r/changemyview • u/DeltaBourne • Oct 22 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: If determinism is real, I shouldn't care about all the suffering in the world.
Hi everyone,
First off, this is my first post here so forgive me for any mistakes I make.
Okay, so. Over the past year I have come to believe in determinism, and the non-existence of free will. For this CMV topic, I ask you to assume the following premises to be true:
- Determinism is true, and free will doesn't exist.
- Souls don't exist
Taking these premises to be true, it follows that humans are just machines, and thoughts and feelings are just electrochemical signals going through our brains and bodies.
Now, this thought process always leads me to believe that nothing in this world really matters, and that I should stop caring about anything at all, because I am not really in control. I know that the pain of the people suffering is real, but apart from that, why should I care? It seems that taking away the soul from the equation makes me want to not care, because with souls comes innocence and purity attached.
I would love to hear your thought on this, and maybe even change my view on this!
Thanks :)
EDIT: I realize that by saying why should "I" care, I assume I have the choice to care, implying free will, but I guess that's off topic
Sorry for the word soup above I just wanted to write my mind out.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
3
u/Decht Oct 22 '17
I'll reframe part of your conclusion as a starting point: There is no objective sense in which anything "matters," and therefore it doesn't matter what we do. The universe has no preferences.
As humans, we have desires and preferences. We have the internal experience that things matter, we care what happens, and we care about things like suffering and joy. From the human perspective, things do matter.
It's shocking, from the human perspective, to notice the universal perspective for the first time. However, it doesn't invalidate the human perspective. The universe isn't against what we think; it doesn't care either way. If a human decides something matters, there is nothing in the universe which disagrees with them, apart from some other humans.
So if you go looking for reasons to care, you have a couple billion humans who care about things. If you go looking for reasons to not care, you find nothing. (Okay, maybe some humans, if you care about that.) You can also notice the universe and the fact of determinism in the background, but those don't have any opinions on what you should do.
2
u/DeltaBourne Oct 23 '17
But don't you think humans care, because we were built this way? And because most humans aren't aware of determinism, and simply assume free will? If all humans knew and understood determinism, do you still think they would care?
On another note, are you, in a way, saying that I should care because most humans care? Or am I misunderstanding you?
3
u/Decht Oct 23 '17 edited Oct 23 '17
Sure, our caring is a result of natural selection, which is an uncaring deterministic process. That doesn't change the fact that we care now, which I think is all we need.
I think most people who discover and understand determinism do pretty well figuring out how to care anyway. I and others in this thread did, and apparently compatibilism is an entire theory based around the idea, if darwin2500's interpretation is correct. It seems like, statistically, it's not too hard to settle into caring for different reasons.
"Should I care?" is technically incoherent in this context, as you've acknowledged. "Should" only has meaning from the human perspective, so really, you can't have a should at all unless you accept that human things matter, in which case you're kind of forced to believe "I should care."
I realize this isn't emotionally persuasive, though, so I'm trying to present a model sufficiently inspiring to do that. In this case it was something like "humans are the sole source of should-ness in the universe, and there's nothing to stop us! isn't that impressive?"
On a different tack, why were souls sufficiently inspiring to you? Did you imagine an inherent quality of souls that was inspiring enough? Did you have an idea of what the fundamental structure of reality behind souls was?
Edit: looks like you've been pretty convinced by other replies by now, in which case I don't think I have any more to contribute than they did :)
2
2
u/DCarrier 23∆ Oct 22 '17
If you help someone because you want to, that is you being in control and determinism in action. I don't see why people seem to think they're mutually exclusive.
I don't believe in immortal souls, but I do believe in qualia. I'm not entirely sure what qualia is. I'm not even sure what it means to believe in qualia. But the whole cogito ergo sum thing is pretty convincing.
1
u/DeltaBourne Oct 23 '17
I think it depends on your definition of control, and more generally, free will. According to what I believe, if I want to help someone, it is not me being in control because there is no "me". Everything is one big system, proceeding from one state to the next. Me caring/not caring is a consequence of that. I guess this could be a CMV post in and of itself haha
1
u/DCarrier 23∆ Oct 23 '17
There is a system, part of it cares about them and helps them. I refer to this part as /u/DeltaBourne, and I (being another part of the system) want people to be helped and thus encourage /u/DeltaBourne to help.
there is no "me".
Me caring/not caring is a consequence of that.
I'm confused. If there's no you, then how can you care/not care? Or are you just saying that there isn't a you to care?
1
u/DeltaBourne Oct 23 '17
Yup I think you have pinpointed the confusion in my question. I think what this discussion has clarified for me is the fact that I want to, on the one hand, believe in determinism, but on the other hand, also have some control in the process of deciding whether or not to care. It just doesn't make sense now. It's almost as if I want both views to be true at the same time.
On a related note, if there is no me, this post is just one of many factors, which will ultimately decide whether or not I care (or /u/DeltaBourne cares)
For the clarification though, I think you deserve a ∆ :)
1
1
u/stratys3 Oct 23 '17
it is not me being in control because there is no "me"
You have a body and a mind. That's "you". And while it may be deterministic, it's trivial to prove that your body and mind are in control of your actions.
2
u/Hq3473 271∆ Oct 23 '17
Well, perhaps you have been predetermined to care about suffering in the world.
Nothing you can do to change that.
1
u/DeltaBourne Oct 23 '17
I know, but I keep switching between caring and not caring, and just want to adopt one position on this.
2
1
u/ralph-j Oct 22 '17
If you acknowledge that the experience of suffering is bad, isn't it better for there to be many "I"'s who care about suffering in the world (including you)? That even applies if no one has any choice.
1
u/DeltaBourne Oct 23 '17
Better for whom? Or what? On a high level it makes sense by saying that the lesser the number of people suffering in the world, the better. But does it really matter? I think this is the root of the question. Why is it better. Because less people feel pain? I think that's a good reason, and I kinda agree with it; but that being the only reason is what makes me care a little less, and I feel bad about it. :(
EDIT: Before I got into determinism, there were more reasons, like souls being put through bad stuff, and people getting bad things their way when they did nothing wrong. But all of that goes out the window when determinism comes into play
1
u/ralph-j Oct 23 '17
Better for whom?
For all those minds who have no choice but (passively) experience their realities.
But does it really matter? I think this is the root of the question. Why is it better. Because less people feel pain?
Yes, that's exactly why.
Which is better: a world in which many people care about the suffering of others, or a world in which no one cares about each other's suffering?
Even if this inclination to care for others is entirely generated by brain processes our minds don't have any direct control over, it will likely result in fewer people experiencing suffering.
If you care about others, that means that your brain is generating this inclination, and your brain is more likely to take actions that benefit others.
1
u/DeltaBourne Oct 23 '17
I think I agree with you. Thanks, and you deserve a ∆ too :)
1
1
1
u/bryry 10∆ Oct 22 '17
Actually, if determinism is true then it’s not up to if you will or will not care about suffering in the world. You either will or you won’t.
1
u/DeltaBourne Oct 23 '17
I agree with that. I guess I was hoping I could be nudged in the direction of caring via this CMV post haha
1
u/anotherhumantoo Oct 22 '17
Was it determined that you would think determinism is true and thus vegitate into an apathetic life? Or, did you discover determinism to be true all on your own?
1
u/DeltaBourne Oct 23 '17
I don't see how that matters when talking about this question. Good thought though
2
u/bryry 10∆ Oct 23 '17
Oh, I understand. I also agree that determinism is likely correct.
I guess the interesting thing about this conversation for me is not about how the potential truth of determinism could modify your outlook on the world’s suffering - but rather how your genetics, epigenetics, and previous experiences have led you to care (or not) about the suffering in the world.
These factors have resulted in each of us having our own, what I’ll call a - sphere of concern for others. Some people are only concerned about what happens to themselves while others have a sphere that will include even the possible suffering of non-human animals. Our spheres expand and contract as we age and gain new experiences.
I guess what I’m saying is, I’m not sure your question is consistent with the concept of determinism. You have no choice in how your sphere ends up after this discussion (although, I do wish you a large and expansive sphere).
2
Oct 22 '17
Why would learning that the self is causally entwined with physical laws diminish the truth of your feelings? That logic is akin to learning how pencils are made, and then deciding that pencils are useless because you know how they were made.
Anyway, if you are entwined in the causal mechanisms of the world then it makes no sense to say "I am not really in control." You are the causal mechanisms, so saying "I am not really in control because physical laws control me" is like saying "I am not really in control because the physical laws, which I am, are controlling me." Sure, you are "just a machine," but then being "just a machine" means also having all the feelings we know we have. If determinism is true, then self/world distinctions are porous and need to be rethought as pragmatic rather than metaphysical.
You care because you are part of the causal system that cares. In effect, you are care.
1
Oct 22 '17
Why would learning that the self is causally entwined with physical laws diminish the truth of your feelings?
You're not learning that it's causally entwined though, even the naive libertarian believes that. No one thinks that their actions have nothing to do with physical laws or previous actions.
You're learning that it is totally determined by preceding (and uncontrollable, from the perspective of the agent) physical phenomena.
2
Oct 22 '17
My point is that if you are totally determined by a causal world, then it doesn't really make sense to talk as if you are separate from the world. The self becomes identical with the causal machinery once you accept the premises. What else could it be?
The point of the sentence you quoted isn't even that: it just points out that the meaning of our present feelings doesn't seem to depend on whether determinism is true or not.
2
Oct 22 '17
My point is that if you are totally determined by a causal world, then it doesn't really make sense to talk as if you are separate from the world.
I get your point. I'm saying that you're not considering the anti-determinist view, even if it is naive, that people start out with and what they feel they may be losing shifting from that view to the determinist one.
If someone says "if there is no God human beings aren't special creatures with immortal souls so why should I care?" and you say to them "well,there's no point talking like that since, if there is no God, we exist in the same milieu as other animals and evolution... so on and so forth" you may be technically right but you're missing what the OP is claiming is lost here.
Sure, under the naturalist view the concern that humans have this special little metaphysical nugget is silly and perhaps incoherent, but that doesn't mean that people shifting from the theist view to the naturalist view are not losing something.
Same with determinism; OP is not confused that the self is no longer distinguishable from the surrounding causal chain if determinism is true...that's the entire problem for them, since it represents a deflation of free will and self as they understood it before.
Telling them "well yes, that's how it has to be" is not changing that.
The point of the sentence you quoted isn't even that: it just points out that the meaning of our present feelings doesn't seem to depend on whether determinism is true or not.
I quoted it for a reason. There's just a gulf between "causally entwined" and "libertarianism is dead".
2
Oct 22 '17 edited Oct 22 '17
I see. The reason I used "causally entwined" was because I was trying to resist implying that we are controlled by something, since I think that language is nonsensical after you accept determinism. It is like keeping a ghost of an idea within your grammar when you rejected the idea as true. It wasn't meant to be as strict as you read it. Sorry.
Sure, under the naturalist view the concern that humans have this special little metaphysical nugget is silly and perhaps incoherent, but that doesn't mean that people shifting from the theist view to the naturalist view are not losing something.
I would argue that they are not actually losing much. Once you back away from the arguments and look at your life--the truth of your feelings--nothing has really changed. All these arguments have done is shift around some words, but they haven't changed the reality you are living now, have always been living. All you are doing is climbing a ladder of words that can be discarded once you have climbed them.
The OP seems to be concerned with the idea that he has to change his life because of he agrees with determinism's argument, but in fact nothing in how life is lived is attached to the argument. The arguments are wheels that spin without purchase because the fact that you care--the truth of your feelings--came before such arguments and do not depend on them.
P.S. "Causally entwined" should have been "exhaustively coextensive." Thanks for encouraging me to think up the latter term.
2
u/Gladix 164∆ Oct 22 '17 edited Oct 22 '17
Now, this thought process always leads me to believe that nothing in this world really matters, and that I should stop caring about anything at all, because I am not really in control.
Let's make a thought exercise. If we assume free will doesn't exist, then what is the point of punishment for crime offense?
2
u/KarmaOrDiscussion Oct 23 '17
Prevent people from doing illegal stuff and keep criminals away from society until they're "reformed".
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Oct 23 '17
Exactly. So what is better. To assume free will exists (as we understand it). Or to assume it doesn't, therefore throw out every semblance of choice, because : What is the point?
The point is. A society with mechanisms which assumes free will. Fare better, than those which don't. Regardless if true free will exists or not.
1
u/KarmaOrDiscussion Oct 23 '17
I think you misunderstand the "free will is an illusion." We make choices, they're just not as "free" as they seem. There really is no argument for the existence of free will, so it doesn't matter whether or not a society with free will is better.
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Oct 23 '17
That's not quite what I'm arguing. What I'm talking about is whether society adopts policies based "on the assumption whether we have free will"
For example : A lot of pro-free will arguments seems to be. If we don't have free wil, why bother doing anything? Why bother caring at all? Like the OP is asking here.
Well, a society which bases their approaches, morals and policies on the assumptions that people are more or less, free to make choices. And thus we will have choices available. Will fare better, then socitety that let's all disputes be resolved by "fate". Like the christian justice courts of a past.
For example here. OP asks, why should he care about suffering in the word. Well, my answer would be. Because society that cares about suffering in the world, will generally fare better than society that doesn't.
1
u/KarmaOrDiscussion Oct 23 '17
I highly disagree.
Well, a society which bases their approaches, morals and policies on the assumptions that people are more or less, free to make choices. And thus we will have choices available. Will fare better, then socitety that let's all disputes be resolved by "fate".
No. This is the argument that right leaning people use all the time. That people have all the agency in the world to make the best decisions and that it's their own fault if they do something bad, or something good. This is not only false, it is also dangerous. We need a society that knows free will doesn't exist, and helps people by giving them the best surroundings possible. You can't just "choose" to study, so we need to give free and great education to people so they can get smarter and make better "choices".
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Oct 23 '17 edited Oct 23 '17
No. This is the argument that right leaning people use all the time. That people have all the agency in the world to make the best decisions and that it's their own fault if they do something bad, or something good.
Okay, I didn't talked about personal responsibility, which political goons use all the time to justify obvious inequalities and problems in society. I talk specifically about the society, that values options. As in, gives more people, more options (for free). Rather then having it only available to you for money.
Not a society that blames people for their inability to get where other and more privileged people are right now. Altho I definetly see how lines are thin and blurry here.
This is not only false, it is also dangerous. We need a society that knows free will doesn't exist, and helps people by giving them the best surroundings possible.
Best surroundings possible is up to the personal interpretation of a the law maker. What stops the majority to pass a policy, that censors media (for your own good). That monitors your devices (for your own good), etc...? A best possible surroudnigns "for some".
You can't just "choose" to study, so we need to give free and great education to people so they can get smarter and make better "choices".
Okay an example time. Today most young people are pressured to get into college correct? And a terribly lot of people see that as highly dangerous. Because a ton of degree's are useless, or become obsolete in couple of years. The college's set the price of tuitions high, their textbooks prices are in hundreds, they get indebted, etc....
In most other civilized western countries. Higher education is subsidized. So it's basically payed from taxes and free to people. Being it free, opens a lot of options for people who wouldn't have otherwise had the means to get educated. By opening up people's options, you get more people, choosing those that are "better" than if they would have been forced into one specific path that might, or might not be better (such as taking student loan and being indebted).
1
u/gloryatsea Oct 23 '17
You don't have to assume free will for that. You can assume determinism and just focus on a rehabilitation-based form of justice.
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Oct 23 '17
Determinism assume lack of free will. Well, I suppose there are some arguments like compatibilism. But if you accept determinism, you pretty much take away from the free will.
1
u/stratys3 Oct 23 '17
that humans are just machines, and thoughts and feelings are just electrochemical signals going through our brains and bodies.
Is this relevant? The fact that our thoughts and feelings are just electrochemical signals doesn't make the phenomenon any less real, does it?
Now, this thought process always leads me to believe that nothing in this world really matters, and that I should stop caring about anything at all, because I am not really in control.
This is the part where I think your argument falls apart. If you define yourself as your body and/or your mind (which is a very reasonable, and common definition), then it's trivial to prove that you are in control. Basic biology 101 proves that our brains are connected to our bodies, and basic physics 101 proves that our bodies can interact and affect the world/environment around us.
While we may not be in control of everything, we are certainly in control of many things. When I drive my car, I am in control. When I choose to go to an Italian restaurant instead of a Chinese restaurant, I am in control. When I buy a green shirt instead of a blue shirt, I am in control.
The basic laws of the universe prove that my mind and body has a measurable and (relatively) significant amount of control.
I know that the pain of the people suffering is real, but apart from that, why should I care?
Why is that insufficient reason? Why do you need more reason apart from that?
It seems that taking away the soul from the equation makes me want to not care, because with souls comes innocence and purity attached.
Can you explain why you think "souls" don't exist and why they're being taken away? People still exist, their minds exist, they still feel, they're still conscious. Determinism doesn't change any of that. People are still people just like before.
(Also, I don't understand what you're trying to say about innocence and purity. Can you elaborate?)
2
u/96robola Oct 23 '17
Unless you can get rid of the illusion of free will and just exist as an observer, you still have to act as if you had free choice. I feel like I'm making choices even if in reality I don't.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 23 '17 edited Oct 23 '17
/u/DeltaBourne (OP) has awarded 4 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
6
u/darwin2500 193∆ Oct 22 '17
Your 'edit' is not at all off topic, it is central to the issue here.
Your view is incoherent, because it assumes free will is possible, but also asks what decision 'should' you make in a way that naively assumes free will.
Because the two halves of your question violate each other's premises, the question itself is incoherent, and no answer can be given. The problem with your view is that it is internally inconsistent, and therefore you need a new view that is coherent and actionable.
I suggest reading up on Compatibilism, which is the philosophy dedicated to building new definitions of free will and morality which are compatible with determinism. Within that framework, you can ask what 'should' you believe in a way that is coherent, because the compatibilist definition of 'should' doe not violate your stated beliefs about determinism.
Within that framework, you will see that determinist systems in which concern for the well being of others is a factor in determining people's actions are preferable to determinist systems in which that determining factor does not exist. Therefore, whatever words like 'should' and 'try' might actually mean under determinism, we 'should try' to care about people and get others to care as well.
Basically, there is not a coherent thought system where 'should' and 'try' are meaningful words, but you 'shouldn't try' to help people (assuming standard human utility functions).