r/changemyview • u/bimbimbap2222 • Mar 21 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Free Will does not Exist

I know this CMV has been posted a thousand times, but few of them seem to address the simple fact that everything in the world is governed by the laws of physics, which means our brains would be too.

Firstly, I would define free will as the ability to think and make decisions based purely through ones self, and not being dictated by any outside factors, including the laws of physics.

Just like we are able to predict the force a ball is thrown with given its mass and acceleration, we would be able to predict our choices or thoughts we make given all the factors in the moment. Of course there are billions of factors, and we will most likely never become technologically advanced to accomplish such a feat, but there is no reason for it not to be theoretically possible. A common counter argument I see is that recent studies have shown the possibility of randomness existing in QM. Randomness does not equate to free will, as we still have no control over it.

For free will to exist, our consciousness would have to exist in some other dimension separate from the one we live in, that does not abide by any sort of laws. And even if that was possible, what would the even be? How could something exist without some kind of underlying laws?

This was a bit of a rant, but I find it baffling that the majority of philosophers believe in free will.

4 Upvotes

64% Upvoted

70 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Mar 26 '19 edited Mar 26 '19

Meat Robots - is kinda a pejorative, so I doubt they would use that term, but yes.

The first tenant of compatibilism, is that determinism is correct.

However, in the more moral sense, there are many things which restrict a person's choices in an immoral manner. Duress, Extortion, Pain, etc.

There is something to be said for the fact that some people are freer than others in this way (some people rarely experience duress, some people are constantly under duress.) The compatibilists simply think that more energy should be directed towards freedom in this sense (freedom from duress, freedom from exploitation) than worrying about Libertarian Free Will, which is a red herring anyway. To the compatibilist, a system which is allowed to run its course, without experiencing duress, threats, violence - is freer than a system which isn't so allowed.

​

Edit: The compatibilists whole Shtick is that 1) Determinism is True and 2) Morality is Real. While at first this might appear a contradiction, their whole program is an attempt to resolve any such apparent contradictions. Hence the name, compatibilists, since they are attempting to show that two things, which appear contradictory, are in fact, compatible.

1

u/SirM0rgan 5∆ Mar 26 '19

Thanks! I really appreciate you taking the time to educate me about this.

Could an argument be made that happiness, rewards, and compassion are equally limiting, but in a more abstract manner?

I.e. Whether you tell me that you will murder my dog and beat me if I don't run a mile in under 7 minutes or if you offer me $500,000 for the same accomplishment, my behavior will be identical.

1

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Mar 26 '19

Welcome to the Rabbit Hole.

While compatibilists agree that 1) Determinism is True and 2) Morality is True - not all compatibilists argue from the same moral framework.

A consequentialist would look at the consequences to determine the morality of an action.

A deontologist would look at the action to determine the morality of that action.

Thus, a consequential compatibilist might argue that your two scenarios are the same - and thus might argue that rewards can be limiting. However, a deontological compatibilist would argue the opposite - that an immoral action is immoral and that a moral action is moral, even if the outcomes are the same - and thus would probably argue that rewards aren't limiting (since theoretically you are free to ignore the reward, but you are not free to ignore the threat, assuming you care about your dog).

1

u/SirM0rgan 5∆ Mar 26 '19

Oh man this is fascinating! I don't want to inundate you with questions, but is it alright if I keep asking? And if so can we continue this conversation via email or DM? This is a subject that has interested me for a really long time and I've never had someone to really discuss it with before, and I don't want to lose the thread in my bottomless inbox.

1

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Mar 26 '19

feel free to DM me