Applications of Psychology: Guilt
Posted by Keiran Harris
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 17 Comments...
First of all, english it is not my first language, i learned it from movies and tv shows so please excuse my grammar.
By saying that a person has no free will, you get into some pretty tricky legal situations situations.
Laws, as i understand them, to be respected and agreed by everyone, they neeed to be both moral and practical.
To give just 2 examples:
1. theft: it should be illegal to steal from somebody because, practicaly, living in a country where theft is legal whould get us into some dangerous situations: revenge, eye for and eye type situation. Also, theft is morally wrong because if you take something that it's not yours by force, you hurt another person in the process and it's your choice to do so(that is my understanding of it, at least).
2. drug use(not the traffic of drugs, that's different): practically, the usage of drugs(especialy hard drugs) it's illegal in most countries because it brings more crime into a comunity and it changes and affects the behaviors of people from that comunity who tend to become less reliable(that is my understanding of this at least).
The moral side of the argument is weak though because people have issues when others tell them what they can and can't do with their boddies and because nobody else but themselves get hurt, at least directly, in this situation. Offcourse, there are many other arguments for wich drug use should be legal or atleast not a punishable offence under the law and you can even make the case that practically it does not work depending on the culture.
Now, almost everyone,with a few extreme exeptions, agrees that theft should be illegal and people should be punished under the law for it, but not as many people agree that drug use should be a punishable offence under the law.
I whould argue that the difference between why everyone(or almost everyone) agrees that thieves should respond in a legal way for their actions and why people are split on the drug user issue(and other issues simillar to that like prostitution) it is not a practical one: i think amost everyone agrees that a society whould be better of without any thieves and herroin or cocaine users( to give a more practical example when it comes to hard drugs).
The main difference is, in my oppinion, the moral argument: almost everyone agrees that thieving it's immoral because it involves hurting other people in a direct way wich involves a choice from the person who comits the crime while there are plenty of people who think that using drugs it is not immoral because other people do not get hurt, at least not in a direct way and not by choice.
When you say that we have no free wll, well, you take the moral argument from play and you remain just with the practical one and the practical argument it's weak in many cases. I mean: why whould you jail somebody for theft, or even murder, if you think that, morally, he had no choice in the matter? Your obligation whould be to help him get over this event, not punish him for an act in which he had no control over.
Also, what reason whould have the victim or the family of the victim(in case of a murder) to ask for justice(other than returning their stuff in case of a theft-for practical reasons-) if the perpetrator had no say, no choice in the matter ?
This kind of thinking can be extremly dangerous and should be handled whith extreme care because it can lead to a world in wich most people whould not like to live in.
Personally, i do believe we have a sort of "free will" but a more limited one, not an absolute one.
You're right -- my view leaves no room for retributive justice. The reason we still jail someone for theft is largely a matter of deterrence, but I would claim that we ought to be fully focused on rehabilitation once that person is behind bars.
In the case of a murder, our main practical aim remains the same as today -- we simply have to protect others from violence where we can reasonably expect it to continue. There are cases where I would actually argue for a longer sentence (life compared to say 25 years) in situations where we have no reason to suspect that the perpetrator will become non-violent at the age of 55 having committed a violent murder at 30. But my reasons are absolutely practical, and I don't think it's rational to wish for their suffering once behind bars.
There are two separate questions here: do we have libertarian free will? And if not, would the realisation of this lead to a terrible world? I claim that we don't, and that this knowledge would actually lead to a much better world. However, even if you could say with certainty it would have horrific consequences, that wouldn't have any impact at all on the truth of the first question -- the universe doesn't care about our desires.
Thanks for engaging!
I do understand that the concequences have nothing to do with the actual truth, but, when you know that you might be wrong, as you said, and you do have 2 sides with extremly intelligent people debating on this issue and there is not yet a clear and scientifically proven winner, i do believe that you should think and talk more about the concequences of your claims in the real world wich you might believe that could be positive but i do think there are plenty of reasons to believe that they could be negative.
Yeah I completely agree, and it is something I think about a lot. One of the most relevant consequences to today's world is that for those who hold my position -- tribalism is untenable. It's not just about a reduction (or hopefully elimination) of hatred for individuals, but also for groups. If you can trace back a person's political beliefs to causes they were unable to shape -- it's completely irrational to feel anger towards them. With that as a starting point, it would presumably give us a far better chance of having constructive, collaborative conversations.
Beliefs are irrelevant in this debate. What evidence is there for free will? I'd say absolutely none. There is stacks of evidence supporting a lack of free will, on the other hand. If an action leads to a dangerous situation, or risk of harmful repercussions to the actor, this does not make it an immoral act. A fireman running into a collapsing building, to save lives, is an example of this sort of act being quite moral. Also there is no requirement that the world be a just one, for it to make sense rationally. There are endless examples of horrible injustices, in our world, that any of us ought to be able to think of at any time. There are hook worms that burrow into the eye balls of the most innocent babies, and devour their retina leaving them forever debilitated. Often these young babies do not have access to medical treatment, and will live their lives for months or years with these worms infesting their tissues. This is but one example, the world is not a just one.
Retribution for crime would generally not be just, if there is no free will. But that ought not mean we would need to let people walk around free, after committing murders etc.. Those criminals, who pose a real danger to others, could still be locked up from a harm prevention perspective, rather than as a means of retribution. Also if we were to follow the retributive line to its logical conclusion, perhaps one must also argue in favour of torturing convicts to that end. Do two wrongs make a right? I think prisons should be used only for preventing harm, not to mete harm out.
The drugs debate is another entirely...With respect to freedom to treat ones own body as one wishes, that's one argument. But the arguments regarding social harm can easily be addressed, as far as legal inconsistencies go. 3/4ths of violent crime, prosecuted in our courts, is documented as having been committed by persons under the influence of an entirely legal intoxicant, alcohol. Alcohol is known to promote aggressive behaviours in many people, and increases risk for violent and other types of offending. The published evidence supporting this is overwhelming and undeniable. I have never seen a junkie nodding out to sleep on heroin, whilst simultaneously committing violent assaults on people while intoxicated. They're practically asleep by comparison. The drug that causes the most crime, and societal harm, as judged by a large body of experts across a wide variety of disciplines, is the drug that is legal and sold in larger quantities than nearly any other widely consumed drug on the planet. But should we punish people merely for having a beer? If not, why should we punish people having a joint, or a bowl, or using needles to take heroin? Surely having an open dialogue about drug dependency, and increasing access for these people to mental health facilities, would result in a better outcome for all parties.
Regarding thieves, some cultures (inuits, or inuvaluits, iirc) have no concept of theft. Their people simply assume that if something has been taken that the person must have had greater need for it than they had. There isn't a lingual translation for 'stealing', or something to that effect, in these cultures language. The problem is that many people, perhaps quite logically so, reject the idea of private property rights. I know I do, and that is why I give a large portion of my winnings to charity. I am not entitled to that wealth, because I have had it easy in life. I have had oppourtunities, being born into the right geographical region, by chance. Being born into the right family, by chance. Having access to a high level, early childhood education, by chance. Transgenerational wealth often means that those who own property mightn't necessarily be entitled to that property. Even if you worked for the money to buy that property, it's hardly fair on the person who did not have access to the same job oppourtunities, due to something outside of their control (e.g. being born in a war torn, famine riddled country). That person would typically have to work much harder than I did to get the same return on their effort.
This is fantastic
Thanks! Really appreciate it
I am not sure I understood your metaphor of moving to NY. Is it because of who we are, what we like and what define is, we have a limited or no free choice?
We're free to follow our desires, and therefore we subjectively feel that we're making free choices (and could choose to do otherwise). However, we cannot choose our desires. If you loved Basketball as a 5 year old and still love it today, when you watch a game that feels like a free choice. But, I argue -- because this is a natural consequence of a trait you didn't choose -- it doesn't make sense to think of it as a free choice.
That is really interesting take on free choice. Thanks for replying
I do hope this thing will never play out in real life, but if it will, this is how i think it will go: basically, you will give people the "fredom" to be the worst versions of themserves without any punshment in most situations. And even the best people can become monsters if you put them in the "right" context, expecialy if you tell to them that, whatever they do, they are not at fault for. Also, even if people will accept the fact that there is no free will, that does not mean that they will be rational about it 100% of the time, the will for revenge, the "tribalism" won't go away just because, rationally, you know the person who wronged you had no say in the matter. We are not rational beings, we are far, far, far away from that.There is a quote which, i think, applies perfectly here: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"( i do mean this in a metaphorical way, of course).
This is my last comment on the matter and, if this thing really plays out, i do hope i am wrong about the outcome.
Yeah so those first quotation marks are key. Having taken this position -- we don't suddenly have the freedom to become monsters. It's possible that many would, of course, but there is absolutely no evidence for this. Those who hold my position are disproportionately neuroscientists etc. and we can say this is a biased sample -- but we are yet to have a single case (to my knowledge) of a previously moral person becoming monstrous upon receiving this information. I think it's analogous to fears about a widespread lack of religious belief. The feeling was that if people lost their faith -- they'd have no reason to act morally, and they would become monsters in this same sense. That is clearly not the case in countries with high levels of non-belief, and we have no evidence to suggest that the evaporation of free will would have drastically different consequences.
If we have no free will and everything is pre-determined, why work on bettering ourselves?
I agree that we won't all become murderers and rapists if we suddenly found out that free will is a myth, but what's stopping me from giving into my vices which aren't as severe?
For example, I'm naturally lazy. I don't want to put in the hours at or away from the tables. I'd rather watch two hours of reality TV per your example (or philosophize on poker sites). If I have no free will then I can just say "screw it" and shut down the Poker tracker and power up the Netflix and I'll be who I'm meant to be. In our current reality, I try to force myself to do things I don't want to do because I know they're good for me. By working I'll have more money which I can convert however I see fit in the future. By exercising and eating better I can live longer and healthier.
But if we don't see our past selves as ourselves how can we see our future selves as ourselves? Why should I do anything for future me that I don't want to do when that person isn't even me?
All good questions!
1) Everything is not pre-determined, that's mistaking determinism for fatalism. Your life will change depending on the choices you make -- it's simply that those choices will not ultimately have been under your control. If you're influenced negatively from watching this video -- you can point back to this video as a reason for the ensuing disaster. But we can trace back the ultimate reasons for you watching the video to moments in your life of which you had no control.
2) The same reasons that prevent you from giving in to your less severe vices today. You subjectively will have to experience the rest of your life -- and that experience will be far more pleasant if you exercise, eat well and work hard compared to watching Netflix all day. These things aren't just good for you -- if you're the type of person who is capable of contributing, they're good for the world.
3) We ought to benefit our future selves for similar reasons that we ought to benefit other people. If you do something that you don't feel like doing today because you know it will benefit a family member greatly, that makes sense. You can think of your future self in a similar way. Future you is still a human being, and while I don't think you can justify giving him a far stronger weighting compared to a friend who is equally likely to contribute to the world, it doesn't make sense to give future you less importance either.
Thanks for watching!
I very much enjoyed this video. Though I am not certain I am fully convinced in the concept of us not having free will, it is an interesting topic to ponder. I want to draw upon part of your discussion with a personal take.
I, as a 48 year old man looking back at myself as a boy (much the same age as you were in that photo) recognize that boy is both me and not me as I am now. Life experiences, traumas, joyful events all have brought me to the point I am now. I have been exposed to different environmental toxins, foods, radiation all affecting my natural genetics, and perhaps epigenetics in ways I am not aware of nor was I in control of.
Looking back to the boy, raised in a fairly religious upbringing, I recognize in that boy a well developed sense of guilt. This was likely a result predominantly of religious teaching, school teaching and genetics. I also recognize this sense of guilt shaped the boy who was me, throughout all the infinite manifestations of me to the point I am now. I can appreciate I think, with reflection, this guilt had effect on decisions made, as well as sense of self at all those points along the journey in my life.
The guilt without question made me more anxious and self reproachful at times, affecting my happiness. I would worry about what present day self would consider minor transgressions with excessive self blame. This created anxiety and worries. Did the guilt offer any positives? I think so. I think to some extent this guilt acted as a motivator to work harder. I think it acted to keep me behaving in what I considered to be a more moral way at all these life stages. So perhaps guilt was not all bad.
My mind has become more flexible to examining different ideas about what is right and wrong over times. Some things remain as they were to the childhood version of me, some have changed. When you speak of eliminating the existence of free will from the equation, it is in a way very comforting to me. It seems like a "get out of jail free" card for all my life transgressions. I also like applying it to other people. It helps me be less blaming of other's actions I would differ with.
In the end though, and I am not saying you are incorrect, I am going to stick with the idea of free will. As a physician, I am a person of science also. To eliminate the idea of free will essentially eliminates us having a soul. Maybe we are just an amalgam of neurons having reacted to environmental stimuli in the background of our genetic code. Maybe there is more? Who knows for certain. However, overall this sense of guilt has lead me to present time self and I am OK with that. Of course it could be no other way given my lack of will in making it such. :)
You are an interesting cat, it is a pleasure to find life challenging ideas on a poker instructional website. Hopefully we bump paths someday. Cheers, Jeff
I think you're absolutely right in that we can trace some positives associated with guilt -- I would just argue that guilt isn't necessary to achieve them. Key to this view of the world is a sense that there is very little difference between the well-being of our future selves and the well-being of a stranger, and this hopefully notable increase in compassion provides a strong justification for working as hard as possible. If you're capable of helping others, and the gap between others and yourself is hugely reduced, there seems a clear moral obligation to benefit the world -- and this can provide the powerful motivation we may have otherwise tied to the desire for personal success.
Cheers! Really appreciate that.
processing,ty
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.