I've always taken the deterministic approach to these things. I believe that everything that happens is either a consequence of what's happened previously, or a completely random process (such as radioactive decay) over which we have no control.
In any case, I don't believe there is such a thing as a "true" choice in the sense that one could always have chosen differently; if you are presented with the same choice under the exact same circumstances, you will always make the same decision (not taking stochastic processes into account, but they don't give you a "choice" in any meaningful sense of the word). Take the example with the puppy: if you choose to throw the puppy a ball instead of kicking it, then you do so because it is the choice that makes sense to you in that situation, and, faced with the exact same situation again, you would throw the puppy a ball again. I mean, why wouldn't you?
I'd like to point out, though, that I don't see this as a negative thing. All I'm saying is that you're always going to make the choice that you want to make. That's not so bad, is it?
Also I really disagree with the premise that our personalities are entirely formed by our environments and genetics - it suggests something analogous to everyone being a piece of driftwood floating down a river without any way to steer or change our future, which I think is really silly.
You may find it silly, but that doesn't make it wrong!
Do we really not have any choice over our actions? Are there no examples of people doing something divergent to what their upbringing or environment dictates? There are enough atheists that come from religious families and enough right-wings that come from left-wing families to say otherwise (for example).
Yes, but that's because the environment consists of more things than just families/upbringings. If a person from a religious family becomes an atheist, it could be because of any number of things, but surely you'd agree that there's a reason for it. It's never easy to pinpoint what exactly causes people to become what they become, but that doesn't mean it's just something you choose.
Our environment does not exclude independent thought, and to say otherwise I feel is a gross oversimplification of human nature. It kind of also suggests that any decision I make would have been the one I was going to make anyway, regardless of what process I went through to come to that decision, like I am destined to do one thing because of my upbringing, which is another can of worms I'd rather not open, but it makes me uncomfortable.
Once again: it may make you uncomfortable, but that's not a valid argument. I honestly do believe that any choice you make is the only one you could make.
Also, what about people who don't remember their upbringing, have changed their lives dramatically, or have lived in so many different places or with so many different people that their upbringing isn't really a solid memory?
You can be shaped by things you don't actively remember. I don't remember learning to read and write, learning to ride a bike, learning how to add, subtract, multiply and divide... but I know those things all the same. We're shaped by what we go through regardless of how well we remember it. As for changing your life dramatically, that does not mean you erase your past.
The fact that this is your prime example really, really weakens your argument. Yes, Hitler could have been a different person. But there's absolutely no way of telling whether he or anyone else would have been a different person if they were born or raised differently. There is literally no evidence for or against this argument because we have no way of knowing.
But that goes for your "we could always have chosen differently" argument as well. There's no way of confirming that we really could have chosen differently.
Even if your premise is correct, how are we to live with people who do break social rules like murder and so on? Holding nobody responsible for their actions means that essentially, nobody is protected from harm, so. I don't see where the logical conclusion from this stance is.
I don't think it changes anything, really. As I said before: the act of blaming people for their actions directly influences what actions people take. We're
part of the environment that affects a person's behaviour. Let's take the example with the puppy again. If you choose to kick the puppy instead of throwing it a ball, then you did so because that's the only choice you could possibly have made, because it's the one that makes the most sense to you under the circumstances. Then, assuming the situation warrants it, people will inevitably call you out on being an asshole, which, in turn, will either keep you from making that same decision a second time, or at least make
other people less likely to make that decision because they know how people will react.
But why would they? If we're the product of our upbringings and we're raised left-wing, why would we become right-wing? Isn't the fact that this happens at all proves that there is some sort of thought process occurring independent to our environment?
See above. The environment is made up of more things than just your family/upbringing.
Also, how can you possibly say that no thought is independent? You've thought a couple thousand thoughts today that zero people have privy to, and yet somehow this is still just because of people who gave birth and raised to? What evidence do you have of this? What reason do you have to think this, and why is this better than not knowing why you think the things to do? There's virtually no vantage point to stand and observe someone's thoughts, much less to observe and see whether they're independent or not.
But wouldn't you agree that everything (that isn't completely random) has to have a cause, a reason for it to happen? I believe the same goes for thoughts. You think particular thoughts as a consequence of what's happened previously. There's no way to prove that, sure, but given what I know of the universe I'd say it makes sense.
ftr I'm not denying that how we're brought up etc. influences what we do or how we are (that's observable and generally considered to be correct), but this doesn't mean we aren't responsible for our actions nor that we have no independent thought. I think that our influences are part of our thought processes or decision making, but there are other things too; past experiences, memories, concepts learned, consequences learnt from and various things relating to mood and current mental state and recent happenings.
Yes. And none of these are things you choose. You don't choose your mood, your past experiences or your memories. And since they're what dictates your actions, you don't choose your actions either. Or so I'd say, anyway.
There are so many things that can be attributed to what people do and why, but there's also an element of choice that determines whether we should kick that puppy or throw it a ball to play with. If I'm feeling particularly sadistic, I might kick it - but I know I'll be held responsible for that because I can make that choice. I can help it. I can stop myself from doing things that I really want to because I know that I can help it, I know that other people know I can help it. I'm not in a vacuum.
I disagree. You can't kick it. You don't have the "choice" of kicking the puppy because it's morally abhorrent to you. You would never make that choice under normal circumstances (or, if the circumstances were extraordinary enough to warrant it - say, you're being threatened at gunpoint - then you would always make the choice to kick it).
However, whether or not you make the choice to kick the puppy is directly tied to whether or not people will blame you for doing so. It's all cause and effect. We blame people for doing awful things because, by doing so, we reduce the likelihood of people doing awful things. (Conversely, we praise people for doing good things.)
Furthermore, what exactly is it about our upbringing that determines our actions? What is it about my single-parent-only-child that determines my actions? What if I come across something I have literally never fathomed before, whether in my childhood or at all?
You can't point at a single thing in a person's childhood and say "this is the thing that made you act the way you did"; it's the entirety of everything that's ever happened to you that determines your actions.
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here, maybe I'm just tired but this seems incredibly vague. Don't you think that sometimes people don't control their futures towards their best interests? How does this mesh if we make decisions based on specific influences that we're apparently predisposed to be drawn to for whatever reason?
People don't always act in their own best interests, no. However, when faced with a choice, they will always choose that which they
feel would be the best option under the circumstances.
But liking a food isn't an action, it's at least partly involuntary. Nobody holds anyone responsible for liking pizza. There's a difference between liking pizza and say, deciding to run a pizza shop.
I guess that's where we disagree.
How can you say that people are somehow naturally tended towards some things, but that we're also incapable of truly independent thought? Are people not sometimes naturally tended towards incredibly diverse things to their upbringings? If I was naturally right-wing-leaning after all, how does my upbringing or genetics come in if I'm raised by a family of lefties?
It's not just your upbringing and genes; it's also past experiences, memories, concepts learned, consequences learnt from and various things relating to mood and current mental state and recent happenings...
You can't both say that people are naturally predetermined to act in certain ways and that our genetics etc. determine how we act, unless you agree that both and a host of other things do this (unless I've missed something along the way). It's not that far of a stretch to say that all of these things are different for everyone, presenting the idea that our thoughts and actions are independent to all these things singularly.
Not sure what you mean here.
I think the idea of people having a set destiny (or even the idea of destiny itself) is pretty ludicrous, actually. To me it's up there with astrology and palm-reading and stuff - it's not exactly falsifiable, but it only works because every possible outcome apparently points towards it being correct - i.e. well obviously I would rebel against the idea of destiny because that is my destiny. It also assumes that everybody has a set path - whether they like it or not, or, that whatever path they choose is their destiny (in which case destiny becomes rather redundant anyway).
It is redundant, yes, which is exactly why there's no reason to feel uncomfortable about it.
In any case - why is it ludicrous to believe that things happen as a consequence of other things (or completely at random)? Isn't there a lot of support for that idea if you look around?
