Okay, So I just feel dirty posting this but this was a serious argument for no free will.
So, Philosophy is fun....
Here's the definitions, then I'll give the argument, and lastly examples.
Sufficient Reason=There is enough reason (or cause) to guarantee the out come of a decision.
P1) If every human decision has sufficient reason there is no way we could have done otherwise and are not morally accountable because it couldn't have gone another way.
P2) If there is a decision done without s.r. then it is pure chance and also makes it so you are not morally accountable because it was chance.
P3) Either P1 or P2 is always the case.
---------------------------------
C1) Therefore you are not morally accountable (or have no free will)
Okay, now to take it out of Philosophy jargon/setup and put it into examples. When you make a choice you have sufficient reason for doing so; i.e. Why do you go to work? - Money, support, bad stuff happens if I don't etc. So you went to work and you really couldn't have done otherwise. I'll blow off work and hit the slopes! Ha! that shows you!
Not really... See, you chose to hit the slopes because you had enough of work and were trying to prove a point so that is your sufficient reason which caused you to take that path which couldn't have been done another way. Each time you play out a decision you have the reasons from beforehand and it guarantees the outcome.
So what if you really don't care or the input is equal? It's chance! Again you can't be responsible for chance and even choosing to let chance decide was a decision from sufficient reason where you couldn't have done otherwise. For example- Do I wear a red or blue shirt? I have an in-law family function or my family function, which do I go to? If they're equal you can only do chance. If you hate your family or the in-laws you are guaranteed a decision.
You might argue- "Yeah but even if my reasons are set up before I do something I made those reasons! So that's my choice!" Well... are your views on the world that made those reasons affected by the environment? your Friends? what you were told as a kid? Really, everything is presented to you, and you have sufficient reason to either accept or reject those ideals from the input that you weren't responsible for as a kid.
Think about it- the kid in the slums- what's his truth? what's his reality? His life view built up as a kid was that dealing drugs and being a gangster is how you survive- that's life. Period. Can you hold him responsible?
How do you like not having Free Will? or responsibility?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Actually, I came to this conclusion a long time ago. I don't think it really changes anything. :D
Andy, you're full of crap.
I would argue that this is fun with logic and not so much fun with philosophy. Except, philosophy means "love of knowledge", so, I guess it can play, too. The thing about logic is that anything can be made to prove your point of view if you can rationalize the process of getting there. This is one of my more selfish tools of having fun: logical confusion. (Remember those days walking back from school and I'd just keep talking and talking and you would just get further and further away from comprehending whatever it was I was blathering on about? Those moments make me giddy, inside.)
Also, I don't equate moral accountability with free will. I'd say the two are intertwined together, with a seemingly infinite plethera of other factors, to create the amazing collaborative playground which is our agreed reality. Morality is both a societal and personal pressure. It's a context. The context is what frames the choices which are available for us to make. Context is basically the environment in which we make our choices. Just because there are probable choices we have available for us to make, doesn't mean that we are going to make those choices. The choice must be made.
What I've been saying and exploring for years (in different words, probably) is that personal reality and corroborating reality with others is a series of agreements, available personal choices and the choices others make (which may limit your choices) all with an environment of which we can all affect and be affected by.
Maybe I wouldn't call it Free Will either (I once called it 'Free-Associated Predestination'), however, I think simplifying the idea of free will down to whether someone has sufficient reason to do something is VERY limited.
Some people use roman and arabic numerals and logic to prove that Barney and money are evil. Prove what you want to prove, I just don't buy into sufficient reason. What would suffice? It's like covering a big hole in the ground with a nice cozy blanket and saying the ground is whole, now. (No pun intended.)
Post a Comment