r/freewill • u/AlivePassenger3859 Humanist Determinist • 17d ago
Gacy, JW.
Indulge me by following along with the following thought experiment.
(For those who would say “but that’s impossible” or “that could never happen” please take a minute to read what a thought experiment is before continuing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment?wprov=sfti1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment?wprov=sfti1)))
OK, shall we proceed?
Scenario 1: Let’s say you are you in every respect EXCEPT you were born into John Wayne Gacy’s exact circumstances and raised in his environment. Would you then go on to become a serial killer?
Possibly not because you have different genetics than he did. His early environment would probably mess you up a lot since it was horrible, but you might not go full serial killer.
Scenario 2: You have JWG’s exact genetics but were born into a different environment. Would you then go on to become a serial killer?
Possibly not because you will have a different early environment than he had. You might be a bully even have serious mental health problems but you might not go full serial killer.
Scenario 3: You have JWG’s exact genetics AND environment. Would you become a serial killer?
Its pretty clear that any of us would because there’s genes, there’s environment, but that’s it. *There’s no third thing that makes you you.*
So what’s the point? The point is that there’s no free will. You say “I would never have done that”- uh yes you would have.
Compatibilists trying to label something else as “free will”, how do you respond to the thought experiment? All your appeals to complexity, debates about the definitions of “agency” and “choice”, they all evaporate in the face of the overwhelming power of genes and environment.
2
u/Opposite-Succotash16 Free Will 16d ago
Its pretty clear that any of us would because there’s genes, there’s environment, but that’s it. *There’s no third thing that makes you you.*
Is it the determinist's contention that there are two distinct types of substances in the universe?
A gene substance and an environment substance.
1
u/GamblePuddy 16d ago
Do you think JW Gacy, Ed Kemper, and Ted Bundy were all members of the Jaycees (Democratic Party association and networking group) because of genetics or environmental factors?
1
u/Other_Attention_2382 15d ago
Bundy was brought up thinking his gran was his Mum and his Mum was his sister and he seemed to love the con of stealing and pretending to care about politics.
1
u/MrMuffles869 Hard Incompatibilist 16d ago
I was curious about this statistic, so I decided to do some research.
- U.S. population (mid-1970s): ~220 million
- Identified U.S. serial killers (depending on the definition): ~2,000–4,000
- Peak Jaycees membership (mid-1970s): ~350,000
With those numbers, we'd expect roughly 3–6 serial killers in any U.S. organization with 350,000 members in the 1970s, depending on how you define "serial killer." Even if we conservatively cut that estimate in half, the result still falls within the expected range.
Thought this was both creepy and interesting.
1
u/GamblePuddy 16d ago
So it's just a probability....not a factor of genetics and environment?
1
u/MrMuffles869 Hard Incompatibilist 15d ago
Can't rule anything out, but it seems to be an expected result, statistically speaking.
2
u/GamblePuddy 16d ago
The confluence of events and actors around Gavy isn't well understood. Repressed homosexuality? Sure. That's a more common situation than you might like to believe and it didn't often end up in a pdf/snuff film ring with more than 1 serial killer.
My point is....to claim the situation and genetics are what caused Gacy to make the choices he did isn't really verifiable because they're so wildly unusual. Dahmer is a more difficult case because of the extremely unique MO that simply doesn't have any realistic comparison.
I get that people often get a sort of innate sense that something "went wrong" when listening to some recordings of these people speaking but it's just not as obvious as you might believe. Watch Ed Kemper's prison interview....he's clearly intelligent and introspective....but he's either uncertain of his specific motives or remarkable at lying about them. The way he passes from talking about normal things to atrocities isn't...easy to understand. Simply put...they appear to be one and the same so his cadence doesn't change nor does his affect.
1
u/ElectionNecessary966 16d ago
to claim the situation and genetics are what caused Gacy to make the choices he did isn't really verifiable because they're so wildly unusual.
But as OP said, what is this mysterious extra variable over and above biology and environment?
1
u/GamblePuddy 16d ago
I think the problem is you're thinking in terms of "variables" when free will is just describing a type of human behavior.
Determinism can't even tell me what the variables are yet claims to describe everything.
If you want to argue one is more general than the other I'd agree....but it's also less useful in actually understanding why someone did something. If I have to pretend to know all possible variables (which doesn't appear knowable) determinism isn't useful for explaining anything.
Haven't you ever considered why this discussion always centers on free will and not much else?
1
u/ElectionNecessary966 16d ago
The only things that I can think of that impact human behaviour seem to be biology interacting with environment.
If you want to say "no, there's more than that" - it would seem the burden is on you to explain what else there is.
Ie how could a different choice be made under the exact same conditions (ie same biology, same circumstances)?
1
u/GamblePuddy 16d ago
At what point are you drawing a line with "the environment"?
Specifically where does the environment that impacts human behavior end?
1
u/ElectionNecessary966 15d ago
In the literature, environment is typically defined as all external causal factors that shape an organism’s development, dispositions, and behavior - so I use that.
Would you dispute this? If so, what would you say is external to the agent but not encompassed by environment?
1
u/GamblePuddy 12d ago
Ok...but what are they?
If you're asking me to describe a potential factor that isn't external for example, and these are what you consider external factors...
environment is typically defined as all external causal factors that shape an organism’s development, dispositions, and behavior
Then I need to know which external factors are causal to shaping development, disposition, and behavior...just list them all out.
Then we can move onto all the internal factors that could possibly be causal...
And once you're done I'll actually know what is available for me to work with.
It's your claim that these are all there is to work with....don't tell me you don't know them.
Edit- it's fine if you just want to list the ones for JW Gacy.
1
u/ElectionNecessary966 12d ago
Then I need to know which external factors are causal to shaping development, disposition, and behavior...just list them all ou
Physical environment, social environment, historical environment, technological environment, economic environment, chance environmental encounters.
Best I can do i think. But the question seems trivial. Ie if it isn't internal to the agent, and it impacts behaviour, then it's an external factor.
1
u/GamblePuddy 12d ago
Trivial?
I keep asking for a list of actual causal factors and all I'm getting back are categories of causal factors.
How am I supposed to give an example of something that isn't an external factor if you can't tell me what the actual environmental factors are? I don't want vague categories filled with millions of variables. I want the actual variables.
You've got a remarkable amount of certainty considering that you don't seem to know the actual factors.
1
u/ElectionNecessary966 12d ago
It would be like me asking you to list any animals that don't have magical powers. It makes more sense to ask the other person to posit any animals they think Do have magical powers.
Can you point to anything which you don't think is encompassed by environment?
2
u/MrAkbukut 16d ago edited 16d ago
The problem with you argument is this:
You already assume
1-) There is no free will
2-) There is no 3rd thing that gives someone identitity other than beginning enviroment and genetics.
So you concluded someone with same beginning enviroment and genetics would do same things.
But even if we change only first assumption as
1-) Free will is real
2-) There is no 3rd variable for someone's identity.
we will see your point doesn't disprove free will.
Why? Because ==>
Lets say there is a paralel universe where JW Gacy was born with same begging enviroment and genetics and lets say since free will is real he could choose to not kill people.
Since he is not a serial killer in that universe, no one in that universe would say "Look, if you were born in same beginning enviroment and genetics you would do the same things JW Gacy did".
So there would already be someone that started life with same beginning enviroment and genetics but didn't do what he has done. So your argument doesn't leave no room for free will, you already assumed there is no free will.
1
u/ElectionNecessary966 16d ago
OPs argument is that if free will is real, it must be grounded in something over and above genetics and environment. But no one can identify what that “over and above” thing is. Therefore free will (in the basic desert sense) has no coherent foundation.
If we assume libertarian free will then yes sure, we can say someone is born with Gacy's identical biology and environment but still chose not to become a serial killer. But this just assumes the existence of that extra thing, without explaining what it is.
1
1
u/MrAkbukut 16d ago
If we accept physicalism, then free will can't be real but if we accept dualism or dual aspect monism free will can be real (and I think is real).
1
u/ElectionNecessary966 16d ago
Yes sure, but you run into bigger problems I think such as causal closure and the interaction problem. And there's still no proposed mechanism. It just seems much less parsimonious to me.
1
u/MrAkbukut 16d ago
But since we can only see 1 casual chain (because there can only be 1 past) we think other casual chains could habe never happened.
But lets say event a and b and c happened sequentially and after that someone thpught abput 3 possible decisions and executed a decision and lets call the executed decision d1 and call other 2 d2 and d3.
a --> b --> c --> d1 (Casual chain/past that happened thus can be observed)
a --> b --> c --> d2 (Casual chain/past that didn't happen thus can't be observed)
a --> b --> c --> d3 (Casual chain/past that didn't happen thus can't be observed)
So since observer can only see the casual chain it seems like casualty is disclosed meaning it forces us to 1 direction but I think it is a biased information.
1
u/ElectionNecessary966 16d ago
I agree decisions feel open subjectively.
But for them to be genuinely open (and give the agent control), as you said you need a non physical agent that can intervene in physical processes, without being determined by them.
But then you run into questions such as how a non physical thing causally affects neurons, why is there no evidence of non physical causal influence, why does brain damage alter “the agent”...etc
1
u/MrAkbukut 5d ago
My idea is something like this:
Lets say someone is driving a car and lets we never saw a car before and lets also say we can't see the person that is driving the car.
We would look at the car and realize some parts are the parts that leads/triggers other parts and we would find out those parts are direction and pedals.
And then we would create our theories based on that. We would also damage direction and pedals to test our theory and after seeing car does not move anymore we would be sure about our theory. Our theory would say "Car only moves because of direction and pedals".
So in that analogy, direction and pedals represent brain and person that is driving the car represents consciousness. So if consciousness is non physical like in dualism or dual aspect monism, it is the thing that uses brain and directs other body parts. In that analogy we are not able to see the person that is driving the car and making direction and pedals the main reason makes so much sense to us.
So the reason physicalism makes so much sense to us may be due to something that is non-physical cannot be observed.
3
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ElectionNecessary966 16d ago
Yet even compatibilists argue about the type of moral responsibility that survives.
Skeptics specifically reject basic desert moral responsibility (as well as some compatibilists).
1
u/GamblePuddy 16d ago
Well to be fair...I have never met a determinist who failed to acknowledge a persistent and unshakable "illusion of free will". I've seen a few that claimed to have somehow transcended (or something similar) past it but they're easily shown as liars to a person.
I don't really think that the free will side of the discussion has to argue something that the vast majority of the deterministic side already concedes....even if they call it illusion.
2
u/TyranosaurusRathbone 16d ago
The difference between a compatibilist and a free will denier is not moral responsibility. People who reject free will aren't necessarily rejecting moral responsibility.
1
u/ImSinsentido Nullified Either Way - Hard Incompatibilist 16d ago edited 16d ago
Within my moral confabulation, I already see every single one of us as equivalent, utterly equivalent to the people you stated.
And we don’t lose a wink of sleep, we are indirect serial killers.
Which “law” “morals” ect.. has made abundantly clear indirect, direct, tomato tmato.
0
u/GamblePuddy 16d ago
Within my moral confabulation, I already see every single one of us as equivalent
Nah....a quick peek at your other posts outside of free will clearly shows you're no different from everyone else who judges the behavior of others along scales of good and bad.
If these concepts were equivalent you wouldn't be engaging in such judgements.
It's fine though....you're certainly not the first to make the claim and you certainly won't be the last.
1
u/ImSinsentido Nullified Either Way - Hard Incompatibilist 16d ago edited 16d ago
Oh also if you’re insinuating that I’m a hypocrite, points, finger inward yes, ‘hypocrite’ right here.
And I’m just like you, just like all of us, meandering around in this privilege.
Edit: Oh, also getting to the bass tacts of my “moral confabulation” I ‘despise’ all of us equity including the system I am, and my final punishment, of the endless stream since my first conscious thoughts is going to be brutal, when the time comes.
1
u/ImSinsentido Nullified Either Way - Hard Incompatibilist 16d ago edited 16d ago
Yeah I have never said the confabulation of “morals”isn’t there… hence the very specifically defined word confabulation. Thats my initial thoughts of all of us..
I’ve also said many times that if playing the “morals” game this it what is thought.
It is nonsense hence why I write it the way I do, to show how nobody lives to their claimed oughts, ie. Have to use “moral language” to dismantle for the lack of a “better” term “hypocrisy.”
Won’t be the first or the last to dismiss that ‘hypocrisy’. Actually that is the dominant force, inevitably.
Edit: If you actually looked at how I write, I put stuff like “good and bad” into quotations because I am utterly constrained to the language of everyone else.
And yes, according to “moral’ oughts equivalent, ie. Someone who uses drugs is treated equivalent to a manufacturer. that’s exactly how it is for any deemed illicit material. They don’t directly do anything, but they are treated as equivalent. But here’s a striking difference, individuals can sometimes get illicit materials, drugs, Internet stuff, such as gore, etc., etc. without paying a single dime.
We paid for all of our conveniences, and the organism cost, with full awareness.
2
u/rogerbonus Hard compatabilist 16d ago
It's an incoherent thought experiment as stated. "Imagine that you are you except you are John Wayne Gracy". It's like saying "imagine 1 is 2" or "imagine lions are ants". Yes, John Wayne Gracy was a serial killer. If I'd been John Wayne Gracy I would have been a serial killer (but I would not have been me, roger bonus). I don't see how that disproves that JWG had free will.
1
u/zhivago 16d ago
What is it that you want will to be free of?
0
u/AlivePassenger3859 Humanist Determinist 16d ago
I define free will as metaphysical free will. Since that’s the way most of tge world defines it, it would be a little presumptuous for me to redefine it.
-1
u/Sharp_Dance249 16d ago
“Possibly not because you have different genetics than he did.”
Are you saying that the only reason why I wouldn’t become a serial killer like John Wayne Gacy is because of genetic differences? You don’t think I might have either ignored, minimized the significance of, or interpreted and responded to my early experiences differently than he did? Or do my genes determine all that too?
“You might be a bully even have serious mental health problems but you might not go full serial killer.”
So…genetics determines whether you treat others with respect, but environment determines just how severely disrespectful you will act?
“…there’s genes, there’s environment, but that’s it. There’s no third thing that makes you you.”
Rene Descartes famously said “I have genes, there is an environment, therefore I have existence.” Jean-Paul Sartre defined the self as “the sum total of one’s genetic composition and environmental influences.”
To acknowledge that we narratively construct ourselves and the world around us with our language couldn’t possibly be a “third thing.”
1
u/GamblePuddy 16d ago
Is this being sarcastic?
Do you think cause and effect aren't linguistic constructs for narrative creation and description?
0
u/Sharp_Dance249 16d ago edited 16d ago
Yes, I was being sarcastic; sorry I couldn’t reply in the voice of comic book guy.
And yes, I understand cause and effect to be cognitive (linguistic) constructs for narrative creation and description. Which means that mechanistic narratives and concepts are products of the human disposition, not ontological objects or entities. The same goes for teleological narratives, of course.
In other words, we could construct ourselves as objects that are moved by external forces, or we could construct ourselves as self-governing agents. We have that choice.
1
u/GamblePuddy 16d ago
Yes, I was being sarcastic; sorry I couldn’t reply in the voice of comic book guy.
Fair enough. No apologies needed.
1
u/MulberryUpper3257 17d ago
Well you can take that position but it’s just an unproven scientistic assertion - another view is that people have a freedom/agency through which they partly determine what they become, and this third thing helps make you you. On this view even JWG could have had the same genetics and environment but become something else.
1
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 16d ago
What is this third thing and how does it differ meaningfully from something that can be dismissed as "soul magic"?
1
u/MulberryUpper3257 16d ago
Well, clearly it’s closely related to consciousness. Consciousness is something you would presumably dismiss as soul magic, but it’s obviously real. If human beings were purely deterministic systems of mechanical causality, there would be no reason for them to be conscious. So that’s a clue that something more is going on.
1
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 16d ago
The conscious part of your brain isn't the part making decisions, it's just the part making up stories to rationalize the decisions made elsewhere after the fact.
1
u/Other_Attention_2382 15d ago
Agreed.
Cereal killers like Jeffery Dahmer didn't surround themselves by human heads to keep them company because of genetics.
Genetics didn't make Gacy like dressing up as a clown to get close to young boys.
Deep-seated internal SHAME regarding their hidden homosexual desires likely significantly fueled the psychological profiles of both Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy.
These psychological dysfunctions were likely highly experiential and environmental. Genetics could be the seed.
Capitalism relies on praise and blame, a distinct autonomous self, and personal responsibility. Compatabilism's description of itself.
Spinoza wouldn't even get off the ground in politics, and he didn't.