What is Freedomism? (Does Free Will Exist?)
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 04. 2021
- 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: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/carneades
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / 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!
You are way too underrated, brother
He is pretty great
He scratches the itch of curiosity
I love this free will series! I hope the view which holds that both determinism and indeterminism are incompatible with free will (Hard Incompatibilism) also gets one!
I can't agree more Roy.
Loving the videos
This kind of moral argument is what leads me to compatibilism, regardless of whatever the truth about (in)determinism may be. The term "free will" is used generally, outside of any philosophical technicalities, to distinguish cases where someone is considered praiseworthy or blameworthy (and so "morally responsible" in that sense, separate from any sense of strict culpability for their actions regardless of praiseworthiness or blameworthiness) from cases where they are not. So the meaning of "free will" is to be found, in a pragmatist way, by asking what the use of praise and blame are.
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.
Hey I watched a video a while back about haeceity and I just came across the term quidity when I was reading Aristotle, I originally presumed they were the same concept but Wikipedia says they're contrasting ideas, could you please let me know the difference if there is one? there isn't much info on the net for that specific of a thing.
Me after watching Attack on Titan season 4 Finale and after watching this video :
Ah yes Freedomism .
It is when USA bombs all the enemies of Liberty and then the tyrants are all scared!
It is when Liberty has to become the biggest tyrant in order to destroy all the little tyrants!
Sometimes to destroy a monster you have to become one
Is it not the case that we have limited choices within a determined framework?
That is to say that our own situation is somewhat predetermined by for example who our parents are. the enviroments in which we grew up and the situations that, it then puts us into, to make limited choices.
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 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 that has resulted in them doing something that is unexceptable in society so they are removed from society?
Interesting
Thanks for watching.
Lets Philosphize. The car did have free will. The left brake caliper failed. When it was installed it was in full working order. The car was an "ideal" car, yet the caliper failed. No outside source interfered with the car, and yet the caliper broke forcing a crash. The caliper had a 50% chance of failure. 50% of none failure, The car had input as to how it dealt with the stresses and tolerences of its mechanics. It could have tolerated the stress on this particuler day, it did not however, it broke at that moment and at that time and hurt someone. The car had free will. To fail, or not fail.
At 2:53, you pose the question, "if someone is not morally accountable for their actions then what right do we have to impose any punishment/penalties on them for such actions?" However, as a counter argument, if morality doesn't exist, then what's wrong with imposing any penalty on anyone for any reason? The absurdity of reality without morality is obvious to everyone. The questions should really be, who decides what is morally right? To what standard do we appeal? And can objective morality really exist apart from God? It can not.
"Freedomism" is not an official term, Carnades uses it as 'the metaphysical position that free will exists'.
Yet again "defending" free will based on the fact that there would be mo morality without free will.
"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.
🤔 If we concede the point that free will does not exist, we have also conceded that there is no basis for any judgment of human behaviour. You are defending, by implication, the stance of those prosecuted at Nuremberg and Tokyo that they were only obeying orders. We define ourselves, in part, as human beings because we accept the concept of morality. Thus, would you criticise the actions of the prosecutors at those trials and every other trial as unacceptable? What approach would you offer instead?
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.
The skeptic might attempt to use preference as an ad hoc rescue to justify morality. The reason it would be ad hoc is due to the necessity of objective morality for the weight of argumentation: if it isn't objectively moral to act in a way that is in accord with reason, then no argument is "right" or "wrong". Instead, they would be forced into a position of subjective "correctitude", which robs logic of its validity within conversation. In robbing logic of its interpersonal validity, such a position destroys the value of language. I'd argue that it's ultimately self-defeating in such a way.
"Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?"
I am interested as well to hear of these "alternative definitions of morality". One cannot derive an ought from an is. Perhaps the argument could be made that morality might exist, but if it did it could be rationally analyzed, being utterly ontologically obscure. Such a position would make the justification of socially enforced moralities a moot point as well, though.
My current take on this: Moral judgement is just a method applied by a civilization or culture to order/valuate acts. There is nothing special about it compared to other orderings but consensus within said civilization or culture that the method is labeled correctly as a ""Moral judgement". As such it is not dependent on the existence of free will at all. It may even been argued that is easier to explain without it, as without free will the consensus does not have to be justified itself.
@@remcoy1825 Your argument is the "attempt to use preference as an ad hoc rescue to justify morality" that I mentioned.
Your idea that the elimination of free will would bolster an argument is wrong. Without free will, you aren't making arguments: rather, there is a causal chain that is causing a certain output. There is no "you" to make such an argument without free will.
@@bebopbountyhead
"They would be forced into a position of subjective "correctitude". I think that is true, if i understand you correctly. The argument i try to make is that moral judgement is a sort of classification system on acts. This system is an evolved system in de darwinian sense of survival of the fittest. it does not need by itself any logical explanation or justification other then the consensus. This does not hinder analyses of a logical or other kind of this system, and such analyses may shift the consensus. So it does not "rob logic of is validity within conversation".
@@remcoy1825 Re-branding the term "morality" to mean something else isn't going to work here. Morality is about what is right, wrong, good and bad. Trying to define it as preference is to miss the fact that preference cannot be morality.
If "goodness" or "rightness" is simply a label put onto a thing, then morality doesn't exist: that's just preference. Your opinion that a thing is right or wrong doesn't make it so. Morality has to do with the goodness or rightness of actions, rather than nominal distinctions between actions.
If morality is only "subjectively correct", then reasoned action isn't objectively justified. If reasoned action isn't objectively justified, then logic isn't necessarily conversationally valid.
Maybe talk a bit slower? 🙂
It's his signature - give it a few episodes and you'll get used to it :)
@@bobvanluijt897 I've subscribed to this channel for quite awhile. Sometimes when learning complex subjects, I found it more enjoyable to do in a slower pace. But, of course, I can always pause and repeat the video 😁
@@chatgpt246 There's also a playback speed control, so you can slow him down on your end.
@@Pfhorrest ikr 😂