Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant
Is ensnaring one's decision to choose the cake not a manipulation of the situation, as opposed to a determinant either for, or against free will, and deterministic probability? And, does the probability of those individuals' collective choices negate that that choice was an exercise of free will based upon a societal normative?
|
Yes, in a way, giving someone a choice between something which they'll probably deem positive and something which they'll probably deem negative robs them of free will because free will is best exercised when a person sees options for themselves and they choose between those options. Most people will not see eating a dead mouse as an option, so you've really only given them one option by offering cake or a dead mouse. However, I'd hesitate to say that means you "predetermined" their choice because they may see more options than the two you've given them, so them choosing one of the two is more reliant on how many options they see rather than the choices you've given them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insuppressible
@ NOBLE i sense a bit of Compatibalism in your response lol.. Plus you mentioned:
"We do not all have the same capacity for free will, and we are all likewise bound by deterministic factors to varying degrees. What determines the extent to which someone can exercise free will is the options they have at their disposal. "
And what about prior events? Do they not determine the decisions we make today? Hard Determinism is under-rated |
I wasn't aware that my position regarding free will/determinism had a name (because I'm not well-versed in these types of arguments). But after googling "Compatibalism," I agree that it's definition does fit with my position. I do believe that a belief in
both free will and determinism is possible without being logically inconsistent.
I suppose I tend to view it that way because I don't really believe in absolutes, and I believe most things exist in the realm of duality and that polar opposites are usually inherent in one another. No mountain without a valley, no light without dark, yin-yang type of thinking. If there is such a thing as determinism, then there necessarily has to be something which is not deterministic, otherwise, there would be no need to distinguish something as deterministic and we probably wouldn't even realize it. So to argue that things are deterministic yet there is NOTHING which is not deterministic goes against my sensibilities.
To answer your question, yes, prior events help determine our decisions, but not absolutely. You can decide in spite of prior events. We can take that conversation even deeper and talk about how time is an illusion and then weigh what exactly "prior events" mean in light of that. If you think about it (here comes the compatibalism) the argument you're making actually ties in with the way I have defined free will. The average person sees a "choice" as being between two good or desirable things, for example, cake or ice cream. When someone gives you a "choice" between a desirable thing and an undesirable, that's really no choice at all but more like a threat or coercion or something else. For example, I can put a gun to your head and then give you a "choice:" Give me all your money or get your head blown off. In my view, free will is limited by the options one has at his disposal, or really, the options one sees for himself, because you may have some options that you are not aware that you have, but you will act based on what you know. If one doesn't see getting their head blown off as a viable option, then them giving you their money in that scenario can't really be argued to have been done out of their free will.