This is a takeoff on a current free-will thread. It’s just the first reaction I had to it.
If somebody says there is no free will, that every thought or impulse is either determined or random, then why in the heck should I listen to that person. If the quantum foam had foamed in a different direction, or if he had been born a second later, he might have made an entirely different claim. Other people could be making entirely different claims based on their background or on chance. What could possibly make his claim “true” and the others “false”?
For that matter, if there is no free will, can we even speak about truth in a meaningful way?
Not exactly contributing to your post but also another facet to this freewill issue.
In another post determinism was postulated as being incompatible with freewill based on the assertion that since every event in nature has a cause or causes that account for its occurrence, human acts and choices are as determined as anything else in the world. Therefore freewill is an illusion.
If prior cause is determining the current decision, then hypothetically we can look at all prior causes regressively till at some point in time (till birth), the person could not rely on his environment as the sole cause of his action. As an example, parents , school, may teach proper moral behavior throughout this person growing years. When faced with a temptation which he has never experienced before (i.e. no prior knowledge) and he succumbs to it and sin, the determinist claims this person is a victim of his environment. Yet it is clear this person has complete freedom not to sin despite all the knowledge imparted to him that tells him not to. This person has time to reflect on his action and in fact elaborately plan to execute this deed ( let say swindle company funds though a never-before thought of method). So in this situation
a) prior causes is not supportive of him committing this sin
b)there are many competing prior causes that may cause him to choose one way or another
c) his conscience is at play, reflecting the consequences of his actions
Is there a case for determinism in this case? So far, all I can see is just using determinism as an excuse for bad behavior. Even if prior causes do contribute to a bad decision making, how does it alleviate responsibility for ones actions? One is excused if one is unaware what is being done is wrong, done unconsciously or under the influence of drug/alcohol or mentally retarded or done under duress. It is difficult to see how one can deny responsibility.
(It is perplexing that people advocating determinism can p(name removed by moderator)oint a particular prior cause as the determining factor in excusing bad behavior and yet ignoring all the other prior causes that would lead to the opposite decision. How can science cherry pick causal factors? How does it work?)
