Is Moral Responsibility Compatible With Determinism?

[Alan V]

You don't need to read more philosophy. And determinists don't have any issues with looking at alternative theories. You are missing just one key point.

I need to better understand how philosophers define such words as "properties" to be able to communicate with them more clearly. I also need to read up on Hume and other philosophers on the issues of cause and effect and free will. It's difficult to have a conversation with people who refer to issues with which I am not properly conversant. Philosophers may not understand what I mean if I am not speaking their language.

In order for you to choose freely, you have to have within you the power to change reality. The question is: how? How do you have the power to change reality?

All sorts of different things can happen within the laws of physics, but only some do. As biological creatures, we work endlessly to weight the dice in our favor. And we are a very successful species.

Your brain?

Your brain is made of matter. All matter obeys the laws of physics. When you have a thought, all that is is a set of neurons firing. They do this as a response to external and internal stimuli. There is no homunculus inside your brain calling the shots. As far as we know, there is no immaterial soul that calls the shots either. It's all stimulus response. It's all matter interacting with matter (as far as we know).

No, it is not "all stimulus response." You are completely overlooking motivated selective focus, the human ability to suppress reactions, and conflicting desires, not all of which can be followed at one time.

The brain does not have the power to change reality. The brain itself does not control which neurons fire. It merely transfers messages from one part to another. It's all neurons firing in the precise way that the laws of physics say they should fire. That doesn't allow the brain to change reality.

If your answer to the question of free will is "brains." You need to answer how brains can change reality.

Sure, but that really isn't as difficult a problem as you assume. I'm writing this response. My brain is involved. That's changing reality. These questions are answered by observations.

I guess another way of looking at the brain is like it is a lightning rod. Sure, when lightening hits a lightning rod it runs currents of electricity this way and that way. But the lightning rod doesn't control any of that. It all has to do with its structure which way the electricity goes. The lightning rod isn't "choosing."

What is a brain but an intricate complex if mini "lightning rods" called neurons?

And THAT is reductionism, in a nutshell. I have no reductionistic answers for you since I am not a reductionist.

According to emergentists, the human brain can only be understood at its own level of complexity. Neuroscience and physics may be important at their own levels, but don't overlook psychological studies where it is accepted that people often make choices based on their reasoning. Our brains don't just happen to us. They are us.

---

Such as?  What difference to moral systems does it make if determinism, reductionism, or emergentism are true?

I was thinking specifically about what Vulcanlogician wrote:

A determinist is guided less to punish bad behavior and more to prevent its causes... because (to a determinist) free choice ISN'T the cause of x behavior. It was exterior factors that made such and such a person do x.

I think it is quite clear that we humans are more determined than many theists, for instance, can comfortably admit.  But that doesn't mean we are completely determined, so we have to take that into account too.  To the extent that we do, our laws will change since our laws are how we codify our moral thinking.