Free will/evil/punishment

[Aroura]

Only if your fate allows such a recourse.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, at least for me.  It seems to me that if one's fate (by which I assume you mean determined outcome of a deterministic universe) has brought one into contact with the belief that free will is an illusion, then that person's behavior should be expected to change, if the idea is strongly believed.

However, I do not know of anyone who doesn't act as though they have free will.

And yet, you realize you have constrained will, yet you still act every day as if you have unconstrained free-will, because that is how humans are biologically wired to behave.

I can realize that it is just some hormones in my brain that are causing me to be depressed.  An amputee may realize it is that their hand is gone and it can't feel pain anymore yet still suffer phantom pain syndrome. In both cases just realizing the truth changes nothing about how our biology reacts.

However, in all the cases above, we can stop and think make long term changes to our behavior through other behavioral modifiers, like bio-feedback therapy.  The act of REALIZATION itself does not change much, but it opens the door to make changes in other ways. 
Does that make sense?

[Aroura]

Back when we didn't understand any psychiatric disorders, society just punished everyone who misbehaved (if they got caught).

The more and more we have come to realize that people are not in control, for instance their behavior is caused by a known disorder, the less punitive we have treated such people.

Saying behavioral determinism is just something we talk about in philosophy forums, implying it has had no impact on society (If that isn't what you meant BB, please correct me), is silly. We can look through history and clearly see that any time humans realize a behavior is determined, we change our reactions to it, usually to be MUCH less punitive. And violence has only ever dropped and dropped and dropped over time as we've made these corrections to our views of how and why people behave, and how we in turn should behave towards them.

So...I think it's a very important discussion. The more people realize how stupid punishment is, the better it will be for society a whole.

[bennyboy]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, at least for me.  It seems to me that if one's fate (by which I assume you mean determined outcome of a deterministic universe) has brought one into contact with the belief that free will is an illusion, then that person's behavior should be expected to change, if the idea is strongly believed.

However, I do not know of anyone who doesn't act as though they have free will.

And yet, you realize you have constrained will, yet you still act every day as if you have unconstrained free-will, because that is how humans are biologically wired to behave.

I can realize that it is just some hormones in my brain that are causing me to be depressed.  An amputee may realize it is that their hand is gone and it can't feel pain anymore yet still suffer phantom pain syndrome.  In both cases just realizing the truth changes nothing about how our biology reacts.

However, in all the cases above, we can stop and think make long term changes to our behavior through other behavioral modifiers, like bio-feedback therapy.  The act of REALIZATION itself does not change much, but it opens the door to make changes in other ways. 
Does that make sense?

I certainly see many constraints.  For example, I'm overweight (not much, but enough to care), and yet the ongoing collage of desires and impulses lead me to rest rather than exercise more, or to eat foods that are counter to the goals I have.

Yes, I accept that a belief isn't necessarily able to overcome impulses, habits or automatic behaviors.  But when it comes to overt expressions of hatred toward others, who in theory are believed not really to have free will, that's different.  It amounts to "Fuck you for doing what you inevitably were going to do!" and sounds very strange to me.

[Aroura]

And yet, you realize you have constrained will, yet you still act every day as if you have unconstrained free-will, because that is how humans are biologically wired to behave.

I can realize that it is just some hormones in my brain that are causing me to be depressed.  An amputee may realize it is that their hand is gone and it can't feel pain anymore yet still suffer phantom pain syndrome.  In both cases just realizing the truth changes nothing about how our biology reacts.

However, in all the cases above, we can stop and think make long term changes to our behavior through other behavioral modifiers, like bio-feedback therapy.  The act of REALIZATION itself does not change much, but it opens the door to make changes in other ways. 
Does that make sense?

I certainly see many constraints.  For example, I'm overweight (not much, but enough to care), and yet the ongoing collage of desires and impulses lead me to rest rather than exercise more, or to eat foods that are counter to the goals I have.

Yes, I accept that a belief isn't necessarily able to overcome impulses, habits or automatic behaviors.  But when it comes to overt expressions of hatred toward others, who in theory are believed not really to have free will, that's different.  It amounts to "Fuck you for doing what you inevitably were going to do!" and sounds very strange to me.

Generally expressions of hatred or anger are passion based, it's silly to think someone can overcome their biology when they are reacting inteh heat of passion without thinking at all.  It's the long term thought out changes, the doors that the realization opens, that change things.

When I became an atheist, on the day I said to myself, "Ok, I admit it to myself, I don't believe in God anymore", nothing changed.  I was still me.  My behavior and thoughts have changed over time because of it, but not suddenly.
There was no drastic evolution of my mind.  
And it's really insulting to keep insinuating that determinism should somehow be any different.  Especially when free-will behavior is hard wired into the brain, making the behavioral changes even harder.

The behavioral changes still can and do happen though.  Do you truly deny that society recognizing that people's behavior is (in some cases) determined has not drastically changed society for the better over time?

[robvalue]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they are certain there is no kind of free will. Has anyone actually said that? Even if so, not many people I should think.

Saying people act "as if they have free will" is a badly formed phrase I believe. It assumes that they are wrong. If they are right, and there is no free will, then they are simply acting as they must act, so to say they are doing something "as if" makes no sense. They are making no real choices. It's not "as if" because there is no free will and no choices.

If they are wrong, and they do have free will, then yes they have free will and are using it, whether they realize it or not. Even the choice to do nothing is a choice. If there is free will, how could you possibly act "as if there is no free will"? What would that entail? If it involves any kind of choice, then that's a contradiction. It would just be choosing to do what they imagine no free will would be like... but if they think they are making that choice, then they've failed! They made a choice, using their free will. See, it doesn't make sense. In other words, everyone must by definition act "as if" they have free will, because that's literally all they can do. So it's more accurate to say they do have free will and have no choice but to use it. They may simply be unaware they are using it, and have come to the wrong conclusion about whether free will exists. That's the crucial part: we don't know, both explanations produce an identical result, so it seems. We can't rewind time and look for possible different choices.

What I'm saying is, if the objection is that people act "as if there is free will", what is the alternative?

I think it's very important to separate the two scenarios and examine them independently. If you talk like both at once could be true, the language makes no sense. And they can't both be true. If you take someone's actions, you don't know which is true. So either they are doing what they must do, or they are acting under free will and cannot "choose" to do otherwise.

I think the confusion comes by the mental trap of thinking in terms of there being free will, while examining whether or not there is free will.

[The Grand Nudger]

Saying they don't really believe it (Like you know what they believe or don't believe, jerk thing to say BTW) is not the same as saying they don't behave as if they do.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  To me, the word "seems" is equivalent to saying "behave as though."  That's because I don't think being highly judgmental of the behavior of others (kill him, punish him, etc.) accords well with the idea that nobody, including a criminal, has the capacity to do other than he has done.  I don't really know people's internal dialogue, ideas, or beliefs.  However, based on the incompatibility of the ideas of determinism with ideas about harsh punitive justice (which require free will to make any sense), I think it's reasonably doubt whether the idea of behavioral determinism is really more than just something people talk about in philosophy forums.

I hope my position is clearer now.

We used to punish witches.  The counter idea is that there are no witches.....but I doubt that this "no witches" business is really more than just something people talk about in philosophy forums. 

[Mudhammam]

It's kind of a weird semantic, still, isn't it?  I mean, you're free to express yourself, but you are a product of your environment at every stage of your development.  So basically, free will is just an absence of external influences-- but then what is one making a decision about? Isn't the sight of a donut sitting next to a chocolate bar or whatever essentially an external influence? Also, would hormones or hunger be considered internal or external influences?

Like all things, there are some influences that are external and some that arise within.

The decision lies in the usage of reasoning to either comply or resist bodily urges, such as in craving a donut. Your mouth waters, your stomach growls, your palms get sweaty, your imagination swims through a torrent of chocolate juices squirting down your throat (getting turned on yet you epicurean decadents?), and then you think about your weight, your diet, how you'll feel in an hour, etc., and you choose (i.e. give in to the most persuasive reason or passion, at the given instant) to indulge yourself. A choice is made, in compliance with your will, which only later upon reflection (when your will has changed) do you come to think that it was not what you actually wanted for yourself. So, you acted freely. An external influence negating your will would have been someone literally shoving the donut down your throat. Sometimes, in a fit of madness, or in the case of say, a brain tumor, we allow for certain behaviors to be excused because we realize that such and such was a factor by which a person could not have reasonably been expected to act otherwise, otherwise meaning in character, their personality as established by their history of actions and stated beliefs.

[robvalue]

I just ate a donut, so you're too late!

[abaris]

If treatment or rehabilitation is available or possible, that is always the better option.  If it is not, then humane prisons are the current existing alternative. The death penalty and other punishments are a remnant of our barbaric past, and should be relegated to that past.

I'm with you on that. The punishment being a mirror of the crime is how medieval societies handled matters. Unsurprisingly, since these were religious societies to the core, it was very similar to Sharia law, complete with cutting off offending limbs and stuff.

That said, there are mental issues that cannot be cured. Pedophilia, as most experts agree, being one of them. Serial killers won't stop until they're either caught or be dead. That's another point where experts are mostly in agreement. That's also why European legislation has the concept of preventive custody (not sure if that's the correct english term). Life sentences are usually a stretch between 20 and 25 years and the courts can't dish out a longer term on a whim. So perps who are expected to reoffend get "ensuing preventive custody". That's unlimited, pretty much like life without parole, with the exemption of them being reevaluated every five years or so.

So all the outrage about Brejvik only getting 21 years for killing 87 people, I believe, wasn't based on the facts. Brejvik will never walk the streets again, since there's no commission in the whole wide world willing to risk releasing that kind of person.

[bennyboy]

It's kind of a weird semantic, still, isn't it?  I mean, you're free to express yourself, but you are a product of your environment at every stage of your development.  So basically, free will is just an absence of external influences-- but then what is one making a decision about?  Isn't the sight of a donut sitting next to a chocolate bar or whatever essentially an external influence?  Also, would hormones or hunger be considered internal or external influences?

Like all things, there are some influences that are external and some that arise within.

The decision lies in the usage of reasoning to either comply or resist bodily urges, such as in craving a donut. Your mouth waters, your stomach growls, your palms get sweaty, your imagination swims through a torrent of chocolate juices squirting down your throat (getting turned on yet you epicurean decadents?), and then you think about your weight, your diet, how you'll feel in an hour, etc., and you choose (i.e. give in to the most persuasive reason or passion, at the given instant) to indulge yourself. A choice is made, in compliance with your will, which only later upon reflection (when your will has changed) do you come to think that it was not what you actually wanted for yourself. So, you acted freely. An external influence negating your will would have been someone literally shoving the donut down your throat. Sometimes, in a fit of madness, or in the case of say, a brain tumor, we allow for certain behaviors to be excused because we realize that such and such was a factor by which a person could not have reasonably been expected to act otherwise, otherwise meaning in character, their personality as established by their history of actions and stated beliefs.

It seems to me that one might view the animal instincts as obstacles to the exercise of free will, and that Buddha and the stoics had it right.

What say you?  Are the baser or animal instincts the purest expression of will, or its most immediate impediments?  Should one be free of emotion completely in order to most fully exercise free will?