of peace in a deterministic world.
I don’t have a problem with that.
Personally have a hard time sustaining a reactive attitude in favor of punitivity or even moral meritocracy.
I think moral blame and praise might be a net harm. I think we can have deterrent and incentive without “basic desert moral responsibility” language.
Industries and governments rely on it, for reasons that have to do with fear, ignorance and selfishness.
Compatibilism is valid but needs to stop hijacking words. Desert language is loaded with libertarian free will, damaged goods absent a lot of qualification. But if you can admit this and work with me on it, we have a deal.
Love how you nail the linguistic sleight-of-hand here. Compatibilists want to keep desert talk becuase it feels pragmatic, but really they're just protecting the status quo from uncomfortable scrutiny. If "deserve" doesn't mean what people think it means in common usage, then yeah, that gap is doing real work in justifiying cruelty. The refusal to clarify isn't neutral, its a choice.
Thanks. Yes that’s the crux of my point. In fairness, some comps go on record denying that people mean “deserve” in the folk sense. That just doesn’t ring true to me. I merely look back on my own usage of deserve back when I believed wholeheartedly in “basic desert moral responsibility,” prior to having thought it thru or prior to being emotionally ready to do so. When Dennett for example denies that desert-language ever means basic desert, I think he’s flat wrong. But that’s sort of where his agreed to disagree, in his debates with Sapolsky, Caruso, and Harris. Would have loved to been in on that debate to push him on that. If you want to see it play out, the Caruso one was made into a book. And the others can be found for free on YouTube or various podcasts.
Not sure it’s realistic to evolve the language quickly, my point is more exactly what you said, simply acknowledging that gap is doing work in justifying cruelty and it’s a choice.
Hey you’re a quick study. 🤔
What distinction between subj obj and determinism? Don’t know about that. I do know that I’m a hard incompatibilist so regardless of whether determinism is false I still don’t intuit that moral responsibility is a coherent concept.
Maybe but we still have to decide what to do. We can’t just think forever. When time is up and we’re faced with whether to morally blame or not, we have to pick a side. Not picking a side is itself picking a side. That’s called a forced choice and it’s very real. Pointing out the limits of our wisdom and knowledge, the egocentric predicament, is fine until a decision must be made.
If I see a person shoved from behind into a shelf of fine glass china, I’m not going to blame the person who got shoved. Because I don’t think that person who flew into the shelf and broke everything could have done otherwise. It was caused in a way that, ultimately, all things are caused. It informs us on how to prevent it in the future but to me it’s morally neutral.
Thus, when I am forced to decide how to handle it, I’m going to take that on board, regardless of the subject/object problem.
It’s where real life collides with our beliefs that we must act with vigor even when perennial disputes aren’t fully resolved. Wisdom is the art of figuring out what to do based on what we believe and feel. We ought do what is sustainable and reduced suffering and increase wellbeing at scale, over the long arc and in accordance with our values.
So concerning free will, to me that means sorting out our intuitions and the operationalizing them such that we can maximize wellbeing and not be plagued by cognitive dissonance whispering in our ear, and we don’t want permission to blame and praise beyond what our best angels already tell us about fairness. I understand reasons-responsiveness and why some think that alone warrants moral responsibility. I just don’t share that intuition. Most don’t, as evidenced by x-phi and post reflective states, post Pereboom. I think that’s more actionable than involving subject/object problems when figuring out what to DO, rather than just navel gaze about what is.
Both matter, one seems more urgent, and that’s why it seems best to approach free will discussion ina normative applied way rather than only muse about it under the Bodhi tree.
https://galan.substack.com/p/hitting-a-wall-on-the-free-will-debate?r=1xoiww&utm_medium=ios
I don’t see it as pointless. It directly informs my values in terms of how I act.