A thing about religious (and other) people and the illusion of free will

[ShinyCrystals]

Well, I just had a thought...even if free will did exist, are we really that free?

I mean, some countries might allow freedom politically, but technically, as I may have said before, people may have an allegiance or devotion or other things to a supreme being that does not exist or a person, like that of a famous person to a powerful person to someone that is known by a person that they trust. In fact, some people may follow said people to a fault, that they will go by their word instead of forming their own. And we have behaviors and emotions, among other things in the human mind that may make it hard to choose the right thing, or make rational choices or make good ones, and may even create conflict for people determining choices.

So, if free will did exist, would people who follow what others say without forming their own opinion; possibly no matter what; qualify for having free will if they do something in another person's interest rather than their own?

And if free will existed, would the mind really allow for it at all? I ask because I think how the mind works would rather prevent and restrict free will than actually allowing for people to make their own choices in a complete way.

There is a lot we don't understand about the mind, and many people, mainly average people know less than scientists with expertise on the mind, but I do not think free will, like many things, is that simple of a concept, as in not just allowing one to simply choose things, and I think it is more complicated than people think, and I see it as complicated in a way that it is too heavily restricted to exist, if it even does exist rather than as an illusion.

That said, I do think following others and/or even a supreme being would restrict or impede a person's free will if they are so heavily devoted to them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's almost like you haven't heard of brainwashing.

Brainwashing can't make a person do something he or she wouldn't be willing to do in the first place. Brainwashing could encourage specific behavior, but it won't be enough to change who a person is, on a more fundamental level.

What the fuck would you know about psychology?

[Ahriman]

Brainwashing can't make a person do something he or she wouldn't be willing to do in the first place. Brainwashing could encourage specific behavior, but it won't be enough to change who a person is, on a more fundamental level.

What the fuck would you know about psychology?

A lot?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Brainwashing can't make a person do something he or she wouldn't be willing to do in the first place. Brainwashing could encourage specific behavior, but it won't be enough to change who a person is, on a more fundamental level.

What the fuck would you know about psychology?

Maybe he should read up on Scientology. Or the Unification Church. Or the Mormons. Or…you get the picture.

Boru

[Ahriman]

What the fuck would you know about psychology?

Maybe he should read up on Scientology. Or the Unification Church. Or the Mormons. Or…you get the picture.

Boru

None of those groups were ever able to make someone do something against his or her will.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's almost like you haven't heard of brainwashing.

Brainwashing can't make a person do something he or she wouldn't be willing to do in the first place. Brainwashing could encourage specific behavior, but it won't be enough to change who a person is, on a more fundamental level.

What do you think parents do in raising children if not shape and form their personalities? Use your head, man. Or do I need to connect the dots for you? Sheesh.

[Ahriman]

Brainwashing can't make a person do something he or she wouldn't be willing to do in the first place. Brainwashing could encourage specific behavior, but it won't be enough to change who a person is, on a more fundamental level.

What do you think parents do in raising children if not shape and form their personalities? Use your head, man. Or do I need to connect the dots for you? Sheesh.

But that doesn't even happen?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What the fuck would you know about psychology?

A lot?

A PARKING LOT, yes.

[The Grand Nudger]

We do imprison people for smoking, full stop.  We also imprison people for any number of alcohol related activities.  I'm not interested in creating an equivalence between them.  Maybe, maybe drunk driving and arson are close in alot of peoples minds?  Just pointing out that we do these things - it's not like our legal system is only picking on the arsonists.  If we're not making equivalences then there's little sense in asking why this one but not the other.  Because they are not equivalent.   We've gone the other way with it, arson I mean....too.  We've legitimized and sanctioned arson.   Arson has at times been believed to be a civic duty.  

Sure though, at the bottom of every legal system is someone or something that wants x.  A king, a council, a people, a state.  I'm not convinced that because something is desirable, that means it cannot be rational or objective - though legal systems do try their best to prove me wrong!

Because desire isn't objective.  If you think that something subjective can also be objective, then I'd say you have problems that I can't fix.

Drinking while driving isn't an aspect of the drinking, it's an aspect of the driving, so, no, we don't imprison people for drinking.  That's why you snuck the word related in there.  You're just engaged in equivocation now.

Basing something solely on desire is not objective, but it isn't clear that we are incapable of desiring things because of some fact about that thing, rather than some fact which is only about ourselves.  No matter where we fall on that issue, though, I hope I never come across as a person who thinks that our legal system is a paragon of objectivity.  I'm absolutely certain that a great many of our laws and the consequences for breaking them are fundamentally relative - and at least some are wholly subjective with the perfect example being a law bought and paid for that isn't in the interests of the state or anyone else.  

I'm pointing out that we do these things - not that any of them are equivalent or insisting that they are all completely objective in their aims or their enforcement- a quick glance at the statutes and outcomes demonstrates that they are not.  You can also be thrown in jail for littering...which is waaaaay down there on the "is this gonna get a bystander killed unless we jail this person" scale.  We might wonder whether drunk drivers or litterers should see consequences closer to an arsonists, or whether a litterer and a drunk driver are over punished and an arsonist is under punished.  Smoking causes all sorts of issues - but the kind of smoking that does that isn't the kind that we criminalized.  What happened there?  All good questions.  Why we prevent arsonists from setting fires...by imprisoning them if need be... imo, less so.  To prevent fires.  Why do we want there to be less fires....likely...something true about fires.

All of that in mind, I can't spot anything untrue, or that would be made untrue by free will being illusory, about who is responsible for a crime that they have committed.  Free will or no free will we can certainly catch an arsonist and know they did it.  So I personally can't agree with the idea that, absent free will, we can't assign blame.  That our legal system just could not work, though I do agree that retributive justice would be groundless.   OFC, as I mentioned, it seems indefensible either way.  I don't think it fits realist ethics. Hold you, and literally, as the responsible party? Sure. More than that is elective. There are definitely people who want retribution and retributive justice, I'm familiar with the desire myself - but I still don't think it has a place in law or ethics.

[Gawdzilla Sama]