Now that we have finished discussing free will, I think it is interesting to look back on previous topics and see how free will applies. One topic that is particularly intriguing is morality. When discussing morality in class, we usually focused on how to define/determine what is moral. However, there is another important question to ask: can people be held responsible for their morals? Is it fair to hold people responsible for their moral or immoral actions? I think that most people would likely say yes. People who commit immoral actions (Hitler, for example) are usually punished whereas those who commit moral good actions (such as Mother Teresa) are often applauded for their efforts. Yet, if determinism were true, punishing or applauding behavior would be essentially pointless because they are predetermined. In this case, Hitler was destined to sentence millions of people to death and Mother Teresa was determined to help the poor. Although determinism works well in Mother Teresa’s case, it is very problematic when discussing Hitler. According to determinism, Hitler had no control; he was born immoral. This then begs the question, if Hitler couldn’t help acting how he did, should he be punished? Once again, I think most people would say yes, but this creates its own problems. Is it moral to punish someone who is predetermined to act in a certain way? Personally, I believe that determinism does not work well with other topics such as morality, so I am inclined to believe in indeterminism or self-forming actions. I believe both of these theories provide humans with the freedom to choose how they want to act. This, in turn, allows for accountability so that people can be punished or rewarded for their actions. (If anyone believes in determinism and can offer an explanation, especially to the question “is it moral to punish someone who is predetermined to act in a certain way?” please do; I just couldn’t think of one)
With determinism it could be considered moral to punish someone for doing something that was predetermined if you change the reason for punishment. Rather than having punishment for some sort of balance or deserving reason, punishment could be used as operant conditioning as well as for protection. Punishment would serve to protect others from a person who committed a crime which would be in the vein utilitarianism trying to make the best outcome for the most people. Punishment could also seek to prevent the crime from happening again much in the same way you get a pet to stop doing something like tearing up the furniture.
I think you bring up a good point, Jared. Using punishment as a form of conditioning would be a good way to help stop immoral actions. However, if determinism is the view that everything is predetermined, then would punishment or conditioning even work? If we are predetermined to act a certain way, then can punishment change our actions? If this is possible then how so? It seems to me that if we are able to alter someone’s actions with punishment, then we would be influencing that person in a way that is not predetermined.
You are confusing determinism with fatalism. Morality from a deterministic point of view is still an important subject. Punishment for the sake of inflicting the same pain on them as they inflicted on others is pointless if they couldn’t have done anything to change their actions, however prevention, rehabilitation, and containment are what the criminal justice system should do. Read sam harris’s “freewill” .
Punishment as a form of prevention is important to an extent. And praising people who’ve done good and condemning those who’ve done wrong prevents wrong skin by missing people’s ideas and actions.
so does that mean that we punish people before they act because if so how do you know that they will do? it’s like the Minority Report. because if we chose option A instead of B, sure the effects might be determined but that doesn’t mean the action of choosing is determined. there is still a chance for them to not make that choice. So to say that we have to prevent them from doing it as punishment isn’t right because they might not make that choice. you can do the math and say they might do A but even so there is still a chance they might not do that.
I think hard determinism has nothing to do with predictability, a system cannot predict itself using its own resources since these resources are part of the variables too. Thus, if hard determinism is true, situations in movies like Minority Report are not possible at all, it’s essentially the same as Pinocchio saying “My nose will grow now”.
And I also consider morality irrelevant with the truth value of hard determinism (well, more or less). If I am pre-determined to question my own free-will, then would not morality be the same? Hard determinism could be the marco-scale rule while morality is at the micro, individual-level belief; people could be pre-determined to believe or not believe in the existence of morality, while this belief itself has nothing to do with hard-determinism at all.