Why should we be guilty of our actions if free will is an illusion?

[Bahman]

Don’t you see that, if you are right and there is no free will, those who punish people or accuse them cannot act otherwise, precisely because they are not free?

They wouldn’t punish criminal if they realize the fact that there is no free will since they realize that they don’t have the right to do so.

Person A kills someone and is arrested immediately by person B.
Person A says, “why do you arrest me?, as I am a rational being and I was under X circumstances, I could not do anything but kill that guy”.
Person B responds, “why do you complain?, as I am a rational being and I am under Y circumstances, I cannot do anything but arrest you”.

And B conducts A to the judge.

The judge condemns A to death.

Person A repeats the same song, because he is a rational being, and he cannot act differently: “why do you condemn me?, as I am a rational being and I was under X circumstances, I could not do anything but kill that guy”.
The judge, who is also a rational being, responds: “why do you complain?, as I am a rational being and I am under W circumstances, I cannot do anything but condemn you”.

Do you see?

Person A is right and person B is wrong. The problem is that in your mind set person A should be punished by law because your written law allows that since it is well accepted that we have free will. I mean the law should be revised in order to accommodate the fact that there is no free will.

 

[Bahman]

If we lack free-will, we didn’t invent guilt; our human nature did.

We invent guilt exactly because we assume that we are free. We just had a huge misunderstanding.

But how is this evolution? “Evolving” to have guilt makes no sense if we are not free (and therefore lack responsibility for our actions, which we have no control over).

Our social system evolved a lot during last decades. We have still room to progress.

*“Should” *implies freedom. It is meaningless, for example, to say that someone should be kind, if they have no control over the extent of their kindness!

I think we are having a conflict because we use two different meaning for should. Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions.

In other words, we are capable of reason because we are capable of rational activity.

Yes.

 

[littlestsouls2]

We invent guilt exactly because we assume that we are free. We just had a huge misunderstanding.

And now that your brain has revealed the truth to you - namely, that you are not free - why not do away with guilt?

I’ll answer the question for you: because you are not free to do so.

Our social system evolved a lot during last decades. We have still room to progress.

It hasn’t evolved; it has just changed. To say that we have “evolved” to have guilt, despite lacking control over our actions (and therefore, responsibility), is a misuse of the word “evolve.”

I think we are having a conflict because we use two different meaning for should. Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions.

There can be no obligation to do that which we are not free to choose.

Yes.

I think you missed the irony in my answer. Your argument begged the question.

 

[Wesrock]

It occured to me that we are trying to tackle this issue with two hands tied behind our backs. Bahman’s approach to this issue assumes only material and efficient causes, thus making the intellect and will themselves simply efficient causes, the result one billiard ball deterministically bouncing off another. I don’t think you even need to necessarily be an Aristotlean-Thomist to reject this conception of reality, though the A-T would specifically speak of the intellect and will as being formal and final causes and not efficient causes. Seriously, rejecting formal and final causes creates a serious handicap when trying to argue free will or objective morality.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

They wouldn’t punish criminal if they realize the fact that there is no free will since they realize that they don’t have the right to do so.

Person A is right and person B is wrong. The problem is that in your mind set person A should be punished by law because your written law allows that since it is well accepted that we have free will. I mean the law should be revised in order to accommodate the fact that there is no free will.

Those guys don’t revise the law because they don’t have free will, and you should not blame them nor punish them, unless you believe they are free.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It occured to me that we are trying to tackle this issue with two hands tied behind our backs. Bahman’s approach to this issue assumes only material and efficient causes, thus making the intellect and will themselves simply efficient causes, the result one billiard ball deterministically bouncing off another. I don’t think you even need to necessarily be an Aristotlean-Thomist to reject this conception of reality, though the A-T would specifically speak of the intellect and will as being formal and final causes and not efficient causes. Seriously, rejecting formal and final causes creates a serious handicap when trying to argue free will or objective morality.

I think you have a very high concept of Bahman! I don’t think he has any remote idea of efficient nor material causes, so much the less about formal and final causes.

 

[Bahman]

And now that your brain has revealed the truth to you - namely, that you are not free - why not do away with guilt?

I’ll answer the question for you: because you are not free to do so…

You don’t need free will to get ride of guilt. You just need to be rational.

 

[Bahman]

Those guys don’t revise the law because they don’t have free will, and you should not blame them nor punish them, unless you believe they are free.

You don’t need free will to realize that there is a problem in law. You just need to be rational. Rationality enforces responsibility.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You don’t need free will to realize that there is a problem in law. You just need to be rational. Rationality enforces responsibility.

In that case, either those guys are more rational than you or less rational.

If they are more rational than you, they understand about those things better than you do and it is ok if they punish you, so that you learn to discover your freedom and how to live according to the law.

If they are less rational than you, it might be that their “unconscious mind” (you know) is not working properly; so, their priorities are different than yours. But they have the power to punish you if you do wrong.

So, you had better behave properly if you don’t want to be punished and feel guilty. Be rational, Bahman!

 

[littlestsouls2]

You don’t need free will to get ride of guilt. You just need to be rational.

But we are not free to exercise our reason. So the argument still stands.

 

[littlestsouls2]

It occured to me that we are trying to tackle this issue with two hands tied behind our backs. Bahman’s approach to this issue assumes only material and efficient causes, thus making the intellect and will themselves simply efficient causes, the result one billiard ball deterministically bouncing off another. I don’t think you even need to necessarily be an Aristotlean-Thomist to reject this conception of reality, though the A-T would specifically speak of the intellect and will as being formal and final causes and not efficient causes. Seriously, rejecting formal and final causes creates a serious handicap when trying to argue free will or objective morality.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

“A potency or potentiality is always a potency for some actuality; to have a potency is to be directed toward or to point to some outcome. Hence the notion of potency goes hand in hand with that of final cause.”

• Ed Feser

 

[Bahman]

In that case, either those guys are more rational than you or less rational.

What do you mean with more or less rational? A person in a given situation is either rational or irrational.

If they are more rational than you, they understand about those things better than you do and it is ok if they punish you, so that you learn to discover your freedom and how to live according to the law.

There is no point in punishing a person if his act from his perspective is rational.

If they are less rational than you, it might be that their “unconscious mind” (you know) is not working properly; so, their priorities are different than yours. But they have the power to punish you if you do wrong.

Power doesn’t justify anything. The point is that exercise our rationality by learning from our mistakes.

So, you had better behave properly if you don’t want to be punished and feel guilty. Be rational, Bahman!

That is rationality which enforce responsibility so there is no room left for being guilty if an action is rational.

 

[Bahman]

But we are not free to exercise our reason. So the argument still stands.

We have to exercise our reasons being a rational agent. Rationality enforces responsibility and responsibility enforces us to engage in exercising our reasons.

 

[davidv]

We have to exercise our reasons being a rational agent. Rationality enforces responsibility and responsibility enforces us to engage in exercising our reasons.

How can you be a rational agent without free will?

 

[Bahman]

How can you be a rational agent without free will?

Because as it is discussed in another thread free will is an illusion and rationality suffices to resolve a situation which requires a decision. Please see another thread which is cited in OP.

 

[davidv]

Because as it is discussed in another thread free will is an illusion and rationality suffices to resolve a situation which requires a decision. Please see another thread which is cited in OP.

I don’t know how this answers my question. I think this information is just a distraction. Free will, by definition, is inherent in being a rational agent. How can you be an agent without the ability to choose? What rare definitions are you using for the following?
agent?
rational?

 

[Bahman]

I don’t know how this answers my question. I think this information is just a distraction. Free will, by definition, is inherent in being a rational agent. How can you be an agent without the ability to choose? What rare definitions are you using for the following?
agent?
rational?

Agent: a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect.
Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

 

[SecretCatholic]

If free will is not real, but simply an illusion, then there is no real “guilt” and hell makes no sense. Punishment and rewards still make sense in society, as without it we could not have a functioning society- but those who punish and reward would be just as unfree as those who are punished and rewarded, making the whole existence absurd.

Another possibility for the feeling of guilt and punishment and rewards in a non-free-will world would be that we would all eventually be rewarded by God and all of this is just for the sake of properly preparing us for this reward and our proper functions, like programming a computer or conditioning an animal- though we would at least have an understanding of this, rather than the computer or the animal.

In such a non-free-will world, it would be cruel and unjust for God to punish us, because we are not responsible for our actions. But it would be good and just for God to reward us, because all organisms, whether free or not, want their needs met- indeed they are designed by God to be as such- and since we need God and are meant for God, it would be fitting for God to give us himself even if we had no free will.

Another possibility is that, in a non-free-will world though we might not have free will in this existence, we will have free will in a future world, where these experiences will serve to inform our free wills.

That said, none of these are compatible with Catholic teaching and as a Catholic, I do believe in free will, although I also struggle to understand it.

 

[Bahman]

If free will is not real, but simply an illusion, then there is no real “guilt” and hell makes no sense. Punishment and rewards still make sense in society, as without it we could not have a functioning society- but those who punish and reward would be just as unfree as those who are punished and rewarded, making the whole existence absurd.

That is not true since we as rational beings still are responsible for our action.

Another possibility for the feeling of guilt and punishment and rewards in a non-free-will world would be that we would all eventually be rewarded by God and all of this is just for the sake of properly preparing us for this reward and our proper functions, like programming a computer or conditioning an animal- though we would at least have an understanding of this, rather than the computer or the animal.

That make sense.

In such a non-free-will world, it would be cruel and unjust for God to punish us, because we are not responsible for our actions. But it would be good and just for God to reward us, because all organisms, whether free or not, want their needs met- indeed they are designed by God to be as such- and since we need God and are meant for God, it would be fitting for God to give us himself even if we had no free will.

We are responsible for our actions being rational.

Another possibility is that, in a non-free-will world though we might not have free will in this existence, we will have free will in a future world, where these experiences will serve to inform our free wills.

That said, none of these are compatible with Catholic teaching and as a Catholic, I do believe in free will, although I also struggle to understand it.

I suggest to read through another thread which is cited in OP.

 

[SecretCatholic]

That is not true since we as rational beings still are responsible for our action.

Bahman, if our actions are determined, then by definition, we have no choice in the matter. If our “reason” falters, it is equivalent to a computer malfunctioning or being incorrectly-programmed. If free will is not real, we are certainly not responsible for our actions, no matter how virtuous or heinous they might seem. I don’t punish my computer when it crashes. It is not a free agent. Even if I did use punishment on a non-free agent, it would only be part of a non-free system- I would also not be responsible for the punishment, since I was never free to not will it in the first place.

To me, this is the only “positive” about a lack of free will. I could do whatever the heck I wanted, with no moral qualms. But, the cost is so enormous that it would be a rather empty “positive” indeed.