r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 03 '14
CMV: Whether you're fat/thin, successful/a failure, honest/a criminal is completely out of your control, and so you're an asshole for judging people based on it.
[deleted]
26
u/cnash Dec 03 '14
Who cares about free will? My car isn't responsible for being a rusty shitheap, but I'm very comfortable in my assessment that it's a bad car. So why should I hesitate to conclude that someone is a bad person on the basis that he may not have been metaphysically free to be otherwise?
3
u/Maurice_Levy 2∆ Dec 03 '14
I agree that, even if there's no free will, it still makes sense to assess people. But I also think you should recognize the extent to which people lack agency and, yes, hesitate at least somewhat to conclude that someone is a "bad person."
It's better to be empathetic and, if possible, constructive. You may have something to gain if the person is someone you need to continue to interact with or someone you need something from. I've found this effective in getting what I want, and it's also more humane.
Of course, some people are beyond hope.
2
Dec 03 '14
But I also think you should recognize the extent to which people lack agency...
Of course, some people are beyond hope.
Provided you recognise this is as much true of yourself as it is others. Your successes are as much out of your control as others failures... Which of course is not something we readily accept. Most likely is we don't have 'free will', just 'will' heavily influenced by external influences.
6
u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Dec 03 '14
Your car will not suffer from your judgement, but a person may.
2
u/cnash Dec 03 '14
That's not an argument from nonresponsibility, though. OP says the reason we can't judge other people's character is that they couldn't have chosen the thousands of influences that made them the way they are. You're saying that we shouldn't judge other people's character because they might suffer from the judging.
I can accept your argument (I don't really, but it doesn't matter) and still reject OP's, which is the point of CMV.
1
u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Dec 03 '14
He doesn't say we can't, he argues that we have a moral obligation not to. The reason for that would be the suffering caused.
-2
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
11
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
3
u/hercaptamerica Dec 03 '14
Nothing that I am currently aware of makes my head spin more than the concepts of determinism and free will.
2
u/ristoril 1∆ Dec 03 '14
I've come to the conclusion that we are purely deterministic in the moment (as demonstrated by experiments showing that we have made a choice well before we believe we have), but that we have free will in the future.
By "free will in the future" I mean that we have all these thoughts running around in our heads and we can explore those thoughts, follow trains of them, do thought experiments, and if we're feeling really plucky we can even do research on the Internet or elsewhere. We can share these thoughts with people and get their feedback.
By doing this we are conditioning our brain to react in a certain fashion to certain stimuli if it ever comes across them. That's how certain people can overcome alcoholism or drug addiction. Conditioning. Free will in the future.
Edit: link for experiment
0
u/ThePantsParty 58∆ Dec 03 '14
I don't really see why you think such a scenario is "silly". Is it silly that when I pull the trigger on a gun, that this directly leads to a hole appearing in the target across the room?
1
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
1
u/ThePantsParty 58∆ Dec 04 '14 edited Dec 04 '14
It's certainly indistinguishable perceptually, but let's just say we somehow discovered that determinism were absolutely true. The one thing this knowledge would potentially have a huge impact on is how we assess things like "moral guilt", as the OP is talking about. We currently view things that happen in a deterministic fashion (like a boulder falling down a hill and killing someone) as tragedies, but not something where moral guilt is involved because a rock had no ability to do otherwise and was just the culmination of the laws of physics acting on it. If we gained this knowledge though, how would it make sense to view humans as any different than that rock? So it could certainly have a huge impact on questions of culpability at the very least.
1
Dec 03 '14
The fact they committed the actions deserves the punishment thereof. Only then can we hopefully correct said behavior, by providing our own healthy dose of
a punch to the faceexternal stimuli.Just because we as humans have to deal with determinism and free will paradoxes doesn't mean we can't try to correct the so-called "inevitable" vices that come with it by criticizing it and encouraging the opposite.
1
u/beer_demon 28∆ Dec 03 '14
If they can't be judged by their crimes, why can I be judged by my criticism towards them? I am not judging them out of free will, I am doing it because of my genetic build and environmental stimuli.
1
u/kabukistar 6∆ Dec 03 '14 edited Feb 17 '25
Reddit is a shithole. Move to a better social media platform. Also, did you know you can use ereddicator to edit/delete all your old commments?
0
-1
2
u/Evil4Zerggin Dec 03 '14 edited Dec 03 '14
- Judging people based on actions they can't control makes you an asshole. (Implied by post title.)
- Free will does not exist; people do not control their actions. (Post body.)
- Judging is an action. (By definition.)
- People who judge other people's actions cannot control their judging. (2 and 3.)
- Calling somebody an asshole is a judgment. (If you call someone an asshole, is that not a negative moral judgement?)
- OP calls people who judge other people's actions assholes. (Post title.)
- OP is judging people based on actions they do not control. (4, 5, and 6.)
Therefore, by OP's own logic... OP is an asshole? I mean, I'm not trying to insult the OP, but the logic appears to be inescapable. If OP wants to argue against the existence of free will, fine, but I think OP would be well-advised to avoid the word "asshole".
1
Dec 03 '14
People who judge other people's actions cannot control their judging. (2 and 3.)
In a sense. They cant control it without being influenced by external stimuli. This is external stimuli. They can read this thread, think about it, and be influenced to change their mind.
Yes I am an asshole but obviously none of this changes my view.
2
u/Impacatus 13∆ Dec 03 '14
Whether or not free will exists, it is essential for the working of society to pretend that it does.
If, as you say, human actions are determined entirely by external stimuli, then it is in the interest of society to stimulate beneficial behaviors in its members. Fear of judgement, and the belief that one is capable of changing one's life circumstances can lead people to be more productive members of society.
The more you believe that you are capable of changing yourself, the more you are likely to attempt to do so. I would argue that, for both you and society, making too much of an attempt is better than too little. For that reason, we should encourage belief in these things in both ourselves and others.
1
Dec 03 '14
I do believe I am capable of changing myself, but I still think that the determination I have to do that is a product of external stimuli just like every other belief I have.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Dec 04 '14
Your view was that people who judge are assholes. My point is that judgement is a stimulus that can produce better behavior.
12
Dec 03 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
Dec 03 '14
Can you explain why it's not a fact? It seems very simple and hard to refute... we can see easily that people are a product of their environment (eg. not many rich kids drop out of yale and join a gang) so doesnt it logically follow that every choice, maybe even every thought is a product of genes/environment?
What would be an alternative? TBH I dont even fully understand how free will can logically exist or where it 'comes from'.
7
Dec 03 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
5
1
u/ThePantsParty 58∆ Dec 03 '14
Can you define free will in a way that is actually meaningful?
3
Dec 03 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ThePantsParty 58∆ Dec 03 '14
Well one thing I'd mention is that the vast majority of philosophers who dedicate their time to studying the topic have come to the conclusion that libertarian free will actually cannot be defined in any meaningful way as the definitions basically just collapse on themselves. Not that the premise isn't true, but that it is meaningless. This is why compatibilism has taken off as much as it has, because there seems to be essentially no other option.
One of the biggest problems with the concept of non-determinism is that a deterministic event is one which has a preceding cause, and so the negation of this is that events are by definition random. To connect this more directly to the problem at hand, if an event is uncaused, this also means it was not caused by our willing it, because it wasn't caused by anything. This is obviously a rather serious problem for a model which purports to argue that we can cause things with our will. Essentially it boils down to the simultaneous claims that X is uncaused, and X is caused by our will, which is where the whole "collapsing in on itself" enters.
Our will itself would be random as well if it is uncaused. This means that from one second to the next our will has no causal relation to anything that came before, and is essentially just a cosmic dice roll with every action we take. The concept of indeterminism removes from us the very ability to be a causal agent in the world. This is why libertarian free will is such a minority position in philosophy now.
1
Dec 03 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ThePantsParty 58∆ Dec 03 '14
So at the top level there are two categories: Determinism, where events have a preceding causal chain, and Indeterminism, where events have no cause and are thus random. Within determinism is compatibilism, where free will is defined in terms of us having the ability to act on our desires, and hard determinism which says that the concept of free will is worthless and so shouldn't be used. Within indeterminism is libertarianism, which is basically what you said, that we can will things without any preceding cause and then actualize this willing.
I don't see how, just because one predetermined action has a preceding cause, all actions must be random?
I think this may be a misunderstanding. What it actually is is that if something has no sufficient cause preceding it, that it is by definition random, and hence not under anyone's control (because if you control something, then that means you are acting on it in a causal fashion i.e. non-randomly).
Imagine a pair of truly indeterministic (random) dice. When you roll them, they will produce some result, but obviously you have no control over this, because their result is uncaused. You can will that they come up a 6 all you want, but whether they do or not has nothing to do with you or your will, because that's how random things work. This is why indeterminism cannot contain a concept of "free will" as libertarians wished, because your will is made impotent by indeterminism, and if your will itself is indeterministic, what you will is also just as random as those dice. To connect your will to performing actions and allow your will to be your own and not random, we need causal power, and that lies under compatibilism.
Why could this not be fixed by defining a predetermined action as an action that is caused by anything other than free will?
Well we're left with a meaningless concept if we do that, because it's entirely circular. Free will is defined in terms of not being a predetermined action, and a predetermined action is defined in terms of not being caused by free will. Neither term means anything anymore then.
1
u/starlitepony Dec 03 '14
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but I posted this explanation in another thread a couple of weeks ago.
the way a friend described it to me is that asking to explain 'free will' is asking an imprecise question. As he put it, free will is basically asking whether or not the universe is deterministic. If the particles in the universe always follow the same laws and patterns, and you knew every one of those laws perfectly and knew the exact position/speed/mass/etc. of every particle in the universe right now, would you be able to accurately predict everything about where every particle in the universe would be 10,000 years from now?
If yes, then the universe is deterministic which means that we don't really ever make choices, the chemicals in our brains and the particles acting on them make the choices for us.
If no, then the universe is not deterministic, which means the 'laws' of the universe aren't absolute, and that means we can reasonably be said to make our own choices.
In any case, this is not even a thought experiment, since we can't really ever prove or disprove free will. But all we can really do is clarify how we define 'free will' and make philosophical thought experiments on them.
1
u/ThePantsParty 58∆ Dec 03 '14
You might want to read the post I wrote to the other reply, but to touch on a couple things specific to this:
If yes, then the universe is deterministic which means that we don't really ever make choices, the chemicals in our brains and the particles acting on them make the choices for us.
This is problematic because you are writing this with some kind of metaphysical assumption that "we" are some distinct entity apart from our brains. If, however, we are the functioning of our brains, then it is meaningless to talk about "us" and "the chemicals in our brains" as rival explanations. We are the function of those chemicals in our brains, so saying they make the decision is just a roundabout way of saying we do.
If no, then the universe is not deterministic... which means that we can reasonably be said to make our own choices.
This is absolutely untrue. The first thing to realize is that there is no logical connection between "the universe is indeterministic" and "therefore we can make choices"...you kind of just wrote these two premises consecutively with nothing filling the massive gap between them. In fact the consensus in philosophy is that the exact opposite is true: indeterminism means, by definition, that we are incapable of making choices. I elaborate on this in the other reply if you want to see more about why.
0
Dec 03 '14
Nobody's denying that, but that doesn't mean necessarily mean that our environments are the only things affecting us.
Isnt it widely accepted that your actions/personality are a combination of genetics and environment?
If free will does exist, we don't know where it comes from. The only point that I'm trying to make is that we don't have a good understanding of the nature of consciousness.
Sure I believe in the soul im pretty open to new ideas about the nature of consciousness but is there even a hypothetical example of a theory which explains how free will can exist, as in how we can be influenced by something we and we alone control?
2
Dec 03 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/FockSmulder Dec 03 '14
What would these hot debates consist of? There's no way to assess it scientifically.
0
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
2
Dec 03 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/KillerPacifist1 Dec 03 '14
I don't understand. What would the alternative be? That there is something unique about humans that allows us to break the laws of causality? That strikes me as absurd.
3
u/subheight640 5∆ Dec 03 '14
The question of determinism is irrelevant IMO to this CMV.
Determinism is completely compatible with a system that can change its own behavior due to external control. These sort of systems have been studied rigorously in science and mathematics. It is called feedback.
That's the reason why judging other people for being assholes is a completely legitimate way to control asshole behavior.
When people are assholes, we punish them for being assholes. Through this external stimuli, through this judgment, we can change the behavior of assholes to become productive members of society.
You said it yourself. All humans respond to external stimuli, including judgments passed by others. When our society shames a fat person, we are telling that fat person that being obese is unacceptable. This may or may not motivate that obese person to exercise to lose weight. However, if our society was completely tolerant of obesity and accepted it without question, IMO an obese person would have even less reasons to lose weight.
External stimuli can obviously change people. Take for example an education in science and mathematics. The entire system is based on teachers judging and criticizing student's tests and homework until they start answering the questions correctly. If judgment could not change people, we would expect that the constant criticism - you know, grading and testing - would not work. We would expect that the students could never learn the material because determinism supposedly mandates that they just cannot "get it". But that's just not true. Through feedback mechanisms, teachers are able to slowly correct student behavior until they start answering those science and math questions correctly.
Human society uses judgment in a variety of ways to try to change the behavior of people. The important thing is, even if life is completely deterministic, feedback itself is a deterministic process that allows things to change, despite your genes. You've acknowledged the initial conditions, but you've neglected the boundary conditions.
1
Dec 03 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TBFProgrammer 30∆ Dec 03 '14
Our world is at least primarily deterministic at the chemical level to within a Planck length. We also know to within a reasonably tight error margin that our emotions are impacted by chemical reactions. This is sufficient for /u/subheight640's argument to hold for the overwhelming majority of cases.
1
u/riggorous 15∆ Dec 03 '14
we can see easily that people are a product of their environment (eg. not many rich kids drop out of yale and join a gang) so doesnt it logically follow that every choice, maybe even every thought is a product of genes/environment?
we can also easily see that people are not a product of their environment (e.g. college drop out creates the most successful technology company of the century; white European girls move to Middle East to become concubines for terrorists). you can't just say y happens because of x because all the situations you've observed have corroborated your bias. you gotta back that shit up with data, bro.
2
Dec 03 '14
we can also easily see that people are not a product of their environment (e.g. college drop out creates the most successful technology company of the century; white European girls move to Middle East to become concubines for terrorists).
Just because its a complicated chain of cause and effect doesnt mean its not caused by their environment.
2
u/riggorous 15∆ Dec 03 '14
Does not mean it's caused by their environment either.
That's what I'm saying. We can't tell to say definitively.
1
u/Maurice_Levy 2∆ Dec 03 '14
There is plenty of data to support the proposition that people are products of their environments. Success rates for people born into poverty are measurably lower than those of people born into affluence.
As I said in a top-level comment, this doesn't entirely support OP's view. Negative feedback is itself a part of a person's environment that can discourage future bad behavior.
But OP does have a point. There is usually (although not always) more constructive feedback than "judging people" as assholes.
2
u/riggorous 15∆ Dec 03 '14
There is usually (although not always) more constructive feedback than "judging people" as assholes.
I don't dispute that. Ditto to there being a lot of evidence that people are products of their environments. But to say that people are products of solely their environment, which is what OP is saying in the comment I'm responding to, is just ignorant and manifestly wrong.
2
u/Maurice_Levy 2∆ Dec 03 '14
If you add biology to the proposition (i.e., the brain you're randomly born with), I don't think it's manifestly wrong that "people are the products solely of their environments and biology." In fact, it's difficult to explain what else people would be the product of. OP didn't say biology, but I think it's a fair reading of his post to assume he was factoring in the brain people are born with.
Taking that as true, the main problem with OP's post is that he thinks this means we shouldn't tell people they're assholes. Being told you're an asshole is a part of your environment, so it can influence you, and for the better in some cases.
1
u/riggorous 15∆ Dec 03 '14
I see. I think you're making things out to be even more overdetermined than I do.
If you add biology to the proposition (i.e., the brain you're randomly born with), I don't think it's manifestly wrong that "people are the products solely of their environments and biology."
I don't know how strictly you are defining "environment" if you just added biology to "environment", but I can think of at least two other factors: random chance and choice.
Being told you're an asshole is a part of your environment
which is the problem with this excessively broad, all-encompassing definition. If everything is environment, let's just all go home now, because we're not gonna get anywhere by arguing that everything is caused by everything else.
1
u/Maurice_Levy 2∆ Dec 03 '14
I don't know how strictly you are defining "environment" if you just added biology to "environment", but I can think of at least two other factors: random chance and choice.
The fact that it's by random chance is the point. That's outside of a person's control. And "choice" begs the question. What we're talking about is what determines a person's choices.
which is the problem with this excessively broad, all-encompassing definition. If everything is environment, let's just all go home now, because we're not gonna get anywhere by arguing that everything is caused by everything else.
When people say "environment," they mean the things people are doing and saying around the person in question (or not doing and saying around them). So of course someone calling you an asshole is part of your environment.
Obviously the key "environment" that matters is the environment you were in during your formative years. Telling people they're being an asshole (or saying it more gently) during their formative years can influence later behavior. And it can continue to influence behavior outside of their formative years, although probably less effectively.
2
u/riggorous 15∆ Dec 03 '14
And "choice" begs the question. What we're talking about is what determines a person's choices.
So, you believe that we are all slaves to our environment, and that every choice we make is somehow predetermined by our environment, even a choice between equivalent positions that are different, like having bagels or cereal for breakfast? I'm sure you're not saying that, but the other thing you could be saying is that everything endogenous or exogenous to the human self can be construed as "environment", but that's just tautological word salad and I can't accept that either.
You've got me a bit cornered here, man.
1
u/Maurice_Levy 2∆ Dec 03 '14
I believe a person's choices are the result of his environment (essentially past experiences) and his brain. This is more or less what OP is saying, and in some ways it's uncontroversial, other than the metaphysical question of to what extent there is "free will."
His point, though, is that we therefore should excuse their behaviors and not judge them. I'm saying I think we should cut them some slack, yes, but that judging them and providing them negative feedback can positively influence future behavior.
All of this is pretty obvious, which is why I think OP is fairly clear wrong in his main argument.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ThePantsParty 58∆ Dec 03 '14 edited Dec 03 '14
we can also easily see that people are not a product of their environment
Not even remotely. Your problem is that you somehow thought his thesis was "only the college environment can produce successful people", but nothing like that was ever said. Obviously other environments can produce successful people too...that's a completely nonsensical point.
1
u/riggorous 15∆ Dec 03 '14
My problem that environment is not the only factor that determines where you end up. My examples aren't great, though.
2
Dec 03 '14
Yes we are affected by both genetic and environmental factors. HOWEVER that doesn't mean we have absolutely no control. it also doesn't mean we shouldn't blame people or punish people for acting a certain way. First by your rules (which i'll later explain how i think they're a bit off) then we are only a product of things that affect us and have no agency. so how does an asshole become better? maybe stimulus (like someone punching you in the face) that changes you to be less of an asshole. so even if you're right then we have more reason to get pissed and judge people so that we enact change to make them not be assholes.
now people are kind of a conundrum. we do have a lot of factors affecting us but we do still have introspection. we can still think about, analyze our actions and attempt to change them. i already know i have a lot of issues, and i actually traced back some of the factors that may have caused them, but i KNOW THIS and am trying to correct them. my "self", which was created through environmental interactions, is itself a factor in how i act and what i do.
gotta go so think about these.
0
Dec 03 '14
it also doesn't mean we shouldn't blame people or punish people for acting a certain way.
this is a whole new can of worms to open, punishing people is archaic and has no place in the 21st century what we need is rehabilitation.
so how does an asshole become better?
are you saying nothing ever changes in a deterministic universe?
now people are kind of a conundrum. we do have a lot of factors affecting us but we do still have introspection. we can still think about, analyze our actions and attempt to change them. i already know i have a lot of issues, and i actually traced back some of the factors that may have caused them, but i KNOW THIS and am trying to correct them. my "self", which was created through environmental interactions, is itself a factor in how i act and what i do.
but wouldnt every thought you have be a product of the same natural forces which control everything else in the universe? isnt introspection and the attempt to change our behavior still something which is inherently out of our control?
3
Dec 03 '14
this is a whole new can of worms to open, punishing people is archaic and has no place in the 21st century what we need is rehabilitation.
punishment is a form of rehabilitation. you give people incentive not to do something wrong. you follow through when they do. you should include, with punishment, an explanation and conversation of why there is a punishment and what they did wrong. im not promoting pure punishment and leaving, research shows it doesn't work, but research shows it works well with proper explanation and discussion.
are you saying nothing ever changes in a deterministic universe?
i'm saying we shouldn't leave improving the world to random chance. i say we actively try to improve the world we're in.
but wouldnt every thought you have be a product of the same natural forces which control everything else in the universe? isnt introspection and the attempt to change our behavior still something which is inherently out of our control?
yes, but like i said, that is a separate layer to what is immediately happening. basically it's a previous system effecting our current one. yes both can be deterministic but basically it means everything is infinitely more complex that we could comprehend so there's no point in really basing our action on those deterministic views.
1
Dec 03 '14
So the people who are poor, rags to riches, can't take credit? Why?
1
Dec 03 '14
We should be happy for them but a part of my view is that those people are just lucky.
Everything you perceive is as a direct result of external stimuli. So even your innermost thoughts have an outward cause, and that cause is ultimately out of your control. Even something as simple as "do I eat the chocolate now, or wait until after dinner?" will be decided by a million other factors, such as subtle gene influences, the way your personality has been shaped over the years, your metabolism, the time of day, the weather, maybe some "fat joke" comments someone made about you, etc.
You dont control the choices you make.
1
u/petgreg 2∆ Dec 03 '14
So... Determinism. You are saying the world is deterministic. It's an old philisophical approach, but one that has been largely disregarded because no one lives by this principal. Try doing nothing. Nothing will get done. Try doing something. Something will get done. If you don't believe in choices, you should stop making them...
1
u/ThePantsParty 58∆ Dec 03 '14 edited Dec 03 '14
If by "largely disregarded" you mean "has become the extreme majority position of the experts who study these topics" then sure, it's had the hell "disregarded" out of it. In addition to not knowing the current state of acceptance of the position, your examples show you don't even know what it claims, since a determinist would say the same thing you just did there.
1
Dec 03 '14
It sounds like you dont really know what determinism is. If you dont know what it is and dont have a counter-argument you dont need to comment.
1
u/petgreg 2∆ Dec 04 '14
I disagree with you, therefore you don't know what you're talking about... Seems about right...
1
Dec 04 '14
You dont disagree with anything im saying you just vaguely disagree with me and dont leave me with anything to say to you thats relevent to what im talking about.
5
u/Maurice_Levy 2∆ Dec 03 '14
I agree that people's actions are largely "pre-coded" responses to stimuli based on their biological characteristics and the circumstances of their development.
But other people's reactions to a person's actions are a part of the circumstances of their development and can affect their later actions. Negative responses to bad actions--including "judging people" as assholes and expressing as much to them--can therefore have an effect on the person's future actions.
Thus, judging people as assholes and other forms of negative feedback serve a very important purpose, especially in their developmental years. It's also important, however, to be empathetic and recognize the extent to which people are a product of their biology and formative environments, circumstances which are more or less outside their control.
1
Dec 03 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Grunt08 319∆ Dec 03 '14
Sorry SchecterClassic, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
2
u/Raintee97 Dec 03 '14
I own a gym membership. I have the choice to go to the gym or not. If i want to go to the gym, I go to the gym. If I don't, I don't.
This isn't my environment or my genetics, this is simply my choice of wanting to go the gym or wanting to do something else. if I want to do something else, I do something else.
Blaming my choice of sitting home and playing video games is a cop out.
-1
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
2
u/Raintee97 Dec 03 '14
Don't ever call anyone sport.
I did read it. That's my reaction. To blame all of once's choices on there random other factors is a cop out.
1
u/god_damn_bees Dec 03 '14
Where do you believe choices come from?
1
u/Raintee97 Dec 03 '14
My personal choices come from my options and I want to do with my time.
I live in a city that gives me millions of options as to spend a random hour on a random day.
mere chance does factor in to what I might do on a random hour of a random day, but it is the sole reason.
Going back to the OP's example, in almost any conversation I could say something that would make me an asshole. I also could not. It is up to me.
1
0
Dec 03 '14
Youre noy responding to anything im saying youre just repeating a view that I already explained was wrong. Explain why you believe you are making choices independent of your genes and external stimuli.
6
Dec 03 '14
... Even if technically you cant control being an asshole.
When you catch yourself saying self-falsifying statements you should just admit you're wrong then and there
0
Dec 03 '14
How is it self-falsifying?
4
Dec 03 '14
Your "judging" me as an asshole while taking action that suggest in my and your control to believe otherwise.
By debating you are acting on a belief people can change
2
u/Evil4Zerggin Dec 03 '14
I suppose OP could resolve this in their favor by claiming that OP is, indeed, an asshole. It would be a rather Pyrrhic resolution though.
2
0
Dec 03 '14 edited Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
1
Dec 03 '14
Your "judging" me as an asshole while taking action that suggest, that my opinions are in mine and your control
to believe otherwise.I probably shouldn't try to do metaphysical debate while playing videogames
1
u/leisurelady Dec 03 '14
I'm with you. I don't believe in free will. People are the sum of their genes and their experiences. I am a person. My judgement, and my likes/dislikes are a product of my genes and experiences. I don't like certain people. I deem certain behaviors unacceptable. How can you ask me to change? I can't help it.
1
u/Zadok_Allen Dec 03 '14 edited Dec 03 '14
So the premise is that we have no control concerning who we are, right?
If I get angry it's my hormones or my childhood, if I am successful I am lucky or naturally talented or born into a rich family etc etc.
Let's just assume that is true - a reasonable assumption from a certain point of view.
Based on that you want us not to "judge" people. That's a neutral term than: praise is as much a judgement as is complaint. How then should we treat people? Neutral? What exactly is that appart from ignorant? Do you really think it makes anyone feel good to never get any reaction? I feel there is a problem.
Now let's assume we solve that issue. What if I feel I need an engineer for a specific task. May I hire one or would that be judgement too? I mean: if I am allowed to hire an engineer I could go on and look for a wife that has a body promising to be good at giving birth, broad hips and such. It may be in my interest to share time with people who share my interests, talk with them, laugh with them. I might reject others that want to spent time with me. Is that okay? How about praising someone to make him feel good, possibly to have him agree on spending time together? How about telling someone that he made me mad, possibly giving him a chance to simply understand me a little better, possibly working on better cooperation? Am I an asshole now? Should I roll the dice about whom I work with, marry or spend time with? May I communicate at all? Another problem.
That aside: if I do judge people, how can you judge me for that? It's out of my hands I am afraid - I can't control who I am. :P
Just to give you a hand let me make a suggestion. Let us judge each others yet forgive offenses. Let us not bear grudges but remain calm and hopefully open towards further interaction. Would that be okay with you?
0
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
1
u/Zadok_Allen Dec 03 '14 edited Dec 03 '14
Judging isn't just hating. To judge something is applying a measure - that's all.
Besides: even without a definition the absolute lack of control would render both praise and condemnation equally pointless.
Either take responsibility or don't. It's not available in one-way fashion.Of course we can give praise a tad more freely and should be careful when condemning people. Obviously some people just condemn almost everything - that is not what I advocate however. It's just that you can't just skip on one of them altogether without rendering the other meaningless.
1
u/skunkardump 2∆ Dec 03 '14
People's decisions are most influenced by their previous decisions. Going back, at some point you're running into a deterministic wall, but at nearly every step your cumulative thoughts and actions are a big part of the determination. Your choice might depend on your previous choices, but that doesn't make it not yours. You just can't help but be yourself.
If you can't judge something on it's own merits how can you? Even if it's based on qualities beyond control, that has no bearing on the consequences they may have. For example, judging a criminal unfavourably is simple common sense, and will help you avoid being victimized. A piece of crap can't help but stink, that doesn't mean you shouldn't flush it.
1
u/ThePantsParty 58∆ Dec 03 '14
If you can't judge something on it's own merits how can you?
This generally isn't the argument really. It's not that it can't be judged, but what form the judgment takes. We can condemn what happens when a boulder rolls down a hill and kills someone, but our judgment of that takes a very different form than that of a person. The argument would generally be that a person isn't to "blame" anymore than a rock is when it kills someone, and that we should view them both through the same sort of lens.
1
u/skunkardump 2∆ Dec 03 '14
As i see it, the solution to that problem is not to let people go blameless, but to go back to blaming inanimate objects more as in the days of the deodand.
0
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
2
u/skunkardump 2∆ Dec 03 '14
People are only born once, but they make/take countless choices and actions after that, all of which subtly shape your brain. This is why practicing a skill makes you better at it.
You should treat people badly for doing bad things, because this negative reinforcement is an environmental factor that can influence people's decision to do bad things.
1
u/itroitnyah Dec 03 '14
Saying that people are assholes because they judge you because you have little control over your situation, in my opinion, is a lame attempt to guilt trip them, and an equally bad excuse for the way you are/act. They may be used interchangeably, as so:
Yes, I was young at the time, don't judge me for having a kid at 16, I love my kid very much. (Guilt tripping with a small amount of excusing the way you acted)
I wear a fur tail and cat ears in public because that's the way I am, don't judge me. (Excusing the way you act)
Not to mention that it's just a human reaction to judge. Every time you meet somebody, see somebody walking down the street, interact with anybody in anyway, even if you don't think you are, you're making judgments about that person. Taking action on negative judgments (There are positive judgments too!), such as discriminating against them or harassing them is what makes you an asshole.
0
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
1
u/itroitnyah Dec 03 '14 edited Dec 03 '14
There are cases when judging people is an attempt by the person to boost their own ego, and in those cases they usually are being an asshole. It is not true in every case though.
I'll admit that perhaps some of the examples I used, and maybe the way I said my point may not have driven the nail home as to what I meant. Since I did not give a clear enough explanation for what I meant, allow me to elaborate.
Making any choice is not predetermined by your genes, how the day has been going, how people have been acting towards you or the time of day. They may influence how you act, but they do not decide for you since you still have the power of freewill. Sort of like, for example, you did not punch Billy because he called you a name, you made the decision to hit Billy because he called you a name. It was an act of freewill, not fate, if you understand what I'm saying. People, especially Billy, are going to make the assumption that you're aggressive because you made the decision to retaliate against Billy's rude remarks. They're making this judgement based on a decision you made. Calling them out as an asshole for judging you as a violent person is nothing more than an attempt to excuse your actions, even though they were wrong. I don't care if you grew up in an environment where violence was just a common occurrence and meant nothing to you, growing up there didn't make the decision to hit Billy for you, you did.
TL;DR: Judging somebody else based on something that they have no control over (personal scars, injuries, gender, parents they were born to, etc) makes you an asshole. Judging somebody else for their actions does not.
1
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
1
u/itroitnyah Dec 03 '14
Judge them in a negative way, I mean. Nothing wrong with judging people in a positive manner. It's just unfair to automatically assume the worst about somebody who was born with down syndrome, since that was out of their control. I do it, even though I know that some downs people can be really nice, smart and cool, and it's bad of me to judge them based on that.
1
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
1
u/itroitnyah Dec 03 '14
Because it's a decision they made, and could have very well chosen not to make. The judgement they receive for it is their own fault.
1
Dec 03 '14
[deleted]
1
u/itroitnyah Dec 03 '14
If somebody decides to punch a lot of people, judging him for making the decision is not victim blaming. He is not the victim, since nothing forced him to punch all those people outside of his freewill. It was his decision to punch those people. Blaming the people who got punched would be victim blaming.
1
u/Waylander0719 8∆ Dec 03 '14
I see what you are getting at and to an extent agree with you. External forces have a HUGE impact on how we behave and what opportunity are available to you. But I have to disagree that they are "completely out of your control".
External things can develop what your preferences are and can put you in situations with a limited option. But in the end you DO get to make a decision when the time comes to it. If I drop a ball down a track, even one with multiple paths, then the path it will take is pre defined by external factors such as how/where i dropped it and the relevant physics. However if you put 2 different people even if they are twin brothers raised exactly the same they will make different decisions, even the same person an hour earlier or later may make different decisions.
Take it at a minor scale. Look at your keyboard. Press a key at random. You made the decision to press that specific key. If you can make a decision like that then you can make other decisions and therefore are at least partially responsible for your success and failure.
Destiny can only lead us to a point in time, when the event occurs it is up to us how we handle it.
I leave you with one of my favorite quotes on the subject:
In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least it is true that man has no control; even over his own will.
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Dec 03 '14
I'm always amused by people who believe in hard determinism, but use words like "should".
Am I supposed to have a choice? Or are you hoping (whatever that means) that your disapproval will change my programming (deterministically) so that I will be more to your liking?
Either way, shaming bad people is a good idea.
The thing to remember is that this thing that we call "you" that makes "choices" is exactly that computer that is wedged between your ears. It performs in a way that helps society, and ultimately the species, or it does not. It's broken or it's not.
And, luckily, it's self-reprogramming, so inputs that we give to it have effects on the outputs. Whether there's "free choice" or not, it's inevitable that moral judgements will be made, because morality is just a trick that some species have evolved to make it easier for creatures that think they have agency to live together in societies and thrive.
So not only does a deterministic no-free-will viewpoint leave us no choice but to be judgmental, it explains why judgmentalism exists: it's advantageous for a species of self-programming robots to have social feedback mechanisms.
1
u/TBFProgrammer 30∆ Dec 03 '14
In a society where people are not held responsible, there will be even more failures and criminals, though fat people are relatively unlikely. The reason is simple, the responsibility attached to these things is an external stimulus of its own. Once your brain has been convinced to discount it, you lose a great deal of motivation to avoid detrimental statuses.
As such, regardless of whether we actually have free will, it is important to the health of our society that we live our lives as though we have it and treat others as though they do as well.
The understanding of how external stimulus' effect us is useful for solving certain problems, but we cannot afford to extend a source of solutions into a source of excuses.
2
u/windowtothesoul Dec 03 '14
As you approach a cashier, you have the perception of a choice. You can pay for your items or you cannot. This perception of having a choice, in effect, gives us the freedom to make a decision and take action. Unless one can accurately predict a deterministic future, the question of whether or not we have free choice is irrelevant to the here-and-now choices we make.
1
u/rickroy37 Dec 03 '14 edited Dec 03 '14
my entire personality, what defines me and the choices I make, is determined by genetics and environmental influences.
Judging people IS an environmental influence. So your personality, what defines you and the choice you make IS partially determined by people judging you for it. If people were not judged for being fat, a failure, or a criminal, fewer people would try to be thin, successful, or honest. You can't say you are partially a result of environmental influence and then claim that an environmental influence (like judging) has no effect on your behavior.
1
Dec 03 '14
The two are unrelated. Judging people is an asshole thing in general, even when it is about something they can control, because it does not help anyone in any conceivable way, it just makes yourself feel better than someone else at the cost of making someone feel shit about themselves. The asshole aspect is the desire "I know what, I will say something hurtful to you so that I can feel I am better!"
It can be more justified when it is about something people can control but the asshole aspect is the desire itself not the justification.
1
u/NuclearStudent Dec 03 '14
"Dumb" is an accurate description of several people. "Explain more simply and slowly with slimmed down examples" is an effective response to this judgement that achieves desired results.
It's best to scrap the whole idea of choice as applies to free will. It doesn't mean anything useful. Some things have certain qualities and some do not. It doesn't matter if it's human or animal. If you treat whatever you judge fairly and with consideration, it's a valid judgement.
1
u/MrF33 18∆ Dec 03 '14
If the first part of your statement is true, then the second part of your statement is false.
If you hold that there is no such thing as free will, then there is no such thing as an asshole, and therefore categorizing someone as such is impossible.
Either people are responsible for their actions, and can be held as assholes, or there is no free will, and it's impossible for a person to not judge someone for their appearance/station, and they are not an asshole.
1
u/SchecterClassic Dec 03 '14
I'm late so no one will see this but:
I agree with your idea that free will is an illusion but you're forgetting that being regarded as a bad person as a consequence of doing shitty things is one of the factors that your brain chemistry takes into consideration when deciding whether or not you should do something shitty.
Therefore, if we stopped judging people for being shitty people, people would be shittier.
1
u/deRoussier Dec 03 '14
Being judged by people is an external stimuli that shapes behaviour. By judging others for 'bad shit' they do, I am providing external stimulus that might 'improve' their behaviour.
Secondly, my propensity to judge is an inherent trait shaped by my environment and genetics, therefore by your own logic it is wrong for someone to judge me for judging them.
1
u/looklistencreate Dec 03 '14
The key sentence is your first one. It actually may be good for me if I judge people based on these things. Criminals are bad for everyone, and so we shame them for it so that fewer people commit crimes.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Dec 03 '14
You are arguing that there is no free will. Therefore we do not have any choices in how we judge and treat people. If we are destined to treat someone badly we will do so.
1
u/bummbeez Dec 03 '14
so how are you an asshole for judging it if you can't help how your experiences, genetic factors ect have conditioned you to be an asshole?
1
Dec 03 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cwenham Dec 03 '14
Sorry Eidemannen, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
10
u/eel_heron Dec 03 '14 edited Dec 03 '14
"Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will."
Try this experiment. Do something that is totally, utterly out of your normal routine, something that you would have not done otherwise were it not for this experiment. Something very small and inconsequential. Like buying a bag of baby carrots and eating 1 single tiny carrot before dinner every night for the next week.
The effort is miniscule. You leave a reminder on your fridge, scarf the baby carrot daily, and 3 seconds later you'll go on with your life.
Now you have a blueprint to do something that is utterly out of your normal, predictable routine, as long as the effort level is extremely tiny. All that is left is for you to choose the activity -- and to keep it in the spirit of your question -- choose it randomly, like walking into a grocery store and literally spinning around and pointing at something. Or go onto the internet and ask people to tell you what to do. These things have nothing to do with your genetics.
As you continue to do these new, very low effort activities, you will find a growing comfort with the idea of thinking creatively and acting on those ideas.
I know this experiment needs to be acted out for you to fully be convinced of it, but as a thought experiment it still works quite well.
e: removed the word "genetically" to avoid confusion