“Is Logical” is Not “Will Act Logically” – So What’s a Philosopher to Do?

 misc. philosophy  3 Responses »
Jan 212015
 

static_vs_dynamic_philosophy

In my book Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind I make a logical case against free will (I prove a negative through proof of impossibility). I then go on to explain that if (the majority of) people understand this logical case, and if they understand what follows from such and act accordingly, the world will be a much “better” place than it currently is in many regards.

Saying something “is logical”, however, is not the same as saying someone actually “will act logically”, or hold a logical belief, or even care to educate them-self on the topic. For example, if I say that a certain type of fairness and equality follow logically from the rational understanding that there is no free will (and give the case as to why), that is not the same as saying that someone who believes there is no free will will act fair or equal  – which implies they took the time to learn about it, and care enough to act on it. Continue reading »

What is “Betterment”?

 misc. philosophy  Comments Off on What is “Betterment”?
Jul 302014
 

betterment

If you look at the title of my book “Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind” (now on both Kindle and Paperback) you’ll recognize two distinct parts. The first part addresses specifically free will. It denotes it as an “illusion”, and it denotes it as one that can be “broken”. The next part talks about “bettering humankind”.  But what does it mean to say something is “better”, or there is a “betterment”, or that humankind is “better off”?

Notice the book does not say “for the betterment of me” or “for the betterment of you”. I’m addressing humankind in a more general sense, and though it will most likely be better for me and you for various reasons, this is important. What is better for a general population may not be what is better for every single individual within that population. I might say that it is better for the people of a given society to stop serial killers, but for the serial killer (who is a single person within that society) – it probably wouldn’t be “better”.

Preference is often assumed in the word “better”. For me, chocolate icecream is better than vanilla icecream; for another, vanilla would be better. Some might say classical music is better than rock and roll, or vice-versa. Continue reading »

You don’t “deserve” what you worked hard for! – A philosophical dialogue

 determinism, free will, incompatibiism, indeterminism, misc. philosophy  Comments Off on You don’t “deserve” what you worked hard for! – A philosophical dialogue
Jun 102014
 

What do you mean I don’t deserve what I’ve worked hard for!

I mean you don’t deserve it any more than anyone else.

I worked hard for it. Of course I deserve it.

One doesn’t follow from the other.

Of course it does. Someone who didn’t work for it wouldn’t  deserve it. I did work for it!

They couldn’t have, of their own accord, worked for it, and you couldn’t have not worked for it.

Why couldn’t they have? And why couldn’t I have not?

Because causal events have led them and you to the only possibility. And if there did happen to be another possibility due to non-causal events, those would be entirely out of  theirs and your control anyway. There is no free will.

Fine, let’s assume that’s the case. So?

So basically you are saying that you deserve X quality of life because you worked hard for it, while another person doesn’t deserve X quality of life, because they did not work hard for it (they deserve Y, not X). X being a better quality of life than Y.

You better believe it. I put my hard work, sweat, and time into obtaining X quality of life. If they had as well, they’d deserve X quality of life as well.

But again, they couldn’t have and you couldn’t have not.

Fine, then they couldn’t have X and I couldn’t not have X as well.

That doesn’t mean you deserve X over them. It just means that you have X and they don’t.

What, do you think – I should give them half of X even though they didn’t work for it?

I didn’t say that.

It’s implied in saying I don’t deserve X over them.

No, it’s implied that you don’t deserve X over them, not that you should give them half of X.

Wouldn’t it be unfair for me not to give them half of X if they deserved it just as much as I do? Continue reading »