A case for free choice

[WillJ]

I thought that was your point. Equality of rights is an important principle to me, and therefore discrimination would be a problem. But having established that it is not discrimination, there has to be some other reason that children are not as independent. The obvious answer is the one of intellect and consciousness.
Now, why other people should not be evaluated the same way before they are allowed the freedom of choice is a difficult question. Maybe my position is derived from my basic belief that this would dehumanise adults and that nobody can possibly assess this objectively and fairly.

Well, wouldn't you say it's quite impossible to set an age of consent objectively and fairly?

Because people cannot possibly know the individual preferences of other people. It's what people WANT that matters, not necessarily what you and I subjectively find best. People know this best themselves.

Why is it what people WANT that matters? Let's go back to children. Should a little child get all the cookies because that's what he WANTS?

Quite not. Now, perhaps with most adults, what they WANT is generally congruent with what's truly best for them, but regardless, for now let me make sure of this one thing: you agree with me that what people WANT is not truly, at the heart of things, what matters, right? If it were, you'd have to say that even kids should get what they want. (After all, who cares if they're not fully conscious? They still want stuff.)

If you agree with that, then we could discuss just how congruent "I think I want" and "I really want" are.

Yes, I think they are wrong. They obviously don't think so. What I want to convince them is that they should not employ coercion to further their own subjective desires. If they want something, they should find a way of getting it without letting others suffer from it.

So, wanting somebody else to make choices for you does not make you wrong. You are RIGHT about your preferences. So, you should try to let somebody else handle your decisions. The wrong thing to do would be to appeal to central authority and coercive government in order to make everybody else follow your preferences.
I guess you could say that the real problem for me is that people should realise the subjectivity of their own desires. This subjectivity is what qualifies their desires as unique and supreme, but it is also what limits it to what people can convince others to do through voluntary means.

But coercing others is a preference in and of itself. When people think it's in their self-interest to coerce others (most often indirectly through the government), you think they are wrong about this preference, right? So you must not really think it's unimaginable for an adult to not know his own preferences very well, right?

 

[punkbass2000]

I was thinking about this today, and your post, beta, in the "Old Threads" thread jumpstarted my memory. Would an electron not fit your description of a "free-will machine"? If so, then these would arguably the agents of free will, and since most things we know of possess them, everything could be argued to have free will.

 

[Gothmog]

@insurgent
Most of us first experienced true love through our parents. It was so overarching that we don’t always realize it. Then as we grow we necessarily tend to try and externalize this love towards our peer group, and eventually become the parents ourselves. But I think for most people, if you think about what your parents mean to you, e.g. what you would be willing to sacrifice for them, you will get an inkling of true love.

What would you do to keep your parents from living, and dying, homeless and alone on the street?

My parents have never needed me in this way, but I know that I would do anything within reason to spare them that fate.

When you have children the same thing applies.

If you ever find other people, beyond your parents and children, that you feel this way for then you are very lucky. In the words of Cat Stevens ‘and if I find my hard headed woman, I know my life will be as it should’.

I don’t know how else to define purpose and self worth, and I don’t find that unfair to my intelligence in the least. Of course, YMMV.

As far as a ‘soul’ – if you are saying that there is more to you than your intrinsic physical being (DNA, etc.) coupled to your experiences, then I think you are postulating something supernatural. I’m not sure what else you could be getting at. Nothing wrong with that, I think the majority of people believe in some sort of ‘soul’; in a mind body duality. It is hard not to given the pervasive, persuasive, illusion of free will.

I can see why that belief would have an impact on holding yourself, and others, responsible for what they do. But as I tried to outline in my last post, its not the only way to reach that end. In fact it is not central IMO, as responsibility only has any meaning within the context of a group; within the context of society.

I enjoyed your paragraph on living with absurdity without being defeated by it, good stuff. As an agnostic one needs to get used to forgetting about ‘creating some essence higher than life’. Even spirituality, in this context, comes down to an essence within life.

 

[punkbass2000]

Gothmog, have you, perchance, read "I'm OK, You're OK"?

 

[Gothmog]

No, what is that?

I have heard some joke on the order of:
'I'm OK, You're OK, just don't project your conservative, hypocritical, racist, repressed hang ups on my life."

 

[punkbass2000]

"I'm OK, you're OK" is a psychological theory. It's main precepts are that there are four general positions every human has. Whether or not they trust themselves, and whether or not they trust others. The basic premise, which I think ties into what you said, is that, at the earliest stage, everyone adopts the "I'm not OK, You're OK" position, insomuch as you're aware that you can't take care of yourself and that you need your parents (or guardians or whatever) and that what they say is "right". It proposes that this is one of the central problems with people. The three "natural" states, as it calls them, are "I'm not OK, you're OK", "I'm OK, you're not OK" and "I'm not OK, you're not OK", and only through explicit, direct reasoning and effort can anyone reach "I'm OK, you're OK".

 

[Gothmog]

Hmm, I would need to see more to form an opinion on this.

Seems to me that kids reach I'm OK, You're OK well before they get to I'm OK, You're not OK. At least with good parenting, and I'm not sure this involves any explicit reasoning on their part.

Also I'm not sure where parental love fits into this framework. I don't think I'm OK, you're not OK lasts very long in that context either (again with my subjective view of what good parenting is).

 

[insurgent]

Well, wouldn't you say it's quite impossible to set an age of consent objectively and fairly?

Yes. I see the inconsistency. But I see no acceptable solution to this problem.

Why is it what people WANT that matters? Let's go back to children. Should a little child get all the cookies because that's what he WANTS?

You are touching the same admitted inconsistency. No they should not, they are children.

Quite not. Now, perhaps with most adults, what they WANT is generally congruent with what's truly best for them, but regardless, for now let me make sure of this one thing: you agree with me that what people WANT is not truly, at the heart of things, what matters, right? If it were, you'd have to say that even kids should get what they want. (After all, who cares if they're not fully conscious? They still want stuff.)

No, because a central belief for me is the belief in equality of rights. People should have the maximal freedom that is possible without violating the rights of others. That is to say, their "sphere of freedom" should be extended as much as is possible so that everybody has the same rights. What people want is how they determine what to use this freedom for. For us to say that this determination is wrong would be outright unjust.

If you agree with that, then we could discuss just how congruent "I think I want" and "I really want" are.

I cannot possibly allow myself to distinguish between that on the behalf of other people.

But coercing others is a preference in and of itself. When people think it's in their self-interest to coerce others (most often indirectly through the government), you think they are wrong about this preference, right? So you must not really think it's unimaginable for an adult to not know his own preferences very well, right?

Coercion may be a preference. But it violates the principle of equal rights. So it is objectively not an option. I need to convince people of that.

 

[insurgent]

@Gothmog: I accept your last post. Nice to debate with you.

 

[Gothmog]

The feeling is mutual...

Now I'm off to contribute to the greater good.

 

[punkbass2000]

Yes, it is poor parenting that leads to "I'm OK, you're not OK" (nearly all serial killers fall into this category), and abominal parenting that leads "I'm not OK, you're not OK". However, I think what you would consider "good parenting" is, in fact, what leads to "I'm not OK, you're OK" worldviews. Even the best parents tend to make their children feel good, and thus the children seek "stroking" (the psychological term used in the book for feeling good and other things), and it is, in fact, quite difficult to raise child to be able to both "stroke themself" (please excuse the terms) and value stroking from others. At the youngest, a child primarily seeks approval and recognition from the (hopefully) kind, loving parents. As they grow older, they also seek it from other children and begin playing "games" (a term for destructive manipulation). These games often get played throughout life, and are described in detail in the book "Games People Play". Usually the first game to arise among toddlers is "Mine is Better Than Yours". I'm sure we've all seen it, and can even think of more subtle examples from our adult lives. Feelings of inadequacy are diminshed by the comparison and conclusion that I have something better than you have got, and thus there is a temporary relief.

 

[Ayatollah So]

sigh! whoever, said anything about control? Where in my 'n' number of posts in this thread did I talk about control? I talk about prediction only.

If predictions don't exert control over me, how can they represent a threat to my free will? Why is prediction or preditability the opposite of free will? I don't accept that as axiomatic. I want to see some argument.

I recognize that many religious traditions want to claim that the two are opposites. That's how they get God off the hook for evil human actions. "God could not foresee the Holocaust, because he gave humans free will which makes them unpredictable." But why should an unbeliever go along with that?

I gave a recipe for a free-will machine. It did not require any intelligence. It just needed to run a few algorithms which are hooked to a fundamentally random process.

btw, if you allege that intelligence is required for free-will then it opens another can of worms. namely...
(a) What is intelligence?
(b) How much of intelligence? Does that question even make sense?
(c) Is a cat intelligent enough to have free-will? Or a dog? What about an earthworm? and finally, what about the insane person?

I began to address these in my 4-25 @ 10:20GMT post. I see no problem with free will being a matter of degree, rather than an all-or-nothing affair. Earthworms don't have any, schizophrenics vary but usually have significant free will impairment, and cats and dogs only have a very primitive proto-free-will, because they are not self-conscious, only conscious of the world.

Earlier I disagreed that your free-will machine's qualities are necessary for free will. I also don't think those qualities are sufficient. You're basically talking about semi-randomness. That leaves out decision, or choice. A "free will machine" need not have any awareness at all! To my mind, free will definitely implies awareness.

 

[WillJ]

Yes. I see the inconsistency. But I see no acceptable solution to this problem.

Well then I'm very dissapointed in you.

No, because a central belief for me is the belief in equality of rights. People should have the maximal freedom that is possible without violating the rights of others. That is to say, their "sphere of freedom" should be extended as much as is possible so that everybody has the same rights. What people want is how they determine what to use this freedom for. For us to say that this determination is wrong would be outright unjust.

So then why doesn't this apply to children?

Sorry to keep bringing up this children thing, and I know you pretty much answered that question above, but I'm trying to get at something more universal here. The fact that you don't think children should have freedom, choices, etc., shows that you don't think these things are absolutely good. You must, as far as I can tell, think something more fundamental is good, and freedom and such are only a means to achieve this end in some cases. So what's that fundamental good thing?

Coercion may be a preference. But it violates the principle of equal rights. So it is objectively not an option. I need to convince people of that.

How is it not an option? I can interpret that in two ways:

1. It's literally not an option. This idea is so absurd that I'll just ignore it.

2. It's an option, just not a morally acceptable one. Well then anyone who thinks it's acceptable must be wrong, and that's most people. These people are thus choosing something that shouldn't be chosen, thus they are "wrong" in their choice: certainly "wrong" in the ethical sense and perhaps even in the sense that they're miscalculating their self-interest. If you agree with this assessment, how could you think people generally choose well, considering this coercion thing is pretty much the heart of public choice?