What would life be like if we accepted the scientific argument that all actions are mere results of determined or random brain functions and no non-physical causes exist?
I would think no difference at all.
At the moment, few people reflect on how nonsensical the popular idea of free will is, and also draw false conclusions such as determinism = fatalism.
If society actually embraced what neuroscience is telling them, then I think that more people would reflect on this reality and appreciate that it doesn’t mean that their decision-making is an illusion.
EDIT: actually it is a huge problem for religion… So it almost comes down to a “what if religion was proven false to everyone’s satisfaction” question
IMHO it requires a complete reassessment of Praise and Blame for actions.
If followed through logically it would call into question many beliefs which are essentially modern myths.
I do accept the notion that our concept of free will is driven by nuerolgical chemical sources. We simply anticapate a chain of events that might take place based on a decision we will make. Experience has taught us the rewards, punishments or lack or rewards that go with each step of the scenario. We choose the one that gives us th ebest possible chemical result. But we still choose no matter what you call it.
What is this ‘we’ that does the choosing? This is being discussed on my other thread which is asking for justification of the concept of Free Will. I was hoping this thread would stick to looking at the ramifications of belief in Free Will.
It means there’s some point to disciplining my three-year-old. He chose to behave badly, and maybe I can encourage him to behave better in the future.
Here is an example. In the distant past we used to hang animals for their willful acts- assuming that their behavior was caused by their will and not just by their nature. We accept now that they do not act with any Free Will- that their brains cause their behavior. We also accept that certain classes of people (mentally disordered, children etc.) do not act with culpable Free Will. We accept that somnambulists and people in fugue states lack Free Will. If a person is forcibly administered a mind altering drug we accept that Free Will may be extinguished.
If all action is determined by previous experience on top of genetics, how would we scientifically (not morally) separate such people from those people in classes who are excepted from Blame?
A small increase in the average rationalism of society. People would adapt soon enough. “Free will” IMHO is such a nonsensical concept that people really just pay lip service to it without really thinking about it. One can remove the concept of “free will” from society with little change, because the surrounding philosophies and customs of our society were in fact made with only just that lip service to free will and aren’t actually dependent on it.
Really, much of the problem is that people confuse physicalism with “people are mindless clockwork automatons”. Without free will morality and modifying behavior by persuasion, punishment and reward make as much or more sense as they do with free will.
I say “or more” because really such ideas as morality & law are based on the implied assumption that there is no free will, that effects have causes and that we can modify people’s behavior without their magical free will rendering our efforts moot.
Did he ‘choose’ to behave badly?
Does that mean a circus flea, or a dog or a horse has free will.
Learning is not dependent of Free Will.
I think the biggest ramifications might be thatonce we are able to accept hour decision making process we may become more open to behavior modifications. Or in the case of treatment centers and prisons new methods of rehabilitation might be introduced. Low achievers could turn themselves into higher achievers by learning how to activate the proper series of chemicals. They would be far reaching and huge potentialy.
I would disagree.
The principles of judicial punishment are:
Just desert
Rehabilitation,
Warning others,
Satisfying society,
Protection of society by exclusion
Not all of those seem just if Free Will is excluded.
Has this happened yet to any extent?
If free will existed, none of those except the last should even work, much less be just. And they are justified by working, not by free will. Or not justified if they don’t work.
I believe that preachers, confidence men, motivational speakers and several others have understould this concept for a very long time.
I don’t think so.
Free Will is the excuse for punishment that is deserved- he acted thus, so we must harm him thus- the lex talionis exemplifies and limits such retribution.
Penitentiaries were called such because they were designed to make men penitent- consider their actions and of their own free will, change their future behavior.
Warning others also relies on people acting out of free will and changing their behavior in consequence.
Satisfying society also is to do with just deserts.
The reason that the insane, children, and other exceptions are excepted is because of a presumed lack of free will in those groups.
No. Penitentiaries were named that because at the time the name was coined people believed in punishment for its own sake, not because it changed behavior.
“Consequence” is a concept that is based on determinism, not free will. If people actually had free will they would be unaffected by punishment, as that’s an external influence. Nor would it be possible to reason with them or effectively threaten them or affect their behavior in any way. Which of course doesn’t resemble normal human behavior at all.
As I said, the concept of free will just doesn’t logically hold up when you seriously consider what it means.
Penitentiaries were originally designed to make penitent rather than to punish. Punishing regimes used hard labor, senseless repetitive tasks (picking oakum) the treadwheel or similar. The Penitentiary was a new idea- people in single cells with only the bible for reading. Kept isolated and encouraged to morally correct themselves by simple quiet existence, bible reading and visitation by ministers.
Eventually it lost its specific reason for existence and most prisons in the US became called penitentiaries, evne though they no longer made penitent.
Your analysis of punishment regimes is at odds with the usually cited texts on Crime and punishment!
Locking people alone in a cell like that is punishment, and quite brutal punishment at that. These days we call it solitary confinement.
Them noticing that they were driving people insane had something to do with as well as I recall.
Whatever their effect, their intention and name were as I originally said, places to encourage penitence. This was in response to your incorrect post:
“No. Penitentiaries were named that because at the time the name was coined people believed in punishment for its own sake, not because it changed behavior.”
which is demonstrably wrong.
The justice system in most developed countries is based on rehabilitation, deterrence and protection of the wider public. None of these things is affected by an acknowledgement that free will does not exist, or determinism.
Only in countries where there is a notion of punishment would there need to be a change. But it’s a minor change really.