The degree of acceptable personnal responsability of an Individual

[danyboy27]

We are all the product if our initial social and material condition in wich we are born, there is no doubt about it, but at wich point can we really say that an individual is responsable of what he is doing?.

The more i am thinking about it, the more i am inclined to think that there is no such thing that we can really call a personnal responsability. We are always constantly influenced and shaped by society, our language, the book i read, the computer i use are all product of the efforts multiples members of society made.

i am still undecided on the issue, i know that for the most part we are shaped by our social and material environnement, but how do i know that the action X or Y i make is really my own choice? After all, my being is nothing but a construct shaped by the education my school and my parent gave me, by the book my friend and teacher influenced me to read, by the media at the time etc etc etc.

discuiss.

[Revolution starts with U]

We all make conscious decisions within the paradigm of the culture we find ourselves in.
Like most issues, it's not black and white.

[danyboy27]

We all make conscious decisions within the paradigm of the culture we find ourselves in.
Like most issues, it's not black and white.

yea we indeed make decisions and choice by ourselves, but just how much are we really responsable of those?

if for exemple, a guy torture a kid for year and the kid grow up to become a psychopath, how responsable is the kid once he is an adult for his actions?

and how am i responsable for my personnal achievement when really, i am nothing but the amalgams of what i have read, and what my parents and teacher teached me?

those people made me the way i am, and from here i took decision dependent on what they decided to teach me.

if i would take an entiere month to analyse my personnal behavior, i would probably notice that 90% of the stuff i think and do, the way i process things in my head have everything to do with my initial developement.

[tbasherizer]

There is no choice. We are all just biological machines that use our base traits at birth to process the input given to us throughout our lives. Those traits are deterministically decided before our birth, as are the conditions that form the input. If in IRL, you decided to stab me in the arm to show how random your free will could be, that would only be in response to certain deterministic factors. Some people find this outlook to be disturbing and demoralising, but I personally don't mind. It doesn't matter to me if I have free will or not- I can't tell the difference.

[RGacky3]

You are personally responsible for everything that you can control .... THats pretty much it.

[Ose]

There is no choice. We are all just biological machines that use our base traits at birth to process the input given to us throughout our lives. Those traits are deterministically decided before our birth, as are the conditions that form the input. If in IRL, you decided to stab me in the arm to show how random your free will could be, that would only be in response to certain deterministic factors. Some people find this outlook to be disturbing and demoralising, but I personally don't mind. It doesn't matter to me if I have free will or not- I can't tell the difference.Believing that there is no free choice and therefore no personal responsibility is, in a philosophical sense, a valid point of view. After all, time is linear and everything that happens in the universe in which we live only happens one way. There is no plurality of actuated outcomes.

However, this kind of determinism is not useful. Whether you think you have free choice or not, this is not a good basis on which to live your life. If we all just said 'fuck it, whatever happens is what was always going to happen', then we'd never get anything done. There would be no working class movement for a start. There is such a thing as being too materialist.

As an analogy, we could take the metaphysically ultra-idealist approach and say that there is no external world and that all that exists is mental events (as I myself am at times tempted to do). That wouldn't be much good either. Even if all we are dealing with is the appearance of a material world, it is clearly best for us to treat it as though it does exist independently of us.

By the same token, it's best to act as though we do have free choice. (Is that kind of what you meant when you said you can't tell the difference?)

Returning to the plurality of outcomes, there is such a thing in abstract terms. There is a possible world in which I do stab you in the arm, and one in which I don't, and this is the way in which this choice is presented to me. Of course, we encounter some difficulty when we enquire as to exactly what it is that possesses the causal power in decision making, but that's not really useful either.

I don't know if this is the kind of response the OP was looking for, and I'm aware that I don't organise my ideas well, but these were my immediate thoughts.

[tbasherizer]

Thanks for replying!

I did mean that we should all act as though we have free choice by saying "We can't tell the difference". My position isn't that we should resign ourselves to the fate chosen for us by the material world- because we can't. We- our minds included- are a part of that material world, and it's therefore impossible to 'give up' (short of killing yourself). Even if someone decided to stay home and be miserable because they take my existentialism the wrong way, they would still be impacting their own life and experience, not to mention those of the people they're abandoning.

I'm not trying to make this particular part of my philosophy useful in the sense I think you're getting at: a methodology for revolutionary leftists. It really only is a tool with which I can fight the hyperspiritualists or religionists. As far as I can tell, I'm not implying in my post describing my materialism that anyone's actions are or aren't significant or that people should or shouldn't act on their world.

As for the plurality of outcomes, I used to think in the same way. What got me, though, was that there was something in 'this world' (the one where you didn't stab me in the arm, for argument's sake) that made it the one that actually happened. In other words, they weren't exactly probable, because deterministic events in your brain caused the knife hidden in your sleeve (or wherever) to not end up in my arm. Furthermore, why are human decisions so important? What stops their from being near-infinite worlds branching off from every animal's decision, or quantum physics event? When these many possible worlds are generated, it really just brings you back to the questions you were trying to answer in the first place.

Until neurologists can say differently, I'm going to stick with the idea that events in the brain are deterministic and therefore so are human actions. This by no means diminishes the importance of human actions and choice; it only puts to rest certain questions you might ask yourself whenever your in a contemplative mood.

PS- I noticed that I might come across as patronizing in my posts- Sorry if I do

PPS- I hope we can keep this good rapport up for the rest of our discussion. You're still a cryptofascist arch-reactioanary closet liberal though, from the way you presented that last post ;)

EDIT: And Trotskyite wrecker

[Ose]

So if I've read you correctly, what you're saying in simple terms is that the future is always a logical consequence of the past, and that due to this, free will does not exist.

So with reference to the title of this thread, I'd like to know what you think are the implications of this for moral responsibility. It's all very well saying that it doesn't matter that we have no free will, but it does. How can one be held morally responsible for an action that was predetermined, even before one's birth?


Until neurologists can say differently, I'm going to stick with the idea that events in the brain are deterministic and therefore so are human actions. This by no means diminishes the importance of human actions and choice; it only puts to rest certain questions you might ask yourself whenever your in a contemplative mood.Due to factors such as the ethical consideration, it is impossible to hold such a determinist view only 'when you're in a contemplative mood'. This view has implications for things such as ethics, and it is logically inconsistent to adhere to it contemplatively whilst ignoring these implications.

Anyway, you seem to agree with the point I was initially trying to make, that this form of determinism isn't a good basis upon which to live one's life. Although I'm sure you'd be reluctant to admit to agreeing with a cryptofascist arch-reactionary closet liberal Trotskyite wrecker. (How did you see through my disguise?):D

[Rafiq]

There is no free will.

Our brains are similar to that of Computers.

We take in everything around us and act using that experience.

Kind of like a computer playing chess with you.

[Thirsty Crow]

yea we indeed make decisions and choice by ourselves, but just how much are we really responsable of those?Individuals are responsible for their action insofar as they've been fully socialized within a given set of social norms ("cultural paardigm", in RSWUs words) and if they possess sufficient mental capacity (i.e. if they do not suffer from psychological disorders).


if for exemple, a guy torture a kid for year and the kid grow up to become a psychopath, how responsable is the kid once he is an adult for his actions?This is a clear case of extremely limited personal responsibility due to psychological trauma and its effects.
Though, I'd like to point out that many of such cases illustrate well the inefficiency of societal institutions which are, in theory at least, supposed to help such people get better and overcome their distress.


and how am i responsable for my personnal achievement when really, i am nothing but the amalgams of what i have read, and what my parents and teacher teached me? See my first statament.
Your teachers and parents, as well as the authors of the materials which you've engaged yourself with, only laid out the groundwork on which you may work. Though, in many cases, this "groundwork" is so rotten and insufficient that one can hardly talk about the supreme principle of personal responsibility, especially given the fact that we all live in class society - a society of exploitation, oppression and fightback.


those people made me the way i am, and from here i took decision dependent on what they decided to teach me.
This is a very crude framework for assessing such complex phenomena and processes. It's not that individual human brain works like a sponge, taking in everything that comes its way without any kind of discrimination.
I think you should reevalute your approach to basic issues of social influnce upon the formation of a personality. This sounds awfully like the worst kind of determinism,, which is not even useful since, as you seem to argue, it erases any kind of a possibility for personal responsibility.


if i would take an entiere month to analyse my personnal behavior, i would probably notice that 90% of the stuff i think and do, the way i process things in my head have everything to do with my initial developement.Yes, and so what?
And what about that other 10%?

[trivas7]

We are all the product if our initial social and material condition in wich we are born, there is no doubt about it, but at wich point can we really say that an individual is responsable of what he is doing?.

Responsible to whom for what? Free will exists only for the conscious; most people live their lives unconsciously and thus they are devoid of choice.

[tbasherizer]

So if I've read you correctly, what you're saying in simple terms is that the future is always a logical consequence of the past, and that due to this, free will does not exist.

So with reference to the title of this thread, I'd like to know what you think are the implications of this for moral responsibility. It's all very well saying that it doesn't matter that we have no free will, but it does. How can one be held morally responsible for an action that was predetermined, even before one's birth?

Due to factors such as the ethical consideration, it is impossible to hold such a determinist view only 'when you're in a contemplative mood'. This view has implications for things such as ethics, and it is logically inconsistent to adhere to it contemplatively whilst ignoring these implications.

Anyway, you seem to agree with the point I was initially trying to make, that this form of determinism isn't a good basis upon which to live one's life. Although I'm sure you'd be reluctant to admit to agreeing with a cryptofascist arch-reactionary closet liberal Trotskyite wrecker. (How did you see through my disguise?):D

I was pondering this, and I actually realized how my deterministic stance could be used as a tool. It neutralizes regret. If you know that what you've done in the past was in a way predestined, you can be satisfied with what you did, no matter what. If you would feel regret, all you have to do is commit to improving your personal tendencies. This might seem contradictory, but we only lack real free will when looking back on past events. The illusion of free will is perfectly intact when you are in the moment.

From the angle of morality and ethics, you've got to remove yourself from a punishment mentality. If a dude, for example, stabs another dude to death, my philosophy doesn't offer a clear course of action as to what to do with him. This mental block can be avoided if you don't force yourself into a punishment mentality. I'm assuming all of us would like the general dude-on-dude stabbage rate to decrease. With this in mind, we have to investigate the conditions leading to stabbage and change them accordingly, and in the case of the stabber, make sure that primarily, they are unable to do any more stabbing, and secondarily, that after the primary measure, the stabber won't tend to do any more stabbing .

If I've read you correctly, it seems that you attribute a measure of revenge with ethics. A deterministic world-view takes revenge out of the question and replaces it with rarional cause and effect relationships.

[Ose]

From the angle of morality and ethics, you've got to remove yourself from a punishment mentality. If a dude, for example, stabs another dude to death, my philosophy doesn't offer a clear course of action as to what to do with him. This mental block can be avoided if you don't force yourself into a punishment mentality. I'm assuming all of us would like the general dude-on-dude stabbage rate to decrease. With this in mind, we have to investigate the conditions leading to stabbage and change them accordingly, and in the case of the stabber, make sure that primarily, they are unable to do any more stabbing, and secondarily, that after the primary measure, the stabber won't tend to do any more stabbing .

If I've read you correctly, it seems that you attribute a measure of revenge with ethics. A deterministic world-view takes revenge out of the question and replaces it with rarional cause and effect relationships.
It's interesting to be interpreted in that way, because the idea of revenge and/or punishment is one that I am wholeheartedly against. By 'ethics', what I meant was not the question of appropriate retribution, but simply the issue of what is right and wrong and why it is so. Of course what is important is reducing the future rate of stabbage; your position in that respect is similar to mine.

A non-deterministic view of moral judgements is useful for providing a motivation not to stab people. Look at this from the point of view of the potential stabber, rather than from a third-person perspective. If I do not have moral responsibility for my judgements, why should I not stab people if I feel like it?

[ZeroNowhere]

A non-deterministic view of moral judgements is useful for providing a motivation not to stab people. Look at this from the point of view of the potential stabber, rather than from a third-person perspective. If I do not have moral responsibility for my judgements, why should I not stab people if I feel like it?I suppose that the answer would be that even if you deduce that without moral responsibility there's no reason why you shouldn't just choose to stab people, it's not like you have a choice anyway. I'm not sure what that would mean, though.


If you know that what you've done in the past was in a way predestined, you can be satisfied with what you did, no matter what. If you would feel regret, all you have to do is commit to improving your personal tendencies. This might seem contradictory, but we only lack real free will when looking back on past events. The illusion of free will is perfectly intact when you are in the moment.It's still pretty contradictory. But then, I suppose that your statements aren't necessarily determined by the laws of logic.

[tbasherizer]

It's still pretty contradictory. But then, I suppose that your statements aren't necessarily determined by the laws of logic.

I didn't put it properly. I meant to say that when you're making choices, you feel as though you have a choice. After the event, when you could regret one of those choices, you can attribute it to deterministic factors. Is that still contradictory?

[Minima]

I mean if you are going to abstract to a point where you get to trying to mathematically prove physical determination of the movement of particles. You might be able to find believable arguments for and against determination. But as something to define our daily existence?

Impossible to simplify mathematically, Its practically irreducible and impossible to prove, as philosophy. Difficult to prove and only beyond reasonable doubt, legally, and for practical matters can only be dealt with the vaguest of sentiments and only to the best of your intuition.

Otherwise, or if you try to extrapolate what is only just simple intuition youre going to end up tying your brain up into more knots than you can imagine, like our comrade tbasherizer here. =P

[tbasherizer]

Oi! I'm not that esoteric, I swear! I'll write a blog post about it or something to clear things up. I might even use diagrams.

[Ocean Seal]

Everyone who does wrong is responsible for what they have done wrong. But when we begin to see a trend we don't deny it, unlike the GOP. We analyze it, analyze the class forces, and we work to end the systemic flaws of society such that in the future we can have a society with less wrong.

[Minima]

@tbasherizer wow it took me half a year to understand that sentence...

but i don't agree, attributing actions to determinism is only a narration. A description of events. that in itself is an abuse of the term, but looking at it doesn't really provide insights in to the philosophical question of determinism.


I think the philosophical question of determinism is an accident of human subjectivity and misunderstanding of language. So, determinism in philosophy is a largely useless concept- however, I think you can still meaningfully analyse whether something is deterministic, or the degree to which something is deterministic- like analyzing child development for understanding later adult behavior.


A funny thing to note is the degree which serial killers and criminals use the language of social scientists in analyzing the reasons for their behaviour - "I was abused as a child" "i grew up in a poor neighbourhood" etc.

an interesting discussion...

[cb9's_unity]

Determinism is science trying to become religion. I have found no satisfying scientific explanation for awareness. That is, at this point science can explore the most basic laws of material reality, but can't then rebuild them in a way where awareness is possible. Science can only say that a bunch of atoms exist near each other. We can then call a specific type of collection a brain and understand that it is conscious. However, we don't know why simply because those atoms are in the correct pattern that they suddenly become aware of their own existence. In the same way we are beginning to understand the patterns of consciousness, and where those patterns connect to the brain, but not necessarily why. Things like hallucinogenic drugs show that awareness, consciousness, and material reality are somehow connected, but, again, not why. Many people make the mistake that because science is extremely good at explaining unaware material reality, and finding laws that govern it, that it will also uncover laws of awareness and consciousness that are similar to the type of laws that govern things like physics.

To say that material reality will explain awareness and consciousness, and thus prove determinism, is a leap of faith that differs in no fundamental way than the leap of faith to god. I tend to start with my own undeniable knowledge of my subjective experience. It seems to me that I have control over my conduct. Thus there is no logical reason for me to assume that I don't have free will until I have evidence that my actions are determined.

From there, it is clear that, moment to moment, I am responsible for all of my individual actions. However, the rest of society is also responsible for their own actions. Thus capitalists are responsible for supporting a society which oppresses the vast majority of people. This is important because people aren't necessarily responsible for where they end up in life. Market society is so complex that there are no definite actions that will ensure success. It is set up in a way that discourages people from trying to move up in life because there is much more likely risk than likely reward. Our society then distorts peoples conception of what is both favorable and possible in negative ways.

What it comes down to is each person is responsible for every terrible action they take, but society acts as a great enabler.