If what we do is predetermined then that absolutely absolves us from responsibility for our actions. The very definition of responsibility implies that we have the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization, or have a duty to do something. We can’t talk about responsibility without choice or free will.
Can we hold someone accountable for their actions if free will didn’t exist? Sure. We should isolate a serial killer from society, but it wouldn’t be accurate to say he was the cause of his actions.
Society should instill in the individual the mindset that if they do something harmful to their community, the individual should work on preventing performing the same action again. The community should at the same time understand that they have failed in their education of the offending individual, or that the structure of society is faulty and would inevitably lead to the undesirable action.
I am aware I am writing this in a way implying choice, that is merely a consequence of linguistic norms and the way we think.
Those linguistic norms and the way we think can’t be dismissed so easily though. There’s a reason words like responsibility and choice have the meanings they do, and why we think in terms of them. From a deterministic perspective, why do we use words like that and think like that if it’s fundamentally incorrect to do so?
I’m not a linguist (or any other kind of professional for that matter), but it seems logical to me that a species with a strong illusion of free will would, over thousands of years, develop languages influenced by the assumption that free will is a fact.
Also I’m no saying anything is fundamentally incorrect, or that I’m correct, just stating and clarifying my point of view, while trying to learn more about the views of others.
If what we do is predetermined then that absolutely absolves us from responsibility for our actions. The very definition of responsibility implies that we have the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization, or have a duty to do something. We can’t talk about responsibility without choice or free will.
Can we hold someone accountable for their actions if free will didn’t exist? Sure. We should isolate a serial killer from society, but it wouldn’t be accurate to say he was the cause of his actions.
Society should instill in the individual the mindset that if they do something harmful to their community, the individual should work on preventing performing the same action again. The community should at the same time understand that they have failed in their education of the offending individual, or that the structure of society is faulty and would inevitably lead to the undesirable action.
I am aware I am writing this in a way implying choice, that is merely a consequence of linguistic norms and the way we think.
Those linguistic norms and the way we think can’t be dismissed so easily though. There’s a reason words like responsibility and choice have the meanings they do, and why we think in terms of them. From a deterministic perspective, why do we use words like that and think like that if it’s fundamentally incorrect to do so?
I’m not a linguist (or any other kind of professional for that matter), but it seems logical to me that a species with a strong illusion of free will would, over thousands of years, develop languages influenced by the assumption that free will is a fact.
Also I’m no saying anything is fundamentally incorrect, or that I’m correct, just stating and clarifying my point of view, while trying to learn more about the views of others.