Critique My Philosophy of Life?

[Solitary]

There is a problem here with the word responsible. A tornado is responsible for the damage it causes, is it not. You can still be held responsible for what you do even if you don't have freewill, to protect society for example. We kill a vicious animal that causes harm because it was responsible for doing it even if it has freewill or not. Where did this concept of freewill come from? Religion and the belief in a god. There is only will power, which enables us to choose right or wrong for many reasons we have no control over. intelligence and just a little brain power is all that is required to know not to do something to another sentient creature you don't want done to yourself. No God needed or required. When the Nazi's did with their will and choice was an example of moral idiocy even though they were intelligent in other ways. Solitary

[Philosofer123]

There is a problem here with the word responsible. A tornado is responsible for the damage it causes, is it not. You can still be held responsible for what you do even if you don't have freewill, to protect society for example. We kill a vicious animal that causes harm because it was responsible for doing it even if it has freewill or not. Where did this concept of freewill come from? Religion and the belief in a god. There is only will power, which enables us to choose right or wrong for many reasons we have no control over. intelligence and just a little brain power is all that is required to know not to do something to another sentient creature you don't want done to yourself. No God needed or required. When the Nazi's did with their will and choice was an example of moral idiocy even though they were intelligent in other ways. Solitary

Yes, the tornado, in some sense, is responsible for the damage it causes.  But at the same time, it makes no sense to get angry at the tornado.  Analogously, it makes no sense to get angry at someone who is proximately responsible, but not ultimately responsible, for their actions.  And the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be ultimately responsible for anything.  Therefore, the impossibility of free will in the way I define it (in terms of ultimate responsibility) has great therapeutic benefits.  Namely, it renders irrational a number of negative emotions, including anger and regret.  And this is the primary purpose of including free will impossibilism in my philosophy.

That said, as you note, punishment may still be appropriate for pragmatic reasons--such as deterrence, quarantine, and perhaps rehabilitation.  But if no one can be ultimately responsible for anything, then punishment for retributive reasons makes no sense.

[Plu]

The regress argument demonstrates that we do not have ultimate control over any part of our lives.

That means it's also ultimately not possible to change your outlook on life. You can't have the one without the other. If you make a choice, you're responsible for it. If you can change your outlook on life, you are responsible for that change, since you could have also made another choice.

If you're not responsible for anything, you also cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life, which means it's not you making that choice, as making a choice is requires taking responsibility for it.

If you can't agree with that, I can't agree with your definitions of 'choice' and 'responsibility' and your entire philosophy becomes worthless to me. Sorry.

[mykcob4]

The regress argument demonstrates that we do not have ultimate control over any part of our lives.

That means it's also ultimately not possible to change your outlook on life. You can't have the one without the other. If you make a choice, you're responsible for it. If you can change your outlook on life, you are responsible for that change, since you could have also made another choice.

If you're not responsible for anything, you also cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life, which means it's not you making that choice, as making a choice is requires taking responsibility for it.

If you can't agree with that, I can't agree with your definitions of 'choice' and 'responsibility' and your entire philosophy becomes worthless to me. Sorry.

I think that this guy is trying and very poorly I might add, to prove that there is a god that has predestined everything. He is just another chew toy. Have fun Plu!

[SimonaM]

Oh, I´m sorry, I forgot that there are some people to whom you need to explain letter by letter what you´re saying because their minds simply cannot make a commun logical connection. So, I will reformulate and take the time to explain to you, solitary, what I have ment when I asked "Who is to be hold responsible for this horrible crime?". Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices) and not to a tree, nor to the dogs that ate the girl (that was my example).

The problem is not our IQs, but your inability to post something that isn't incomprehensible gobbledygook. Perhaps if you said what you meant and meant what you said, you wouldn't have this problem. It follows the old saying: "You can do it right, or you can do it again."

 Why do you say "our IQs"? Do you have multiple personalities or you´re just too coward to speak in your own name?

[Plu]

Nah, he knows us well enough to speak for multiple people on these forums.

Keep in mind that "our" always includes the speaker, you seem to have missed that  :roll:

[Philosofer123]

The regress argument demonstrates that we do not have ultimate control over any part of our lives.

That means it's also ultimately not possible to change your outlook on life. You can't have the one without the other.

It is clearly possible to change your outlook on life.  Many people, including myself, have done exactly that.

If you make a choice, you're responsible for it. If you can change your outlook on life, you are responsible for that change, since you could have also made another choice.

You are proximately responsible, but you cannot be ultimately responsible.  This is established by the regress argument.  And as I have pointed out, it is ultimate responsibility that is required for the rationality of emotions such as anger and regret.

If you're not responsible for anything, you also cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life, which means it's not you making that choice, as making a choice is requires taking responsibility for it.

Again, you can make choices and be proximately responsible, and you can be proximately responsible for changing your outlook on life, but you cannot be ultimately responsible.  

If you can't agree with that, I can't agree with your definitions of 'choice' and 'responsibility' and your entire philosophy becomes worthless to me. Sorry.

That's okay.

[Plu]

You are proximately responsible, but you cannot be ultimately responsible. This is established by the regress argument. And as I have pointed out, it is ultimate responsibility that is required for the rationality of emotions such as anger and regret.

You have not shown how ultimate responsibility is a requirement for rationality of negative emotions. You have only shown that we don't have it, and that if you have no responsibility these emotions aren't valid. There is no reasoning as to why you can't be legitimately angry with someone who is proximately responsible. It's perfectly valid to be just that.

[Philosofer123]

You are proximately responsible, but you cannot be ultimately responsible. This is established by the regress argument. And as I have pointed out, it is ultimate responsibility that is required for the rationality of emotions such as anger and regret.

You have not shown how ultimate responsibility is a requirement for rationality of negative emotions. You have only shown that we don't have it, and that if you have no responsibility these emotions aren't valid. There is no reasoning as to why you can't be legitimately angry with someone who is proximately responsible. It's perfectly valid to be just that.

I have already demonstrated by analogy why it makes no sense to be angry with someone who is not ultimately responsible for their actions.  But let me try again:

Consider Bob, who has been a perfectly nice individual throughout his life.  But then Bob develops a brain tumor that completely changes his personality and character.  He becomes selfish and vicious.  He then chooses to mug an innocent bystander.

Does it make sense to be angry at Bob?  He is proximately responsible for the mugging, as he chose to do it.  But he is not ultimately responsible, as his brain tumor is what caused the personality/character transformation that led him to choose to mug.  I submit that it does not make sense to be angry at Bob, as he is simply the victim of a tumor.  Analogously, the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions.  That is, our actions are ultimately the result of hereditary factors, our environment, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors.  Therefore, anger is irrational.

[Plu]

That's a poor example. The brain tumor causes bob to be not even proximately responsible for his actions, which was the whole thing you were trying to prove. Proximate responsibility for an action requires the actor to have at least one path that wil let them avoid taking that action.

If we take a simple example like bob being trapped in a room with two buttons, and given the information that if he presses the left one he gets $100 and if he presses the right one his best friend will die, and we add that bob has a reasonable education and understands what is asked of him, then bob will have proximite responsibility for whichever action he picks, and we can be legimately angry with him.

[Philosofer123]

That's a poor example. The brain tumor causes bob to be not even proximately responsible for his actions, which was the whole thing you were trying to prove. Proximate responsibility for an action requires the actor to have at least one path that wil let them avoid taking that action.

Bob did have a path that would let him avoid taking the action.  He could simply have chosen not to mug.  Simply being selfish and vicious did not compel Bob to mug; he still made a choice.

If we take a simple example like bob being trapped in a room with two buttons, and given the information that if he presses the left one he gets $100 and if he presses the right one his best friend will die, and we add that bob has a reasonable education and understands what is asked of him, then bob will have proximite responsibility for whichever action he picks, and we can be legimately angry with him.

Yes, he would have proximate responsibility, but no, we cannot be legitimately angry with him.  This is because Bob's action is ultimately a function of factors beyond his control--hereditary factors, environment, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors.  Bob is a victim of these factors, just as much as he is a victim of a brain tumor in the analogy I provided.

[Plu]

I guess I'll just have to disagree with your philosophy then. Good luck selling it to others.

[Philosofer123]

I guess I'll just have to disagree with your philosophy then. Good luck selling it to others.

I am not trying to "sell" my philosophy.  As noted in the OP, I am posting my philosophy in order to solicit feedback so that it may be improved.  It would not bother me if no one else agreed with it.

Thank you for your comments, Plu.

[Solitary]

There is a problem here with the word responsible. A tornado is responsible for the damage it causes, is it not. You can still be held responsible for what you do even if you don't have freewill, to protect society for example. We kill a vicious animal that causes harm because it was responsible for doing it even if it has freewill or not. Where did this concept of freewill come from? Religion and the belief in a god. There is only will power, which enables us to choose right or wrong for many reasons we have no control over. intelligence and just a little brain power is all that is required to know not to do something to another sentient creature you don't want done to yourself. No God needed or required. When the Nazi's did with their will and choice was an example of moral idiocy even though they were intelligent in other ways. Solitary

Yes, the tornado, in some sense, is responsible for the damage it causes.  But at the same time, it makes no sense to get angry at the tornado.  Analogously, it makes no sense to get angry at someone who is proximately responsible, but not ultimately responsible, for their actions.  And the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be ultimately responsible for anything.  Therefore, the impossibility of free will in the way I define it (in terms of ultimate responsibility) has great therapeutic benefits.  Namely, it renders irrational a number of negative emotions, including anger and regret.  And this is the primary purpose of including free will impossibilism in my philosophy.

That said, as you note, punishment may still be appropriate for pragmatic reasons--such as deterrence, quarantine, and perhaps rehabilitation.  But if no one can be ultimately responsible for anything, then punishment for retributive reasons makes no sense.

I agree, and why it has helped me with not wanting to roast OJ alive. But if it was my daughter or son that he did it to all bets are off.    Solitary

[josephpalazzo]

Yes, he would have proximate responsibility, but no, we cannot be legitimately angry with him.  This is because Bob's action is ultimately a function of factors beyond his control--hereditary factors, environment, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors.  Bob is a victim of these factors, just as much as he is a victim of a brain tumor in the analogy I provided.

I'm a bit late in this discussion, I haven't read the thread from the beginning, just a few recent posts, and Plu is having fun with you- one more reasons to barge in,   , anyways, what I would like to point out is the evolutionary angle that seems to be missing from your arguments. Emotions were/are necessary for our survival. For most species, the invidual has an inbuilt trigger to fight or flee. Also having invested a considerable amount of time and energy in raising our offsprings ( passing on our DNA), it is also a matter of survival to make sure our offsprings survive our own mortality. Imagine a mother not reacting if one of its offsprings were to be attacked. You can rest assured that such a species would have been longtime extinct.

Now why would I be angry with Bob? Because I would perceive that if he can attack anyone, he can certainly me, or one of my offsprings that carry my DNA. It's natural for me to see that this individual to be taken care - that is, neutralized so that he is no longer a threat. Now, along this, civilization was born, and many of our institutions were built around the very concept of our survival - think law and order with all its apparatus of police, judges, courts, jails, etc. Those are in place not only to do the noble "justice" ideal that philosophers have been pondering for ages, but at the very fundamental level, to ensure our survival both as individual and the survival of that society. Of course, there are situations in which the survival of the individual clashes with the survival of the society - but that is a different debate, good for another thread.

As to your point, "we cannot be legitimately angry with him," I say, we do get angry, and we can't help it. It's a reaction born out of million of years in the struggle for survival that was passed one from species to species, from individual to individual. Not getting angry would be abnormal and dangerous as it could spell the end of our will to survival.