No, compatibilists just change the definition of freewill to mean "free to do what you were pre-determined to do anyway". Which basically means compatibilists are determinists who don't like the idea of "hard" determinism. At least that's what I have seen so far, even in great thinkers like Daniel Dennett.
It's extremely frustrating to argue with a compatibilist, it's like people who insist they are agnostic only and neither atheist or theist. They have to change the definition of the word for their position to make any sense, and even then it doesn't really.
I think the OP makes a good point. If we really understand that peoples actions are determined, and not chosen, then it IS like being mad at the weather. Many humanists groups now reject all notions of freewill, as they think society would be more likely to focus on fixing the causes of peoples bad behavior, instead of just punishing them out of anger. Basically, they argue that a true deterministic worldview would lead to a more compassionate society.
Some will at this point argue that people must be held responsible for their actions. You can't say to the guy who raped a murdered a 3 year old, oh it's ok, you were pre-determined to do that. Of course not! And no determinist or Humanist would argue for that either. You would still need to take steps to prevent re-offending, but they would be USEFULL steps, because the current justice system doesn't rehabilitate existing offender OR deter would be offenders (much, at least).
Others will argue that since our illusion would persist even if hard determinism is true, what is the point in realizing it's an illusion? But again, I would argue that when making reasoned decisions, such as how to treat a criminal offender, it would make a WORLD of difference. Because we are human, we would still feel anger, hurt, etc, but the more all of society acted on the basis of determinism, the more people would also get in the habit of thinking that way.
Anyway, this is one of my favorite topics. I expect I'll get throroughly blasted by some compatibilist, but I'm used to it. It's still an argument I enjoy having, because I thinkit's an important one to have, so thanks for starting the topic!
It's extremely frustrating to argue with a compatibilist, it's like people who insist they are agnostic only and neither atheist or theist. They have to change the definition of the word for their position to make any sense, and even then it doesn't really.
I think the OP makes a good point. If we really understand that peoples actions are determined, and not chosen, then it IS like being mad at the weather. Many humanists groups now reject all notions of freewill, as they think society would be more likely to focus on fixing the causes of peoples bad behavior, instead of just punishing them out of anger. Basically, they argue that a true deterministic worldview would lead to a more compassionate society.
Some will at this point argue that people must be held responsible for their actions. You can't say to the guy who raped a murdered a 3 year old, oh it's ok, you were pre-determined to do that. Of course not! And no determinist or Humanist would argue for that either. You would still need to take steps to prevent re-offending, but they would be USEFULL steps, because the current justice system doesn't rehabilitate existing offender OR deter would be offenders (much, at least).
Others will argue that since our illusion would persist even if hard determinism is true, what is the point in realizing it's an illusion? But again, I would argue that when making reasoned decisions, such as how to treat a criminal offender, it would make a WORLD of difference. Because we are human, we would still feel anger, hurt, etc, but the more all of society acted on the basis of determinism, the more people would also get in the habit of thinking that way.
Anyway, this is one of my favorite topics. I expect I'll get throroughly blasted by some compatibilist, but I'm used to it. It's still an argument I enjoy having, because I thinkit's an important one to have, so thanks for starting the topic!
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
