Is Moral Responsibility Compatible With Determinism?

[Alan V]

How in the world could a bird flying or a human brain circumvent the laws of nature?  Nothing circumvents the laws of nature, but I assert that determinism is NOT one of those laws.  Determinism is a property and properties change with complexity.  You underestimate what's possible with materialism.

Determinism isn't a property. It's a metaphysical theory. I think you mean "the laws of cause and effect." The laws of cause and effect are presumed by all the sciences. If you take issue with those, then you agree with this guy. But most of us don't agree with that guy (at least as far as his ideas about causation go). Hence, determinism seems very plausible to some of us.

In metaphysics, you seldom get a clear, cut-and-dried answer with anything. Therefore, the best way to approach them is to try to understand each side of the argument as deeply as you can. From there, try to pick a theory which you find most likely.

I obviously need to read more about philosophy at some point.

If determinism is a metaphysical theory, then determinists should have no problem acknowledging another metaphysical theory.  However, in my experience determinists seem to have a hard time acknowledging emergentism as an alternative.  Why is that, if they don't think determinism is inherent to materialism?

From my point of view, free will decisions depend on reasoning, which in turn depends on the symbolic processing of information in human brains.  What law of cause and effect does the symbolic processing of information violate?  As far as I can see, none at all.  Material cause and effect still works perfectly well at its own level of complexity, and nothing changes that when you add a much greater level of complexity and free will is possible.  As I pointed out with my abacus analogy, nothing changes the material properties of the beads.  Their new properties emerge because of the meanings attributed to their relative positions, so meanings require relationships between multiple beads.  The movements of the beads are still materially caused, even while the answers they provide are derived by their symbolic attributes.  At minimum, two different levels are involved, not just one.  The rules of one level simply don't apply to the rules of another, when much more complexity is involved.

It's like the different between making meaningless noises and making music.  Music emerges from the relationships between the notes and instruments, whereas random noises have no intentional relationships.