المدة الزمنية 9:12
What is Freedomism (Does Free Will Exist)
تم نشره في 2021/04/05
An explanation of the disjunctive position "freedomism" a combination of compatibilism and libertarianism about free will. Freedomism is simply the position which claims that free will exists. Sponsors: Joshua Furman, Joshua Opell, NBA_Ruby, Eugene SY, Antoinemp1, Antibody, Ismail Fagundes, Adrien Ecoffet, Tom Amedro, Christopher McGevna, Joao Sa, and Dennis Sexton. Thanks for your support! Donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Carneades Buy stuff with Zazzle: http://www.zazzle.com/carneades Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene https://twitter.com/CarneadesCyrene Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
الفئة
عرض المزيد
مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة على What is Freedomism (Does Free Will Exist):
![Bunface cooking 吃货小厨 [ 36 ] 腐皮制作/腐竹制作过程 HOW TO MAKE TOFU SKIN /FU ZUK](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GvIXfgmSa2Y/mqdefault.jpg)
![Bunface cooking 吃货小厨 [ 30 ] 炸肉碎豆腐Fried Beancurd](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QIR18hWLl6w/mqdefault.jpg)
![Bunface cooking 吃货小厨 [ 20 ]虾米香炒饭CRISPY PRAWN CHILLI FRIED RICE](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5xewMd981aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Bunface cooking 吃货小厨 [ 23 ]咸蛋鸡Salted Egg Chicken](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pYQvWCbLz_M/mqdefault.jpg)
Upon analysis it seems that praise and blame are useful for reinforcing or changing the patterns of people's evaluations of different possible behaviors, i.e. letting people know that, when they weighed the reasons to do one thing or another and picked what they thought was the thing they ought to do, that they picked rightly (and so are praiseworthy) or wrongly (and so are blameworthy). "Free will", used in this ordinary way, thus means that function of weighing reasons to do one thing or another, picking one, and having one's actions be directed by the output of that process.
In other words, freedom of will is identical to the effectiveness of moral reasoning (and will per se is identical to the capacity for moral reason).
What has determinism to do with any of that? Well, too little determinism would undermine the reliability of any function of anything, including this function of persons, so INdeterminism is a threat to free will in this sense. Determinism, though, poses no threat at all; someone having free will in this ordinary sense is completely unimpeded by everything being perfectly determined.
As it so happens, everything is not perfectly determined, at least from any possible, necessarily subjective, viewpoint (since nobody can see the universe objectively as the deterministic universal wave function in its superposition, un-entangled with it, because to see it is to entangle with it). And even if the universe were perfectly deterministic, any being capable of exploiting that determinism to predict the future thereby becomes dynamically chaotic and so unpredictable in principle (on any time scale faster than just watching the future play out in real time).
But that all has nothing to do with free will.
Ah yes Freedomism . 4
That is to say that our own situation is somewhat predetermined
One could argue that the murderer made life choices that led them to become a murderer but each choice made was determined by external elements or pressures. meaning that they couldn't have done otherwise if returned to that same situation in that instant of time? Asking if they could have done differently implies a moral responsibility based on them having the freewill to overide the external elements and pressure of the situation. As some of those elements will have been as a sense of right or wrong instilled by their parents, teachers, and peers. One might argue that the capacity to override and make the choice to not murder doesn't exist! It only appears to, by those of us that have had it instilled into us that it is wrong.
As for removing such people from society. whether they are responsible or not for their actions it is an action that society deems is bad. we still remove people that commit murder because of mental illness even though the law deems them to not be responsible due to that illness. We could argue that someone who isn't suffering a mental illness isn't responsible because their actions are a consequence of their journey through life. But that has resulted in them doing something that is unexceptable in society so they are removed from society?
Yet again "defending"
"Unicorns must exist, because their horns are so pretty!"
The argument that if morality was false then murderers should not be condemned is absurd, because without free will we have no choice but to condemn them! Condemnation just happens because the causal chain apparently wanted it to happen.
The rest of the video is just repeating the same (incorrect) thing with different words.
Your example of the car is ridiculous, as a non sentient mechanism cannot possess human attributes. As for the rabid animal, it would not be ‘locked up’ but put down as a very serious threat to those nearby. The issue of imprisonments carries both punishment in the form of loss of liberty and the possibility of rehabilitation through appropriate treatments.
We do recognise that in certain circumstances a person may not be responsible for the offence committed. In such cases the person may be placed under medical care in a psychiatric hospital, remaining there for life to protect society from the threat of future negative behaviour. Would you object to such action by society based upon legal authority? Ivory tower philosophising is all very well until reality hits home and you are the victim of unwanted behaviour. What then? What is the basis of your reaction to being placed under duress by an intruder? To open a philosophical conversation? Or to summon help from outside, ie police and lawyers? Hm! Quite a conundrum for those denying free will. ....وسعت 2