Free Will with a Little Bit of Science! (TM)(C)(R)

[Max_S]

@begbert2

Which can easily be demonstrated by the fact that all the proponents of it flatly refuse to even consider how it could possibly work enough to accomplish what it supposedly does.

The same criticism can be levied against randomness as event causation. The same criticism applies to literally every theory of event causation except infinite regress; “how it works” implies that you are looking for causation. A non-deterministic process is, by definition, beyond the scope of determining how it works. Truly random selection is one example of a non-deterministic process. Agency is another.

@begbert2

My first paragraph was attempting to point out that virtually every reason we have for employing a justice system applies equally well to humans, lakes, and murderous killbots. […] If something is committing crimes, it doesn’t matter why they’re doing it […]

That’s your opinion, not mine. Inanimate objects like lakes do not have perception, and therefore do not experience pain or pleasure, and therefore cannot experience eudaimonia (religious deities excepted, of course). We can talk about the telos and aretē of objects (for they do have purposes or excellences), but we cannot speak of their loves and desires. Thus objects cannot be moral actors and we cannot assign them moral culpability.

Of course it matters why someone commits a crime, especially within the framework of virtue ethics. The coup de grâce comes to mind. Involuntary acts also come to mind - you may recall this example:

@Max_S

Let’s say you had a neurological disorder which caused you to constantly pinch and unpinch your thumb and forefinger as if you were using a television remote. This specific disorder also makes it so that your brain is essentially hotwired to consciously perform this action; you want to pinch your fingers together. I place an unarmed button-style nuclear detonator in your hand, such that it cannot be removed, and tell you not to press the button or millions of people will die. Your neurological disorder means you want to press the button anyways, so you do so. Your “decision” takes place entirely within your head. I tell you the button will be armed in one minute. One minute later some city blows up. I am obviously a monster, but I escape while you are caught by the authorities. Assuming you can prove exactly what happened, do you have any sort of culpability?

@begbert2

I’ve heard nature get anthropomorphized numerous times

People do personify nature, and pass moral judgements upon it, but - ruling out belief in religious deities - I see that more as “if nature was a person, she would be […]”. A lake cannot properly be immoral. To say “the lake is immoral for drowning a man” is to mean “if the lake were a person, she would be immoral because she drowned a man”. (even that is not an airtight accusation of immorality)

In the case of religious deities, such as a lake god, moral judgement of the lake would actually be moral judgement of the god.

@begbert2

But supposing you’re correct, that does raise the question of what you consider the purpose and function of morality.

In this sub-discussion, the purpose of justice and the function of morality was already given:

@jcklpe

But these days I adopt a more restorative idea of justice. The purpose of “justice” has changed from “punish evil, reward the good” to “heal the sick”. […] In my view all moral issues are a matter of “disordered loves”, as Augustine put it. Instead of seeing Justice as a matter of punishing evil or rewarding good, I see it as an attempt to bring reality back into alignment with telos.

We are dealing with a form of virtue ethics where moral judgement is to identify whether one’s loves/desires are in alignment with telos (purpose, nature). The purpose of moral judgement in this context is to “bring reality back into alignment with telos”, as a prelude to restoration or rehabilitation.

@begbert2

if you think that deterministic agents never consciously weigh factors

I don’t think deterministic “agents” are conscious at all. This is a simple deduction given my personal philosophy of consciousness.

~Max