I already tried to post a similar question here but it turned into something I didn't really intend for.
Those libertarians among us who don't believe in free will (I'm open to both possibilities of whether we have it or we don't), please help out.
I shared
http://www.academia.edu/219143/Consciousness_and_Free_Will_A_Critique_of_the_Argument_From_Introspection
And I'd also like to share
http://www.naturalism.org/progressivepolitics.htm#inequality
These guys are not only saying that since we don't have free will, we shouldn't have retributive justice, etc. I don't care about that personally. They are saying that, to quote the naturalism article:
"If we take science as our guide to truth, successful individuals can no longer claim that their riches are deserved in the deep, metaphysical sense of having created themselves and their success ex nihilo. There are no literally self-made men or women. Nor can those who end up on the bottom be blamed for their failure on the grounds they could have chosen otherwise, given the circumstances that obtained. Social and economic inequality will be understood as the luck of the draw, a matter of environmental and biological conditions, not a matter of self-created will and hence not a reflection of metaphysical merit.
Accepting a naturalist view of ourselves will therefore weaken justifications for inequality based on the notions of deserved success and deserved failure. Those of us living comfortable lives will see that but for circumstances we, not they, would have been denied such comforts, and this insight will increase our empathy for the less fortunate. It will undercut support for social policies that have generated huge discrepancies in wealth and opportunity, while increasing support for interventions that improve both opportunities and outcomes for the disadvantaged. Although incentives must still exist to encourage hard work, initiative, and risk-taking, they need not, and should not, result in a grossly skewed distribution of resources. Inclusive naturalism will shift the justification for having a reasonable standard of living from what's deserved to what's needed to live a fulfilled, satisfying life. It will also challenge the implicit assumption that nearly unlimited riches in the hands of a few is an acceptable outcome of a just economic system."
So... those libertarians who don't believe in free will, how do you respond to this?
PLEASE DON'T TURN THIS INTO A DEBATE ABOUT FREE WILL AND WHETHER WE HAVE IT OR NOT.
Also, I'd like to ask, if the individual has no capacity to control his or her actions, then why would the state suddenly be responsible enough to fix each individual's issues as was advocated by the naturalist article?
Thanks.
could you explain what you mean by "free will"?
the first article implies that "free will" is exempt from causality, presumably only on the front end. this passage directly contradicts that idea, asserting a deterministic viewpoint. what is puzzling to me is how a determinist (who presumably thinks that human actions are necessarily the effects of some other cause) would question whether someone "deserved" to succeed or fail. of course they did. who deserves what?
I belive in free will and I think that libertarians who don't have one argument less.
But main libertarian argument in favour of free market is not that rich deserved to be rich because they work hard or are more creative etc. The main libertarian argument in favour of free market is that its the only system that respect NAP.
Even if we have free will (as I belive), not all rich people deserved personally to be wealthy. Some of them won a lottery, some have rich parents etc.
I suppose what is meant by free will (in both of the works that I shared) is something along the lines of, "having the ability to consciously, rationally change one's behaviour in a meaninful way". In other words, as far as it relates to statism, the idea that the individual is capable of making his or her own decisions and is able to change his or her own decisions and doesn't need pervasive social engineering from Big Daddy government to make everyone "equal" (equally stupid?).
I just want to know, why is it that an individual cannot be held responsible for his or her actions, but we as a society are held responsible for how we organize our political and legal system and it's supposedly within our grasp to be able to change all that and we should adopt a paternal state. Why is is that I cannot be held accountable for my actions, yet, presumably, the state officials can be responsible enough for all of our wellbeing?
The determinism/free will debate is usually a distraction. The fact is, people act. They replace their current circumstances with another set of circumstances they prefer more. Sometimes they are mistaken or regret their action, but they still act. It doesn't matter if there is a state or no state. People will examine their circumstances and choose whatever course of action they think is best. Obviously people make different choices depending upon their circumstances. So what does the state have to do with free will?
The idea is I suppose that since people are not consciously in control, then they cannot be held responsible for being poor, it's not their fault, etc. So the only fair and sensible thing to do is have the State work on all that through redistribution of wealth, etc. Also, they are all into intervention with regards to crime before anything happens, so it's almost like it's a guilty until proven innocent thing because they don't even wait for you to commit a crime, they monitor for any signs of having a "criminal brain" I assume.
I guess the correct question to ask is, are the two authors correct in stating that libertarianism depends on metaphysical libertarianism (in the free will debate)? I would argue that even if it does, it would only be partly, because I still think having a State and economic collectivism imposed upon you involuntarily is worse.
If people can only react and not act, then the debate is an exercise in futility. Any argument made either for or against the state is itself a reaction that cannot be helped.
Determinism does not mean that humans don't make choices. It means that all natural system, including humans evolve (non-periodically change moving forward in time from some perspective) according to equations of motion and every one effect results from some cause.
There is no such thing as effect without cause.
Brains are open dissipative natural systems (they are linked to the environment) and do not contradict natural laws; but so what? Choice is one manner of behavior of these particular systems called humans; it happens by spontaneous symmetry breaking at some level.
O.K. so choices are determined by the brain, which responds to stimulus by combination of reflex and concious thought; true. But how does that make some person not responsible for what he or she does? After all, he or she did it; if he or she wasn't there and didn't make that choice, it wouldn't have happened, right? Indeed. Therefore he or she is responsible for what he or she choices to do. Why? Because brains can learn and could have chosen differently in which case effects of that choice wouldn't have happenned, while floods and hurricanes are inanimate and could not have been different in same circumstances.
See Henry Hazlitt on Foundations of Morality.