# Free Will with a Little Bit of Science! (TM)(C)(R) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2021, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-with-a-little-bit-of-science-tm-c-r/931877 "2021-01-30T17:53:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 174
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2021, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-with-a-little-bit-of-science-tm-c-r/931877/174 "2021-02-17T17:40:52Z")
> [@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 some_one_ 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: > > [@Any atheists here who believe in free will?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-here-who-believe-in-free-will/838240/112): > > > > 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 --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-with-a-little-bit-of-science-tm-c-r/931877)._