# Determinism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 11, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/determinism/581558 "2011-05-11T20:07:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/determinism/581558/142 "2011-05-24T06:16:19Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I disagree with Dennett about his being a compatibilist, too. 😉 (Well, it’s actually more that I’m not sure that I think compatibilism is really a coherent stance; to me, the question of whether or not there is determinism is a bit of a red herring concerning the question of whether or not there is free will. Even in an indeterministic universe, I still see the (usual) concept of free will as logically problematic. Dennett sees these problems to, and resolves them through coming up with a new concept of free will; I disagree that this concept really exemplifies what is usually meant by the term.) But his evitability concept doesn’t mind what one calls oneself. Except there’s no question that Dennett considers himself a compatibilist. The whole point of that position is to supply a basis for assigning responsibility in a (presumed) deterministic mind. We can agree, as apparently we do, that Dennett is unsuccessful as a compatibilist, but what follows is that he hasn’t supplied a basis for assigning responsiblility. Bear in mind that I have other and better reasons for rejecting determinism, on which you haven’t commented. Also, that I’m arguing for volition-subject-to-influences, not LFW. Have you read the links in Post #107? ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/determinism/581558/143 "2011-05-25T03:42:19Z")
Extending on my earlier comments, I should like to illustrate the problem of criminalizing or otherwise judging deterministic behavior. The Stanford article on Compatibilism (cited above) explains this well, but it’s rather dry and technical. I find the following pasage from Chapter XI of Samuel Butler’s satire [Erewhon](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1906/1906-h/1906-h.htm) more viscerally informative. In Erewhon, what we call criminal conduct is considered an ailment, whereas illness is a criminal offense. Our narrator witnesses the trial of a young man accused of tuberculosis. In sentencing the defendant, the magistrate explains: > [@](#): > > “Prisoner at the bar, you have been accused of the great crime of labouring under pulmonary consumption, and after an impartial trial before a jury of your countrymen, you have been found guilty. Against the justice of the verdict I can say nothing: the evidence against you was conclusive, and it only remains for me to pass such a sentence upon you, as shall satisfy the ends of the law. That sentence must be a very severe one. It pains me much to see one who is yet so young, and whose prospects in life were otherwise so excellent, brought to this distressing condition by a constitution which I can only regard as radically vicious; but yours is no case for compassion: this is not your first offence: you have led a career of crime, and have only profited by the leniency shown you upon past occasions, to offend yet more seriously against the laws and institutions of your country. You were convicted of aggravated bronchitis last year: and I find that though you are now only twenty-three years old, you have been imprisoned on no less than fourteen occasions for illnesses of a more or less hateful character; in fact, it is not too much to say that you have spent the greater part of your life in a jail. > > “It is all very well for you to say that you came of unhealthy parents, and had a severe accident in your childhood which permanently undermined your constitution; excuses such as these are the ordinary refuge of the criminal; but they cannot for one moment be listened to by the ear of justice. I am not here to enter upon curious metaphysical questions as to the origin of this or that—questions to which there would be no end were their introduction once tolerated, and which would result in throwing the only guilt on the tissues of the primordial cell, or on the elementary gases. There is no question of how you came to be wicked, but only this—namely, are you wicked or not? This has been decided in the affirmative, neither can I hesitate for a single moment to say that it has been decided justly. You are a bad and dangerous person, and stand branded in the eyes of your fellow-countrymen with one of the most heinous known offences. > > … > > “But I will enlarge no further upon things that are themselves so obvious. You may say that it is not your fault. The answer is ready enough at hand, and it amounts to this—that if you had been born of healthy and well-to-do parents, and been well taken care of when you were a child, you would never have offended against the laws of your country, nor found yourself in your present disgraceful position. If you tell me that you had no hand in your parentage and education, and that it is therefore unjust to lay these things to your charge, I answer that whether your being in a consumption is your fault or no, it is a fault in you, and it is my duty to see that against such faults as this the commonwealth shall be protected. You may say that it is your misfortune to be criminal; I answer that it is your crime to be unfortunate. > > … Obviously this is perverse. But, if determinism is true, our criminal justice system is no less perverse. Which, I will say again, does not of itself make determinism untrue. I reach that conclusion on other grounds. But, if it is true, our present system can’t be defended. Indeed, for this very reason, I think we reach the wrong conclusion in some cases. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/determinism/581558/144 "2011-05-25T04:00:00Z")
Oh, and another thing. I notice this thread is getting about a hundred views per day, though not many posts. Folks interested in the topic might find this essay worth a look: [Determinism and Free Will in Science and Philosophy](http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/determinismandfreewill.html). It’s a good concise and readable survey of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/determinism/581558/145 "2011-05-25T12:36:17Z")
Well, see, if the sentence in the case of the ill young man is a couple of rounds of antibiotics, coupled with maybe a hospital stay, I’d have no problem with the system portrayed in Erewhon. (It also should be noted that we _do_ sentence ill people to therapy against their wishes on occasion, forced admission due to severe depression comes to mind.) The question then becomes, is jailtime to crime as antibiotics to illness? Is our judicial system punitive or corrective – and which should it be? This is obviously something worth discussing, but it’s not really the topic at hand, I think – these questions can be addressed quite independently of whether or not the universe is deterministic (and my own views in that regard indeed have little to do with that question). ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/determinism/581558/146 "2011-05-26T05:49:20Z")
Actually, no. He’s sent to prison. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/determinism/581558.md?page=7)