If it is true that the determinist perspective means that every event has a cause, then human actions are events that are determined by earlier causes. If this is so, could the determinist view be a valid excuse for wrong-doing? If so, why? If not, why not?
2006-12-12 08:22:03 · 9 answers · asked by pallando 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The subject of free will is the most intractable debate of all time.
If determinism (and some kind of strong materialist reduction about the mental) is true, the compatibalist has to show how a person "could have chose otherwise" given a set of physical parameters. The incompatibalist doesn't. Without determinism, the defender of free will still has to show how randomness is sufficient for freedom at the level of volition, and not merely translating "possibility of physical states having been otherwise" into "possibility of having chosen otherwise".
If your will is entirely a product of physical properties outside of your control, you are not free but coerced to act as you do. I still can't think of a case where a person could subjectively choose the less-than-best option, unless accidentally, i.e. against their will.
I think Galen Strawson may have written an article criticizing responsibility for this reason.
The fact of the matter is that few subscribe to hardcore incompatibalist determinsm (or at least the negation of free will), and that while you may offer reasons why "you could not have chosen otherwise" -- that excuse won't hold any weight in a courtroom or a normal conversation. And the fact that you DID do something wrong suggests we need to change your character to fix the problem, not that punishment or reconditioning should be waived altogether. Though responsibility should also be extended to extra-subjective environmental factors, where isolable.
2006-12-12 10:08:13 · answer #1 · answered by -.- 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends what you mean by "excuse". If you mean anything that SHOULD alter our behaviour, thoughts or actions towards the person then no - determinism can never be a valid excuse because the "SHOULD" (that is to say producing a moral obligation) can only exist outside of determinism. The determinist gives up the ability to say "you should let me off because I had no choice" as soon as he establishes determinism!
2006-12-12 08:56:59 · answer #2 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wow, there are at least four different definitions of excuse, so ill have to assume you mean the one which more closely implies justification...with this assumption (I *) would say no. justification (or excuse if you prefer) is entirely irrelevant as regards causation (and i use this term only because it seems every tom dick and harry cant decide exactly what determinism means). but, the (wrong-doer*) could make a very persuasive argument that since this irrelevancy exists, his wrong doing is ultimately of no import, and if something IS going to happen anyway, does it really matter who the DOER is ? i gotta admit though, this is a tough one and im going to give it more though,maybe whats giving me pause is the idea of a valid excuse, i think one is either excused or not so that valid excuse would be redundant.
2006-12-12 11:03:23 · answer #3 · answered by metroactus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The very notion of a 'valid excuse' presupposes the possibility of moral responsibility and is therefore not compatible with determinism.
A determinist would not attempt to present a 'valid excuse' for anything; it would be beside the point.
2006-12-12 08:26:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Taken at its extreme determinism does say that. You would be hard pressed however to find someone who would believe in determinism to that extent. Earlier events and choices definitely restrict the options a person has in certain situations. However, there is always a choice to be made somewhere on the chain of causality, so people can be held responsible for their actions.
2006-12-12 08:37:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the first answer is right (despite being a tad bit long). The idea of wrong-doing requires the idea of choice. As determinism does not contemplate "choice" as a reality, determinism cannot be a valid excuse.
2006-12-12 11:25:04 · answer #6 · answered by P F 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The argument runs that if the universe and man is truly determined then there is no free choice, and therefore one cannot be said to be wrong for doing what one had no choice in doing. A moot point when your prosecutor claims the same privilege!
Think about it.
2006-12-12 08:42:46 · answer #7 · answered by eagleperch 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No it is not a valid excuse!
In fact if LACK of determinism would be a valid excuse.
What would be the point of punishing someone if his actions were NOT based soleley on his charter and thoughts?
2006-12-12 08:44:19 · answer #8 · answered by hq3 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because of the fact the be conscious honesty mean, it telling purely actuality. So a actuality is a actuality, and no way it incredibly is an excuse... in simple terms actuality. it incredibly is subjective to the guy reading it. If the guy do no longer believe in it, then it become "an excuse" from you.
2016-10-05 05:44:55 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋