How would a society without free-will be ordered?

This is something that has kind of floated around in Tusko-world for some time but I've never really been able to think about it properly. It's one of those topics that my brain just slides off when I try to think about it. This might mean that no-one has much to say about it, I don't know.The purpose of this thread isn't to discuss whether there is such a thing as free-will or not. What I want to consider here is how a society might be ordered if the individuals within a society were convinced that free-will did not exist (whether this believe is true or false is not the issue).If people weren't considered capable of making decisions as we believe that we can, then clearly a lot of things would be very different. So many things in our society- for instance the law, the Abramic religions, and the idea of the artist and artistic expression - are predecated to some degree on existence of free-will.I am presupposing that a society such as this could arise because it seems entirely reasonable to me. I reject any idea that such a society couldn't exist, or would be too depressing to be a part of pretty much out of hand. Just because we are comforted by the idea that we have free-will doesn't mean that a radically different society couldn't find the an equal amount of comfort in a lack of free-will.For a concrete example: how would a society that had a gut feeling that free-will was "just wrong" act towards murderers? I find thinking about this really difficult. I suspect that an assumption of free-will is so deeply ingrained in me that it distorts how I address the problem. My first instinct is to say that there would be a desire to reform murderers, and that capital punishment for revenge would definitely be out .... but the more I think about it, I'm not sure if either of those is necessarily right.Maybe its important to state that this as yet imaginary society is one in which the future cannot be reliably predicted. That seems far-fetched currently, and I think it becomes a lot easier to know what to do if you know how everyone is going to behave in the future.I'm trying to envisage a whole society and how it might function but getting nowhere. Its with the ultimate idea of writing a story set in such a world, but in all honesty that probably isn't going to happen anytime soon.A discussion would be great but failing that (I am aware my OPs often fail to inspire much debate!), consider it a call for reading material. Don't say "Brave New World" because that's something I'm aware of, and am planning to read again soon. I guess I'm thinking more of philosophical investigation, but anything is fair game if it addresses the topic. If anyone has any reading on this specific topic (i.e. how a society would be ordered without the belief in free-will) then I would be very grateful for suggestions. My googletrawling has yielded no results.

I often hear this kind of argument. I cannot make sense of it.If I am the judge (or part of the jury), then I will examine the evidence, and decide on guilt just as I would do today. And if I am judge, I would pass sentence on a convicted murderer just as I would if I were a judge today.To presume that I, as judge, would make a different decision, is to presume that I, as judge, had free will while nobody else did.To put it differently, if the murderer has no free will not to commit murder, then the judge has no free will not to punish the murderer.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

When you say that you often hear this argument and that you can't make sense of it, I'm not sure precisely what you are referring to in the context of the opening post.Do you think I'm arguing that the world would be different if there wasn't free will? I'm not. I want to talk about a culture where the people that constitute it reject free will (although crucially they might be wrong, and they may actually have free will despite their rejection of it). I'm interested in how such a culture might seek to organise itself.We should return to your post. If a society that rejected the idea of free will (rightly or wrongly) was configured in such a way as to have judges and juries, and a judge was about to pass sentence, then I agree that s/he would believe that whatever decision s/he made was effectively preordained.In this postulated culture, just about everyone accepts that as natural. But of course, we are assuming that such a society would have judges and sentencing in a way we would recognise. Maybe they would, maybe the wouldn't. What I'm asking is how law would work andy why.Perhaps I'm asking a lot. I want people to help me imagine such a society and how it might regulate itself. Are you saying that you think that the legal system - if legal system it could be called - would be just the same as ours?A belief in free will permeates many of the structures the comprise society. Imagine if the idea of free will had been rejected in our own society at the earliest juncture, deep in prehistory. Perhaps not long after the time when the first complex sentences are uttered. All subsequent cultures and societies had developed along this alternative path. Would everything be basically the same? I can't imagine it would. How for instance could any of the Abramic religions ever come into being, without the belief that an individual can make meaningful choices? This alone would surely have massive knock on effects.Does that help explain what I'm after at all?Edited by Tusko, : "If legal system they had" made less senseEdited by Tusko, : "how would law work?" no... "how law would work!"

I can't see why it would be much different. People would go about doing their jobs, without worrying about deep philosophical points, much as they do now. Sure. And the people who deny that we have free will depend on it just as much as do those who affirm it. So I think it would all be an abstract philosophical point, with no consequences.For an example of a determinist, try the book "How free are you?" by Ted Honderich. As I recall, he has a chapter that more or less starts with "Now that you know you don't have free will, here's what you can do about it." Well duh -- if you don't have free will and everything is determined, then there isn't anything you can do about it.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Perhaps such a society would conclude that a murderer was someone who responded to a particular constellation of circumstance and personal make-up in a violent way and would set about 1) removing that person from any possibility of again encountering that constellation of factors; 2) promoting change in that individual so that constellation could not recur; 3) for the safety of all presume that neither of the above could be reliaby achieved and seclude that person from society; or 4) conclude the murderer is irretrievably broken and should be executed for the greater good.I suspect a society-wide rejection of free will would change surprisingly little. Some folks might be less vengeful but others might well be more prepared to excise the damaged individual: if there is no free will, there is no redemption.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I am not an expert in history, but I am pretty sure during the Middle Ages in Europe people thought that free-will did not exist. Everyone was born into a caste system, since they were "destined" to be there for the rest of their life. As a result, you did not have many (or any) scientific, artistic, geographical discoveries/improvements.Generally, a society under no free-will system would not be advancing in anything, since people would not make any effort and would not pursue their goals. Afterall, they would be "destined" to lay on a couch, watch tv, and recieve welfare, or suffer from 16 hour work days on a farm.Edited by Nutcase, : No reason given.

Interesting question. If I'm not fully grasping the breadth of your argument please inform me. Maybe we should make some clarifications first. I think that some people when they hear the phrase, 'free-will,' they might automatically be prejudiced towards thinking in terms of religion-- particularly Abrahamic religions. As far as I can tell, the term freewill means that we are not under any sort of directive where our thoughts and actions are manipulated by forces other than our own mind.Certainly, it would seem that we all have a freewill, in that, we can do whatever our physical bodies will allow. You mentioned murder, which, I'll address more deeply momentarily. We know that society frowns on murder, but we are free to commit if we want. The consequences are really a secondary issue. We can do it if we wanted to whether we pay a price for it later on or not.So, on the one hand, the irreligious might say that freewill makes a case against God, in that, why would a God allow our wills to go against His perfect will if He is perfect? Wouldn't that indicate that there really is no God?And the flipside to that coin would be, no, you don't understand. God, in His infinite wisdom knows that right and wrong are meaningless terms without contrast. What is light without dark? What is good without bad? And what is love without a viable choice to truly love or to reject that offer? If God made us mindless automotons and He forced us to love and obey Him, would that really be love at all? Its like programming a robot to love you. But does it really love you or is it just going through these stale, emotionless responses that mimic love? Since I am theist, I understand this principly, and it makes perfect sense to me. The latter explanation may speak more profoundly to others.And the last one would be if there is no freewill. This would imply that some sort of force beyond us is manipulating our thoughts, unbeknownst to us, making us feel as though we are in control of our destiny. The movie, The Matrix, comes to mind with this sort of rationale. Probably what made the movie so profound was that we the viewers could imagine living in a world where we were duped. And its an incredibly depressing thought, even in spite of ignorance being bliss. We may not know that we are being manipulated. And there would some solace in that we simply don't know any better-- like your favorite dog going to the vet to be put down. For him, its just another with you, his master who loves him. He has no idea that he's about to die. What makes the thought of it so bad is imaginging the abject terror of coming to the realization, the epiphany, that we are not ourselves and that nothing is of our own volition. An interesting concept. I just posted a sermon given by one of my favorite apologists who went into this very subject. If you don't mind listening to it for about 5 minutes, 20 if you can tolerate the whole message. He explains it better than I could by asking a question about butchering a baby. (Pay no attention to the cheesy opening segment). Listen to the actual speaker and then tell me how your mind wraps around the subject. Here's the linkWhere there is no concensus, there is no harmony, where there is no harmony, there is no peace. This is the disposition of a society who's wills conflict with one another. At the same time, where there is no option, there is no joy, where there is no joy, there is no peace. This is where the society is manipulated and choice has effectively been removed from the scenario. Neither will bring peace. That is why I ineluctably find that it is only if I align my will towards the perfect will-- and do so completely of my own choice, only then will I find lasting peace. I'm sure Plato or Aristotle dabbled with the concept. Maybe even Kant or Nietzsche. My recommendation would be something from CS Lewis. Other than that, I can think of no books that strictly speak about your unique question.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

I'm going to assume that this means a society that accepts compatibilist notions of free will but rejects libertarian free will. If we reject the idea that the people in it make meaningful decisions we don't really have any basis for discussion.In that case we would have a situation much like the present. We would accept the role of external causes on our behaviour (e.g. provocation or duress) while still attributing more crimes to the nature of the criminal. We could validly justify punishment as deterrent or as an attempt to reform and rehabilitate the criminal - or even as a combination. We might even justify retributive punishment as a sort of partial reparation to the victims.If we truly rejected this concept we might have a more interesting situation. In a case where a criminal act has been committed, and where external causes are insufficient explanation, we could no longer safely attribute the act to the nature of the criminal. In shrot if we were to actually subject non-compatibilist views of free will to the same scrutiny as compatibilist versions are subjected to we come to the conclusion that they simply add a random element to behaviour. And this assumed random element represents a defence that is very hard to challenge for any single act.So I would say that while our current systems generally rely on an assumed idea of free will they are essentially in line with compatibilist ideas of free will and we would not have to propose major changes if we were to take that line.

Maybe this is all an abstract philosophical point with no consequences. On the other hand, someone might argue that such a society would bring benefits over the one we have. I'm not going to do that, it sounds pretty unlikely. The main reason I want to do this is for the mental exercise. If you aren't much interested then I really don't blame you!As to your final point regarding Ted Honderich's book (thanks for that by the way, that chapter sounds to be just the sort of things I'm after), I think I see things a bit differently to you. You say that if we were to believe that there wasn't free will then there wouldn't be anything we could do about it. This is of course true in one sense, but there is another dimension. We would still do things - though preordained. In such a world we don't know what it is that we will do, or why we will do it, or how long we will do it for. So understanding our actions and the actions of those around us is still very important I think.By the way - I'm not sure that I've ever mentioned how great your avatar is. I particularly like the expression: steely determination with the hint of an amiable smile. Now that's a superhero.

Ah - thanks. I had completely forgotten this. I remember being blown away at university when talking about medieval writers and the tutor said that they probably didn't have a sense of self as we recognise it. But that's beside the point.What about double predestination? Yes - perhaps some communities have had an outlook like the one I'm trying to imagine before.I've got to dash now but thanks.Edited by Tusko, : outlook not outlike!

Double predistenation or Calvinism was reflected in many societies throughout Europe. However, it was used as a tactic to scare the peasants and make them more obedient. The church used Bible to justify this notion of double predestintion and argued that by working hard and living according to the holy laws you would be able to escape the reprobation. How would you escape your destiny? Well, Jesus Christ will see how good of a person you were during your life time and would be willing to put you in heaven, thus changing your destiny. Such society would be willing to do the work, but only work that would be told by the religious leaders or the people incharge. The proletariat would be willing to follow a dotrine that would tell them how to get that "double" in the predestination. Censorship, no new ideas, no progress comes to mind.Edited by Nutcase, : No reason given.Edited by Nutcase, : No reason given.

Great - this is the kind of thing that I had in mind.I'm starting to think you're right when you say that the changes might be surprisingly little. When I first started to think about this, I had a weird feeling that there might be huge knock on effects but perhaps not.I think I agree with the thrust of your suggestions. Although revenge might seem more futile than it might to us (though I still can't say that with any confidence... its very hard to try to enter the mindset of one of these people!), people would presumably feel the same degree of emotion if a loved one was killed. Perhaps a murderer would be seen more like a natural disaster or a road accident than as an evil person choosing to do evil things.So if revenge and anger weren't directed at the purpetrator, then I think the aims of the legal system would boil down to your suggestions. That actually sounds quite attractive to me. I can't think of a reason why law systems shouldn't be structured with the assumption that free will doesn't exist.I disagree with one of your conclusions though, at least a bit. You are right when you say there could be no redemption in the way that we understand it, but I think there would be a direct equivalent. It is perfectly possible that a serial murderer (say) in such a world might have a damescene (Damescene?) moment and never kill again and go on to live an exemplary life. This miraculous reform would not be considered a result of personal choice but rather as a result of unforseen circumstances; nevertheless, when you don't understand all the causes and effects that work on someone you can never rule out such a reform.So people with beliefs like this could only be fatalistic about the murderer and put him to death (as in your suggestion 4) if they had an infallible supercomputer that could predict accurately that he would never reform. I'm not talking about such a society.It sounds utterly terrifying! Can you imagine going up to it and asking it to predict what you would do today, or on 16th July 2023, and it being able to tell you with unfailing accuracy? Its a bit like the myth of the cyclops who I believe were able to see how they would die. Eeew!

Thanks for your considered response. Also thanks for saying that my idea is interesting. I'm a pussy cat when it comes to tummy-tickling!I think I'm right in saying that you are a pretty serious Christian, so that might make what I'm asking harder for you than for someone who doesn't have an investment in the idea that the ability to make choices is real and important. I totally accept this attitude to choice in every day life, but I'm asking everyone in this thread to attempt to reject it for a moment and think like one of the members of this wacky society instead.I might be misinterpreting you, but I want to steer the discussion away from where you seem to be heading - at least in your opening comments. I love a good discussion about free-will and determinism as competing philosophies, but here I want to stick strictly to the imagining of a society that, rightly or wrongly, has always rejected the idea of free-will as intrinsically icky, in the way many people in our society reject the idea that they aren't able to make choices. I'm not sure if I understand this point properly. The reason I raised Judaism, Christianity and Islam was merely because I think they are all predecated on the idea that the individual can make meaningful choices. If your society has never believed that this is so I can't see how you could ever go for a religion that says that the individual can make choices.* That is just one aspect of my hypothicated society, though an important one. All kinds of interrelationships might be affected, including practical every day concerns. I think there is a crucial difference between the people that I'm proposing and the humans in the Matrix. In the Matrix, there is a malevolent (or at least, a sentient) force that is manipulating the people. I don't think the actions of an unconscious universe, however destructive, could be considered malevolent.(But that's interesting. Am I making an unwarranted assumption when I say that these folks would believe that the universe was without consciousness?)I think that if the universe isn't considered malevolent, then these postulated people wouldn't have any particular reason to be depressed. After all - good things could happen to you as well as bad things.My work computer won't be able to hear the broadcast you mention. I will make sure to listen to this later when I get home. I've dealt, I hope, with the manipulation part already, but I'd like to talk a bit about choice here. Although the people know that whatever they end up doing was the only thing that they could ever have done, they will still do things. Also, they won't know what the consequences will be, so their lives will be just as rich and strange as ours. When you think about it, we don't actually have absolute choice - there are many factors that subtly or not so subtly constrain us, starting with the laws of physics and working up. More than that though, we only get one oppurtunity to make each choice.Can you imagine a society of superbeings where each individual could actually rewind the tape of history as many times as it liked to try out different choices (maybe like Groundhog Day?). If they were having a discussion on an internet chatboard, a bit like this, one day, I can imagine one of them postulating a wretched kind of creature that only gets one choice every time and then the chance goes by. "Can you imagine how depressing that would be? How powerless they would feel?" one might say.But we get by somehow. I think a belief that free-will didn't exist might similarly be remarkably easy for people to accept.Thanks also for attempting to think of some relevant reading for me.I tried to address your post - hope that made sense!*This doesn't answer the question of why some Christians in the past have believed in double predestination. One way to brush this potential oddity under the carpet might be to say, as nutcase(? sorry I hope I got your name right!) seemed to be saying when I glanced his/her most recent post, that the idea of double predestination wasn't really believed by those with power and influence (and perhaps not by the peasants either) but that it was considered a convenient tool of social control.

One reason it is difficult to enter the mind-set of such a community is that we cannot conceive of how to live as though we had no free will. Some moralists claim that determinism unlocks the beast within, but it seems to me that most attempts to account for conduct with determinism are post hoc defenses in the face of detection and impending punishment, not philosophical conclusions that lead to uninhibited behavior.A philosopher might make a strong case for determinism, but when he gets up in the morning, he chooses his breakfast and socks as though he were free as a bird. One might rewrite the old saw to observe that, "There are no determinists in foxholes."Even if all our tastes and preferences are determined, the determination is so attenuated by complexity that it cannot be experienced. The distribution and relative frequency of diverse taste receptors on my tongue may determine whether or not I like vanilla ice cream, but I cannot experience those genetic and epigenetic processes; I can only experience the "liking of vanilla ice cream" as a phenomenon of individual sovereignty.The phenomenological movie we watch--through our flawed senses, via our approximating perceptual apparata, never experiencing the-thing-itself in an unmediated way--presents us with the experience of choice so powerfully that to act at all is to act as though we believed in free will, and societies that embraced determinism would likely find that, perforce, everyone must continue to act as though free will existed.As the man said, "You must choose!"Edited by Omnivorous, : typos

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

It is hard to imagine what a culture that denied free-will would think like, largely I believe because our culture is steeped in the assumption that it does exist. I don't know if it would be impossible to do so though, just very difficult. Perhaps this apparent contradiction in the determinists behaviour might arise from the fact that the determinist philosopher was raised from a very early age to belive that he could make choices. To paraphrase that supposedly Jesuitical slogan: give me a boy till he's four and... Its very hard to unlearn behaviours so deeply ingrained, and the short-hand of choice is shared by everyone. Sometimes its just more efficient to use a common idea like free-will, even if you don't believe it.However, I don't really see what the problem is if the determinist philosopher wears one yellow sock and one blue sock. Why would it be hard for him to accept that this wasn't really his "choice" in the commonly understood sense? Whether there is free will or not, he will be doing things all the time. Its just the source of those actions that is in dispute.I think its likely that every apparent act of choice that we make, every act of individual sovereignty we experience, feels that way merely because we have been taught to see it as such, and that other conflicting notions (that our actions are entirely inherited from our parents and ultimetely the universe for instance) could just as easily be taken up by a community in the right circumstances.I think its a bit of an unwarranted assumption to say that a society that didn't believe in free will would continue to act as though free will existed. One of my genesis stories proposed a society in which free-will had never been accepted from the earliest prehistory. But more than that, can you be sure that it isn't your utter immersion in the doctrine of free will from an early age that makes you think that this is the only way it can be?I'm just posing the question - as you've probably guessed I have no idea!I like your rousing prose style by the way. You sound like you'd write great speeches.