Creatures without free will can also change. Instead of coming from free will, the change can come from external factors that can happen through deterrence and rehabilitation. I'll stick to the dog example, assuming you agree they don't have free will.
You can deter a dog from barking by using a shock collar. Similarly, rehabilitation or training the dog to obey his master can be done by rewarding desired behaviours and punishing undesired ones. — Samuel Lacrampe
Kool I did not know about that word! That said, what is your argument? Are you saying that recidivism prevents deterrence and rehabilitation from being effective? But if so, how would having Free Will solve that issue? — Samuel Lacrampe
Well, if we lack free will, then we lack all obligations. Or at least, that seems self-evident. Obligations, whether moral, instrumental or epistemic, presuppose free will. Thus, if we lack free will, then we lack any obligation to do or think anything. As such, if hard determinism is true, nothing you think is anything you ought to think, or ought not to think, and likewise for anything you do. So it is a kind of dead-end. — Bartricks
Mmmh... Let's put it this way: For a given case, if recidivism happens, then deterrence and rehabilitation will not be effective, regardless if we have free will or not. Likewise, if recidivism does not happen, then deterrence and rehabilitation will be effective, regardless if we have free will or not. In short, free will does not change the effects of deterrence and rehabilitation.
That said, I agree that the existence of free will would add another "internal force" that can change our behavior — Samuel Lacrampe
Being able to do otherwise doesn't seem necessary for moral culpability. — khaled
Say someone implanted a device into Sam that makes it so that the next time Sam gets angry at someone, but then decides to forgive them, the device activates forcing Sam into a fit of rage and killing them. Sam bumps into someone on the street and gets so angry he kills them without the device activating. Is Sam deserving of punishment? I’d say yes. Even though he couldn’t have done otherwise. Because he intended to do harm and did what he intended to do. That seems to be what really matters for ethics. — khaled
I take back what I said. Free will is not another force that we add to sum up among the other inclinations. Rather, free will can always choose against all the inclinations, no matter their intensity. That's what makes it free.the existence of free will would add another "internal force" that can change our behavior. — Samuel Lacrampe
↪SolarWind
How do you know that X is wrong? — SolarWind
By my reason.
Anyway, you've missed the point. I derived an ought from an is. Here, again:
1. If Xing is wrong, then we ought not to do X
2. Xing is wrong
3. Therefore, we ought not to do X — Bartricks
1. If rape is wrong, then you ought not to rape
2. Rape is wrong
3. Therefore, you ought not to rape — Bartricks
Free will is not another force that we add to sum up among the other inclinations. Rather, free will can always choose against all the inclinations, no matter their intensity. That's what makes it free. — Samuel Lacrampe
I don't think the test would work, because we don't know how effective free will is to counter recidivism. We could know that if we could observe some test subjects with free will and some without it. But in the actual world, either everyone has free will or no one has it. Alternatively, we could compare the frequency of recidivism between humans and dogs, but the two might be too different to compare haha.
the existence of free will would add another "internal force" that can change our behavior.
— Samuel Lacrampe
I take back what I said. Free will is not another force that we add to sum up among the other inclinations. Rather, free will can always choose against all the inclinations, no matter their intensity. That's what makes it free. — Samuel Lacrampe
Incidentally, this argument refutes utilitarianism:
1. If utilitarianism is the correct normative ethical theory, then gang rape is right (if the gang is sufficiently big)
2. Gang rape is wrong (irrespective of the size of the gang)
3. Therefore utilitarianism is not the correct normative ethical theory. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.