RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Machan's Musings - Why Bad Isn't The Same As Evil

Tuesday
November 30, 2004

Machan's Musings - Why Bad Isn't The Same As Evil by Tibor R. Machan

The determinists think there can only be one kind of cause, namely, the sort we witness in mechanics—say on the pool table when one ball causes another to move. But there could well be other types of causes—for instance, when Mozart creates music or Rembrandt paints or indeed a philosopher produces a defense of determinism. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (73 messages)

Post 0

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 1:01am

Link

Edit

Great article!

My ex, with his liberal college education, often countered my moral absolutism with a horrible cliche, "It's not better or worse, just different." But when I hurt him, (one too many times, unfortunately), that dog didn't bark. The irony was, I never tried to employ that idea, instead admitting what I did was wrong, and trying to atone for my misdeed.
But I did break him free of that idea, because he has not forgiven me to this day. Obviously, it's not an idea one can hold consistently.

Post 1

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 7:55am

Link

Edit

Since I agree with Dennett and Honderich on many aspects of the issue, I can't agree with Dr. Machan's characterization of them.

Let us not discuss this whole determinism vs. indeterminism stuff at high-levels. Let us deal with some questions that show what is the true source of all this debate.

1) Is human behavior predictable?
2) Can it be subsumed under causal laws?
3) Can aspects of a person's nature/behavior be predicted by his genes and/or the environment he grows up in?
4) By using knowledge, can a person manipulate aspects of human behavior (one or a multitude of persons), or predict what will occur under certain circumstances?
5) If a person's behavior was predictable under certain circumstances, do we now absolve him of moral responsibility?
6) Has self understanding reduced or improved the quality of your choices?
7) Have you ever given a verbal explanation for your behavior which upon reflection, you realized wasn't true?
8) Have you read anything about behavioral genetics?
9) Have you read anything about neuroscience?
10) Do you think that laws impact the behavior of some people?
11) How similar are you to your parents physically and mentally?
12) Do you speak like your friends in high school or like your parents?

Just enough to start off.

Post 2

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 8:17am

Link

Edit

Next, I am in agreement with (what seems to be) your thrust with the questions you posed. It is problematic that the determinism that philosophers speak about is different from the determinism scientists speak of, and different still from the determinism psychologists speak of. It is easy to become bogged down in the argument.

Dr Machans point though, is well put. In todays climate, responsibility exists only slightly, and very selectively.

Yes, the mundane is easily *influenced* because the mundane hardly matters.

My own view is that it is in the exceptional that human agency is most evident. It is in seeking values that human agency, free will, is most evident, and the least *determined*, or excused.

John

Post 3

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 9:10am

Link

Edit

John,

They are different, but they are all linked by one common thread: the idea that at least some aspects of human behavior can be reduced to other causes that enlighten our understanding of what human beings do and (sometimes) why.

If you believe, as I do, that
1) science is increasingly successful in the endeavor of analyzing human behavior and that
2) there is some incompatibility between libertarian views of free will and understanding human behavior in terms of causes and effects that do not treat the human beings as an autonomous entity (which is why I think that free will is better characterized as "self-determinism")

wouldn't it make sense as a philosopher (as Dennett does) to try to resolve the problems between scientific explanations for human behavior and libertarian free will as best as you can?

The biggest problem is that causal factors are being found within the will and they are not just ideas, but things that we can analyze materially - genes, brain size, specific aspects of the limbic system which we share with animals etc. Are we going to make libertarianism, which has been questioned in times past when less was known about the human beings, more important than the truth?

Post 4

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 9:18am

Link

Edit

My own view is that it is in the exceptional that human agency is most evident. It is in seeking values that human agency, free will, is most evident, and the least *determined*, or excused.

While this might be true, I'm not so sure. The correlation between intelligence (as measured on IQ tests) and the valuation of classical literature is significant, for example (more intelligent people are obviously better able to appreciate more intelligently written books).

Post 5

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 9:26am

Link

Edit

Dr. Machen,

Your article was terrific.

Would you say that the current trend is towards an even greater determinism?

In many ways I believe that the 'corner has been turned' on this particular mindset, and that many Americans have lost their patience with this view. I see some evidence of a strong re-action against it, and a greater emphasis on personal responsibility. The 9-11 tragedy alone, to name an example, at the very least reignited a good deal of debate on moral judgements and the nature of 'good - bad - and evil'.

Granted, cultural trends are always difficult to discern, and very hard to measure in terms of only 1 or 2 decades. Do you feel I am being being overly optimistic, or have the determinist already reached their 'high water mark' and begun a slow decline?

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 11/30, 9:28am)

Post 6

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 10:13am

Link

Edit

Would you say that the current trend is towards an even greater determinism?

In many ways I believe that the 'corner has been turned' on this particular mindset, and that many Americans have lost their patience with this view. I see some evidence of a strong re-action against it, and a greater emphasis on personal responsibility.

George, the trend is certainly toward widespread determinism. I'm an eternal optimist but I find few people who understand the power of their own volition. Determinism is everywhere you look. Meds are handed out like candy and have been for 10 years now because the poor ______ can't face life without them. Juries and the press are always looking for "the story" or cause behind a criminal's actions. It's an enormous problem.

I see no movement at all away from determinism. Heroes (those are the guys who use their volitional power) are not well-thought of today. They've gone the way of the dodo bird.

(Edited by Lance Moore on 11/30, 10:15am)

Post 7

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 10:30am

Link

Edit

I am interested in Next's set of questions. So without "higher level" philosophical knowledge of determinism vs indeterminsm, here are my answers to the questions:

____________________________

1) Is human behavior predictable?
Largely. And ultimately yes.

2) Can it be subsumed under causal laws?
Yes.

3) Can aspects of a person's nature/behavior be predicted by his genes and/or the environment he grows up in?

Most likely yes. Although we are millions of miles away from completely understanding it yet.

4) By using knowledge, can a person manipulate aspects of human behavior (one or a multitude of persons), or predict what will occur under certain circumstances?

Yes.

5) If a person's behavior was predictable under certain circumstances, do we now absolve him of moral responsibility?

No.

6) Has self understanding reduced or improved the quality of your choices?

Improved.

7) Have you ever given a verbal explanation for your behavior which upon reflection, you realized wasn't true?

Many times.

8) Have you read anything about behavioral genetics?

a little.

9) Have you read anything about neuroscience?

A bit more.

10) Do you think that laws impact the behavior of some people?

Yes.

11) How similar are you to your parents physically and mentally?

Very recognizable in both aspects. But of course not identical.

12) Do you speak like your friends in high school or like your parents?

Like myself.

____________________

So what am I? A determinist or indeterminist?

Post 8

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 10:47am

Link

Edit

I think mundane behavior is predictable. I think those behaviors which are on "autopilot" tend to be determined to some degree. However, when choice kicks in, as in the pursuit of value, then determinism goes out the window. Perhaps rather than a determinism vs indeterminism of the whole, there needs to be a categorization of which behaviors are influenced and to what degree, under what circumstances.

John

Post 9

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:05pm

Link

Edit

Hong,

Your first three answers place you in the determinist camp - the question would then be whether your form of determinism is compatible with a belief in free will or not and how.

John,

Perhaps rather than a determinism vs indeterminism of the whole, there needs to be a categorization of which behaviors are influenced and to what degree, under what circumstances.

This is part of what compatibilists like Dennett try to do. Many hard determinists and libertarians mock them for trying to do so.

Post 10

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:44pm

Link

Edit

This is an interesting question, as always, but I think most determinists are guilty of several serious errors. One would be taking some knowledge and theory, such as behavioral and neuroscience may show, and then translating these to realms where they are not yet even remotely valid, such as philosophy (i.e. the free will issue). For example, the opposite is done to prove there is no certainly in anything (I remember a debate here a while ago about that) by using the Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle to "prove" this, or other mathematical theories that don't work outside of their context.

When I was reading Fountainhead, remember the various villains always claimed that it was all about "glands" - now we have genetics instead of "glands" - but it is the same idea. These ideas are simply wrong. Tendencies can be predicted in human and animal behaviour, but I would doubt that any neuroscientist or behaviorist would be willing to "bet" his life that, say, a wild animal (like a Tiger, such as for example the one that attacked Sigfried, no one really knows for sure why) would 100% behave in the "predictable" way.

So, I would say, and I believe Objectivism would agree, #1 to #3 are No - statistics, yes, as well as tendencies and averages, but nothing even close to certainty. Think about how many ways, methods and systems are concocted to predict behavior, and how few ever really work out.

Post 11

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 11:24pm

Link

Edit

Human behavior--or, rather, conduct--is not predictable but much of it can be rationally anticipated because people tend to make choices and commitments they are willing to stick to. For instance, many people after they say "I do" by an altar or before a judge will actually forgo fooling around with others, but many will not. Most people who embark upon shopping, will make the best deal but some will not (and, instead, stand around in the isles and chit chat with neighbors and miss the deals). People often embark upon projects and will follow through but then there are those who will not--just check on all those who fail to heed their own promises. There is, in short, much left to the person's own free will or agency, not some predetermined set of factors that make him or her act in certain ways. The reason much of what people do can be predicted well enough--to a degree of statistical certainty--is that they themselves make the commitment to follow through with what they embark upon. But they might have embarked upon something else, which is what seems to account for all the very great variety of sorts of lives we witness among people.

Post 12

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 8:14am

Link

Edit

Debating the freedom of the will in the metaphysical sense is a waste of time, and I think Kurt and Dr. Machan's last posts have proven it to me again. The real question is how our ability to study and predict human behavior in terms of influences internal and external to the will impacts our notions of choice and morality.

Ayn Rand found the locus of free will in our ability to "focus" on one set of ideas more seriously than another. However, she argued that once the choice to "focus" was made, a person's ideas determine the choices that they make.

This is another example why I always stress that free-will is better characterized as self-determinism (though of course, the precise nature of the "self" has to be defined). Now while I think that the freedom to focus is capable of being rationally analyzed (if it is identified rather than made a rationalist construct) contrary to what Rand and Peikoff say), I will not push that too far here.

No serious scientist or determinist is opposed is against self-determinism, as long as self-determinism is not posed in a way that refuses all forms of reductionism. The question is what aspects of the self can be given scientific and illuminating analysis. If some people are making different choices from other people, do scientists just keep quiet and say:

1)"Hmm, the will is free, so we can never understand why some people are different from others and how these differences influence the choices they make."

2)"Hmm, these people made this choice and those persons made that choice. Maybe in their experiences (education) or in their biology (mental capacity), we might be able to find out why they made different choices in these situations."

I do not think that indeterminists realize the amount of injustice that their arguments do to position (2), which has led to some of the most illuminating science on human nature. For example, the idea that brains use different amounts of energy, or that chemical imbalances cause depression in some individuals would never have been found out if position (1) was consistently held. In fact, the truth is that no one can hold position (1) consistently. The real question is what kinds of causes a person as a psychologist and philosopher to accept in his defence of position (2) and in what situations is he is willing to accept some version of position (1), the most popular version not being a denial of causes, but a moral indifference to them.

Edited for minor errors.

(Edited by Next Level on 12/01, 9:03am)

Post 13

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 9:53am

Link

Edit

Next Level - I agree with you that it is valid to explore item 2, and don't advocate we throw up our hands and say there is no value to looking at causes. For example, depression can be eased by both therapy and medication as you indicated. I myself suffer from depression, and have found that there is a marked difference in my abilities now that it is treated. To me, this simply allows me to act more openly and effectively - I can now easily do things that in the past had been much more difficult, and certain physical symptoms (anxiety induced problems) have disappeared. I would view it the same as fixing conditions like bad eyesight or problems walking. You can still function, but you are limited as a result of the condition. If this can be ameliorated, you will function better. That doesn't change the nature of self-determinism, just the extent to which you may operate effectively. So, I think we may agree here, ultimately. I just find, and think most will agree, that today there is so many of these theories being used 1. Well beyond the context in which the study took place 2. To excuse from blame (moral justification) and 3. As a basis for some completely crackpot theories (as in, "there are no morals" and various post-modernist ides)

Post 14

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 12:02pm

Link

Edit

You can still function, but you are limited as a result of the condition. If this can be ameliorated, you will function better. That doesn't change the nature of self-determinism, just the extent to which you may operate effectively.

Kurt,

If you mean that human beings are still volitional, of course. But if you mean that by changing the "extent to which you may operate effectively", nothing of significance to the nature of self-determinism thesis and its ethics has occurred, I do not agree. We can now see that within reasonable limits, our knowledge of depression and how we can regard it has changed. Employers can recommend treatment rather than simply fire employees, as one example.

Moreover, the fact that the drugs are external to what we usually consider the self does impact the self-determinist thesis in another way. It shows that what we can hold a person ethically responsible for can (not must) vary with our knowledge of the kinds of possibilities open to him, and some of those possibilities can be based on considerations external to what we generally regard the self.

Your points:
1. I agree, but that is no argument against determinism. Good ideas can be put to bad and good uses.

2. If explaining behavior is a form of moral justification, then there is no escape here. You have to find a notion of morality that turns upon something other than explanation, and I think that the notion of responsibility coupled freedom, since it is built into our pride, fits the bill. Even if my successes are partly a result of some good genes, I am still proud of my achievements, and I know of no determinist who isn't proud of his better acts.

3. Same as 1. But sometimes, it is important to understand what a person is saying because *sometimes*, when a person is saying that "there are no morals", he is not making a statement such as the claim that "no moral values or judgments exist". What he might be saying is that there are no universally agreed upon moral claims. Even if this is wrong or fraught with problems, let us be clear on what the person is saying before fighting it.

Post 15

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 3:42pm

Link

Edit

Next Level, you seem to be trying to peddle some kind of determinism lite.

The biggest problem is that causal factors are being found within the will and they are not just ideas, but things that we can analyze materially - genes, brain size, specific aspects of the limbic system which we share with animals etc.

Can you give me an example of a human behavior that has been shown to be determined by these factors?

Post 16

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 3:52pm

Link

Edit

If this is a waste of time, why are you pursuing it? I started off this discussion in part with a metaphysical claim, a claim about the nature of reality, namely, that its possibilities are wider and more numerous than what most determinist will admit. If this is so, it is important since it prepares us to consider other options than those to which the determinists wants to restrict us, namely, efficient causality. Free will would be this option. And then the issues is whether free will exists, no longer whether it is possible. And that is something one can investigate from a variety of perspectives--see my book on this topic. But it seems the term "metaphysical" is used as a deal breaker. That is strange for a contributor to a forum that focuses on Ayn Rand's philosophy, given how prominent--indeed, primary--a place that branch of philosophy occupies for her.

Post 17

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 3:53pm

Link

Edit

Post 18

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 3:45pm

Link

Edit

Next Level, I think I can agree with the fact that you need to take conditions and context into account when you make a decision about how to judge an action. I remember a co-worker I thought was, frankly, a bit crazy. Turns out he had undiagnosed type 2 diabetes, and in fact that was why he had been fired from his previous job (he kept falling asleep). Once I knew that, I had an explanation for some of his previously erratic behavior, and did change my view of him accordingly. At this point I would just say that yes, context is important, and that includes physical factors. I am not really sure where that lands us in determinism/free-will land at this point any more! One of the problems with theory is that the farther it gets away from examples/actual situations/reality, the harder it is to follow and comprehend properly. Perhaps this makes sense, since it becomes a higher and higher echelon of concept and further away from actual percepts?

P.S. Someone sanction my posts, I would like some points! :)

Post 19

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 6:27pm

Link

Edit

Michael Smith asks:

Can you give me an example of a human behavior that has been shown to be determined by these factors?

I have one example. When I first met my husband, some of his behaviors appeared completely incredulous to me. Then my parents-in-law came and lived with us for quite a while. That helped me a great deal to understand my husbands upbringing and thus his behavior today.

As a biochemists, I've always tried to learn the basic physical-chemical mechanisms of how certain things in cell (proteins, DNA, RNA etc) function in response to various chemical or physical stimuli. Science has not been advanced to the degree that would enable us to understand how a whole cell works let alone how a whole organism works. Perhaps one day we will bridge the gap between molecular biology and human behavior.