Philosophy Forums
Forums Articles Gallery Links


Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help
Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Free-Will Bigotry » Free-Will Bigotry

Free-Will Bigotry

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3

Free-Will Bigotry
wuliheron
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156
Posted 04/05/09 - 08:55 AM:
Subject: Free-Will Bigotry 		quote post
#1
Although I have referred to free will bigotry a few times in past posts, I've never gone into much detail. Once someone suggested that calling it "bigotry" was a bit of an overstatement, but from my point of view there is no better word. When people assert that you must be insane, stupid, or self-destructive to not believe in free will what better word is there to describe such a position?

I frequently witness people using their belief in free will as an excuse to harass, punish, or otherwise attack people. Often they will say they are doing so for the person's own good, but it seems obvious to me they are at least partially in denial of their need to bolster their belief. Historically belief in free will has been used as an excuse to attack people with what are now widely known to be physical problems such as epilepsy and tourrette's syndrome.

Unlike other forms of bigotry free will bigotry is subtle, but like all forms of bigotry it is intimately tied to how judgmental we are. However just encouraging people to be less judgmental is not a specific remedy to the problem. Like any form of bigotry there must exist more specific and context dependent solutions for dealing productively with free will bigotry. Therefore, any discussion on the subject is welcome here as long as it does not involve people stating the obvious that we could all benefit from being less judgmental.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844
Posted 04/05/09 - 10:34 AM:
quote post
#2
Can you provide some more concrete examples?
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

Can you pass Religion 101?
123savethewhales
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346
Posted 04/05/09 - 11:00 AM:
quote post
#3
If you remove the idea of free will, what ground do you have left to reward/punish someone? Everything happens by chance on the scale of the universe, person X just happen to be the unlucky person who is destined to be a criminal since the big bang.

I guess free will is our way of ending the causal link at the human level, to say he/she is responsible allow us to look no further into the infinity. We must also not ignore how our reward system relies on free will. Who deserves what, why someone should be a billionaire while others starve, all those are linked to the belief of free will.

The rejection of free will also spin off into the "natural" argument. Social Darwinist seem to like using this argument a lot. The problem of course is that determining what is natural and what isn't leads to it's own bigotry, usually with even less grounds of justification than free will itself.

I think people will always find ways to blame others for their actions.
Keep it simple.
ciceronianus
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1023

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"
Posted 04/05/09 - 01:10 PM:
quote post
#4
The definition of "bigotry" is, I think, broad enough to serve in these circumstances, but I question its usefulness in philosophical discourse, and think that employing it in such circumstances is inappropriate given its more common use these days. We tend to think of bigots as people who are intolerant about particular groups of people, e.g. people of certain races or religions, for no good reason, and who as a result actively seek to restrict or repress them. Are you really saying that those who persecute the disabled do so because they believe in free will? Saying someone is a bigot because he scoffs at determinism seems odd, and may even be ad hominem given the emotional weight the word now carries. Imagine saying, "you are the Hitler [or Lester Maddox, or George Wallace] of the doctrine of free will!" or "you are to determinism what the Klan is to blacks, Jews and Catholics!" Seems a bit overwrought, doesn't it?

I hope you don't disagree. I will feel very, and most unfairly, put upon if you do.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce

"There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey
unenlightened
everything is...
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286
Posted 04/05/09 - 04:02 PM:
quote post
#5
You are free, and I am going to force you to admit it, will you or nil you. Sounds a little unwise, and I can't say I've come across it. Me too, would like an example of this bigotry in action. confused
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti

"Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys
aga
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14
Posted 04/05/09 - 06:33 PM:
quote post
#6
Free-Will Bigotry
How to Cope?

Before I encounter bigotry of any kind,
I try to think it through like in the following set of questions and answers so that I am prepared for bigotry of any kind and am sure that I can handle it if and when it comes my way, as it will:

Do I love or hate bigots?
If I hate bigots, am I not also guilty of having the same bigotry for the bigot that the bigot has for me as stupid or as insane or as any names he calls me?
If I love bigots, and love the bigot I am, and love the insane and the stupid, I proceed to next question.

Do I love myself as sane and as insane, or hate myself as insane?
If I hate myself as insane,
am I not a bit insane for expecting others to love me as what words or names I hate me as, and for not expecting others to hate me as what names I hate me as?
And why am I not also a bit stupid and insane
for not congratulating the bigot for hating me as what words he sees me as: stupid and insane: when I am so at certain times, and especially when he honestly sees me as those words or names and since I hate myself as insane and stupid?;
and for not appreciating his honesty since I also hate liars?;

and if I think that he is insane and stupid for calling me insane and stupid, how can I expect an insane and stupid person to not mis-identify who I am?;

and if he calls me insane and stupid for loving him, isn't Love the strangest stupidity and the most insane insanity to bigots?

and why am I really upset with the bigot for calling me stupid and insane when I also love to fool around, and love certain songs like 'Only fools fall in Love' and 'Crazy Love' and 'Everybody is somebody's fool' and 'Now and then, there is a fool such as I,' and I think that the first thing a wise man knows is that he is a fool?;

and if I call the bigot judgmental for judging me, am I not also judgmental for judging him as judgmental?

And am I still not judgmental when I make the judgment-call to not call him judgmental and to not judge anyone at all?

If I love myself as sane and insane, and as wise and stupid, as bigot and non-bigoted, as judgmental and non-judgmental, as willing and as unwilling, as free and as unfree, I proceed to the next question.


Since before we can hate others as any words, we have to be hating ourselves as those words,
doesn't the bigot first hate himself as insane and as stupid and so can't help but hate me when he sees me as what words he hates himself as?

So if I hate bigots for hating me as whatever words, don't I also first hate myself as those words?;
and am I not compounding the bigot's bigotry for me and mine for me when I hate him for hating me?

If I love me as all words, would it not be the case that no words or names he calls me could offend me nor be taken with Hate or with Disrespect by me since I would take all those words with Love and Respect, no matter how they were spoken to me?
If I love me as all words, there are no questions nor further questions.

"No one can make you feel inferior [nor irritate you] without your consent." Eleanor Roosevelt

"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself.
What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us."
Herman Hesse

'For 'tis a sign of Love; and Love to Richard
Is a strange brooch in this all-hating world.'
Shakespeare's King Richard II Act 5, Scene 5

'Never in the world is Hatred conquered by Hatred:
Hatred is conquered by Love.'
Dhammapada 223.5


'All things are ready, if our minds be so.'
Shakespeare's King Henry V [IV, 3]



Edited by aga on 04/05/09 - 06:44 PM
Schlitz
Hulkamaniac
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Location: Home of the Cougar, Illinois

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 232
Posted 04/05/09 - 10:32 PM:
quote post
#7
Skepticism about free will is the same flavor as skepticism about the external world. To deny free will, you have to deny self-evident facts about your own mental life. A much better way to put the point is that to deny free will, you have to claim that you don't know the meaning of the terms and phrases "will," "make a decision," "is responsible for," and the like. But linguistic practice shows that people _do_ know the meanings of these terms- people understand claims like "Jim is responsible for his failures," or "Rhonda made a decision to stop being such a fatass," or "It takes a lot of willpower to quit smoking." To deny free will is to say that people don't know the meanings of terms that relate to action, but we clearly use sentences successfully to talk about action. Imagine the skeptic agrees to this point. Is there any room to be skeptical from here? Could it be that people successfully use sentences that they do not know the meanings of? It's here that a theory of meaning becomes relevant to questions of skepticism.

Oh, and aren't you being sensational in using the word bigotry? That's rather uncharitable, and it's a lazy appeal to emotion.
wuliheron
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156
Posted 04/05/09 - 11:08 PM:
quote post
#8
I will work backwards with your responses. First off, there is a difference between making an assessment and a judgment. If I say, "The sky is blue" you might assume I am making an assessment, not a judgment. However, what makes the difference is how I feel about the sky being blue. If I hate it, then I am making a judgment. If I simply accept it as a fact, then I am merely making an assessment.

I already gave two specific examples of free will bigotry: Tourette's syndrome and epilepsy. Tourette's is an inherited neurological disease that causes people to sporadically cuss and sometimes even become a bit violent. Before the discovery of the neurological basis of the disease such people were blamed for their behavior as if they had choice in the matter.

In the west, epilepsy has a long history of social acceptance and rejection. In ancient times epileptics were often thought to be able to commune with the gods and were considered oracles. In the middle ages they were believed to be possessed by the devil due to some lack of character on their part. I used these two examples as a way of clarifying and simplifying the arguments. Another physical example is that of left-handedness. A century ago in the US teachers would punish students for using their left hand to write because this was considered the "hand of the devil" and the student was believed to have a choice in the matter.

As for punishment, it is quite often used by believers in free will even when it is counterproductive. For example, parole has proven to be much more effective at reducing recidivism among nonviolent offenders such as drug offenders. Nonetheless, in the US the public demands such people be punished by incarceration. They are punished even though this is proven to increase the crime rate!

As for bigotry usually being thought of as hatred aimed squarely at different groups of people for no good reason, bigotry is by nature a slippery slope. Some bigots are proud of their bigotry and will gladly give you a long list of "good" reasons for their beliefs. Others are living in denial and are consciously unaware of their bigotry.

If it were an easy subject I would not have brought it up here. ^_^
Schlitz
Hulkamaniac
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Location: Home of the Cougar, Illinois

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 232
Posted 04/05/09 - 11:29 PM:
quote post
#9
My response about free will skepticism (although I stand by it on its own merits) was off-topic for this post. However, it seems like you're talking about people getting things wrong about psychology, rather than a philosophical issue. What justifies my judgement that John is being a dumbass is a theory of mind, and if that theory is crude, then I could call him a dumbass when he's not. But it's not bigotry. It's a false theory of mind.
123savethewhales
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346
Posted 04/06/09 - 12:08 AM:
quote post
#10
I always wonder how free our will has to be to be consider free will, and to what extend of freedom is required before people start blaming others for their decisions. Although not everyone will agree that there are absolutely no freedom at all, certainly no one can deny that our choices are always restricted at least to some extend.

If I point a gun at someone's head and demand them to do something, certainly he/she have the choice to say no. But we usually don't blame the person for conforming in such cases.

Homosexuality is one of those where the views has been changed only recently. While the debate is still up on rather or not they have a choice in who they are sexually attracted to, certainly a homosexual had the choice to not engage in a homosexual relationship. Currently our cultures is moving away from enforcing such choice on homosexuals, but we still do it to others with alternative sexual preferences, such as a zoophilia or necrophilia.

Something like obesity is usually on a gray area. It is clear that some people have to work that much harder just to lose weight, while others can sit home all day and not gain a single pound.

Poverty is a rather strange case. It is clear that it is much harder for people in poverty to become rich, than it is for billionaires to stay rich. But the blames from personal choice advocates really hit hard on them.

Edited by 123savethewhales on 04/06/09 - 01:08 AM
Keep it simple.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.

Powered by WSN Forum

The time is now 11/22/09 - 10:00 AM.