Are we ultimately responsible for our actions?

[Sandra Craft]

But to answer your question, yes, I feel that ultimately we are responsible for our actions.  Responsible to who?  To ourselves, of course.  If I make no end of bad decisions, I am letting myself down. 

I agree with this and I feel we're also responsible to others, the people whose lives interact with ours either directly or indirectly, and that's quite a lot of people.  And I see nothing wrong with feeling bad when you've done something wrong, any more than feeling good when you've done something right.  Guilt is an extremely useful and wrongly abused emotion.  Excessive guilt, and guilt assumed for no reason, are wrong but then excess and pointlessness usually are.

[En_Route]

Christianity has certainly played the blame game par excellence with its notions of sin and penance, and there are certainly Eastern philosophies which seem to me to pretty well free of these bogeymen. I think to blame yourself and then forgive yourself is far more healthy than simply festering in self-recrimination but you can save time and get to the desired end-result by cutting out blame in the first instance.

I actually think I would feel far less happy and hopeful if I believed that I had no control over my actions/decisions.  If I can control them, I am responsible for them.  If I can't, I suppose I am blame free, but frankly that idea is more frightening than comforting.  If I can control my decisions, I can have faith in my ability to learn, change, get better, do better.  

Many people would say they feel far less happy and hopeful if they believed God did not exist, but that is not an argument. Further, the fact that you are not ultimately responsible for your actions, does not deny the possibility of positive change. The mind is a learning organism.

[Ali]

Christianity has certainly played the blame game par excellence with its notions of sin and penance, and there are certainly Eastern philosophies which seem to me to pretty well free of these bogeymen. I think to blame yourself and then forgive yourself is far more healthy than simply festering in self-recrimination but you can save time and get to the desired end-result by cutting out blame in the first instance.

I actually think I would feel far less happy and hopeful if I believed that I had no control over my actions/decisions.  If I can control them, I am responsible for them.  If I can't, I suppose I am blame free, but frankly that idea is more frightening than comforting.  If I can control my decisions, I can have faith in my ability to learn, change, get better, do better.  

Many people would say they feel far less happy and hopeful if they believed God did not exist, but that is not an argument. Further, the fact that you are not ultimately responsible for your actions, does not deny the possibility of positive change. The mind is a learning organism.

Well, you were arguing that regret and guilt are harmful to the psyche, so I was just pointing out for me personally that feeling a total lack of control over my own actions is more disturbing to my psyche than guilt.  Context. 

I still don't think that it's a "fact" that I am not ultimately responsible for my own actions.  Certainly both biology and upbringing predispose one to certain tendencies, but I'm just not buying that that is all she wrote.  For example, a person may have both the genetic predisposition towards gaining weight easily, and may have grown up in a home where healthy habits weren't modeled, but as an adult still choose to actively work on maintaining a healthy weight.

[En_Route]

Christianity has certainly played the blame game par excellence with its notions of sin and penance, and there are certainly Eastern philosophies which seem to me to pretty well free of these bogeymen. I think to blame yourself and then forgive yourself is far more healthy than simply festering in self-recrimination but you can save time and get to the desired end-result by cutting out blame in the first instance.

I actually think I would feel far less happy and hopeful if I believed that I had no control over my actions/decisions.  If I can control them, I am responsible for them.  If I can't, I suppose I am blame free, but frankly that idea is more frightening than comforting.  If I can control my decisions, I can have faith in my ability to learn, change, get better, do better.  

Many people would say they feel far less happy and hopeful if they believed God did not exist, but that is not an argument. Further, the fact that you are not ultimately responsible for your actions, does not deny the possibility of positive change. The mind is a learning organism.

Well, you were arguing that regret and guilt are harmful to the psyche, so I was just pointing out for me personally that feeling a total lack of control over my own actions is more disturbing to my psyche than guilt.  Context. 

I still don't think that it's a "fact" that I am not ultimately responsible for my own actions.  Certainly both biology and upbringing predispose one to certain tendencies, but I'm just not buying that that is all she wrote.  For example, a person may have both the genetic predisposition towards gaining weight easily, and may have grown up in a home where healthy habits weren't modeled, but as an adult still choose to actively work on maintaining a healthy weight.

Fair point re context, but I'm not denying the possibility of self-control. I'm saying you can't logically take credit for successfully exercising it or vice versa. With respect, the example you give proves nothing. The interaction between nature and nature is so complex that even if you accept that all behaviour is caused by those factors then we still cannot predict that any particular outcome is inevitable.

[Ali]

Fair point re context, but I'm not denying the possibility of self-control. I'm saying you can't logically take credit for successfully exercising it or vice versa. With respect, the example you give proves nothing. The interaction between nature and nature is so complex that even if you accept that all behaviour is caused by those factors then we still cannot predict that any particular outcome is inevitable.

If you concede that we cannot predict that any particular outcome is inevitable, what is your proof that all of our actions are predetermined and choice is an illusion?

[En_Route]

I set out my stall in my first post. In summary, behaviour is either caused or uncaused. If the latter, game over. In the former, the chain of causation traces back to your genes and earliest environment and experiences. You can't invent yourself from scratch in other words.

[Stevil]

I still don't think that it's a "fact" that I am not ultimately responsible for my own actions.  Certainly both biology and upbringing predispose one to certain tendencies, but I'm just not buying that that is all she wrote.  For example, a person may have both the genetic predisposition towards gaining weight easily, and may have grown up in a home where healthy habits weren't modeled, but as an adult still choose to actively work on maintaining a healthy weight.

Do you think that you exist as something discretely abstract from the sum total of your physical parts?
Do you think that there is more to you than your physicality and your memories of the physical events of your physical life thus far?

From what is it that you are making your decisions on, if not the above?

Do you think there is such a thing as a soul (for lack of a better word), which is the self, which can rise above the experiences and physicality from which your body is based on?
Do you think that you can make decisions outside of your physical nature, do you think that you can be judged as a soul which has absolute freedom of choice? What is it that this soul brings to the equation? Does it have an inherent goodness, or an inherent ability to rise above temptation, to not be susceptible to vices?
If we could some how transfer the essence that is Ali and place it into another person's body along with the memories of that other person, losing the memories of yourself in the process, do you think that the "Ali" in this other body would drive that body to make decisions differently to the decisions being made by the current owner of that body?

[Ali]

No, I don't think that I'm greater than the sum of my parts or that I have a supernatural side, or anything like that.  I just think that upbringing and biology = predisposition, not "destiny."  I have a brain, and with it, I am able to think and make decisions.  It's hard for me to swallow that when I'm standing in front of a counter at my local Mexican fast foodery, and I decide between the bean and cheese burrito and the seven layer burrito, my decision can be traced all the way back to when I was in utero.  And if I have free will to make throwaway decisions like "seven layer burrito" or "I think I'll wear my flats today instead of my heels" then why would I not have free will over my larger decisions as well?  Where do we draw the line?

I guess what I really think is that I don't think it's as black and white as "totally random action" vs "totally predestined reaction."  I think it's somewhere in between, where all of my biology and life experiences up to this point may predispose me towards certain actions, but they're not writ in some cosmic stone somewhere either.  I may be more likely to choose A, but that doesn't mean that B is completely off the table.

[Stevil]

The illusion of free will is a great concept. I whole heartedly agree with it, but understand why others don't.

[En_Route]

No, I don't think that I'm greater than the sum of my parts or that I have a supernatural side, or anything like that.  I just think that upbringing and biology = predisposition, not "destiny."  I have a brain, and with it, I am able to think and make decisions.  It's hard for me to swallow that when I'm standing in front of a counter at my local Mexican fast foodery, and I decide between the bean and cheese burrito and the seven layer burrito, my decision can be traced all the way back to when I was in utero.  And if I have free will to make throwaway decisions like "seven layer burrito" or "I think I'll wear my flats today instead of my heels" then why would I not have free will over my larger decisions as well?  Where do we draw the line?

I guess what I really think is that I don't think it's as black and white as "totally random action" vs "totally predestined reaction."  I think it's somewhere in between, where all of my biology and life experiences up to this point may predispose me towards certain actions, but they're not writ in some cosmic stone somewhere either.  I may be more likely to choose A, but that doesn't mean that B is completely off the table.

I don't agree of course re the burrito. Every decision can either be traced back to the chain of antecedents that led up to it or not (in which case indeterminacy applies). The magnitude of the decision does not affect the principles involved.Of course there are the vagaries and contingencies of external circumstances too; in a society where burritos are unheard of (that's my kind of society) that choice is not possible.  I think if you disregard biology and environment and do not allow pure randomness to be in play then you are introducing that extra magical ingredient which cannot be inferred logically or philosophically and for which there is no form of empirical evidence. You can call it the ghost in the machine or if you are religious the soul. It's a mysterious,  numinous presence which transcends everything that has shaped your mind to date.Those who buy into the notion of free will do so as an act of faith.

[Sweetdeath]

^
I agree with chain of actions that lead to events. Ever been woken up and cant think/do things rationally? The brain is amazing, but on less than 5 hours sleep, it can be dangerous.

[Ali]

I don't agree of course re the burrito. Every decision can either be traced back to the chain of antecedents that led up to it or not (in which case indeterminacy applies). The magnitude of the decision does not affect the principles involved.Of course there are the vagaries and contingencies of external circumstances too; in a society where burritos are unheard of (that's my kind of society) that choice is not possible.  I think if you disregard biology and environment and do not allow pure randomness to be in play then you are introducing that extra magical ingredient which cannot be inferred logically or philosophically and for which there is no form of empirical evidence. You can call it the ghost in the machine or if you are religious the soul. It's a mysterious,  numinous presence which transcends everything that has shaped your mind to date.Those who buy into the notion of free will do so as an act of faith.

Okay, so if our actions are not of our own choosing, what is the point (or even the ethics) of having a criminal justice system?  If a criminal could not have chosen otherwise, why punish them for their crimes?

[Stevil]

Okay, so if our actions are not of our own choosing, what is the point (or even the ethics) of having a criminal justice system?  If a criminal could not have chosen otherwise, why punish them for their crimes?

The purpose of the criminal justice system is not to judge the ethics of the choices people make.

The purpose of the criminal justice system is towards a functioning and stable society. It acts as a deterrent for certain behaviors, and gives law enforcers the legal ability to intervene in certain circumstances and allows dangerous people to be removed from society and hence removing the threat.

[Ali]

Okay, so if our actions are not of our own choosing, what is the point (or even the ethics) of having a criminal justice system?  If a criminal could not have chosen otherwise, why punish them for their crimes?

The purpose of the criminal justice system is not to judge the ethics of the choices people make.

The purpose of the criminal justice system is towards a functioning and stable society. It acts as a deterrent for certain behaviors, and gives law enforcers the legal ability to intervene in certain circumstances and allows dangerous people to be removed from society and hence removing the threat.

How can it act as a deterrent if people don't have any choice about whether to commit the crime?

[Stevil]

How can it act as a deterrent if people don't have any choice about whether to commit the crime?

You are taking it too far. To a strawman extreme.

People do have choices, but decision is ultimately made based on the physics of what is available. Part of that are the rules that are in play.
Without rules people can be horrific in their actions, ever heard of the saying "absolute power corrupts". You can also look to what people do in times of war. Many stories from Vietnam of what soldiers got up to.

But when you put laws and repercussions into play then these influence the decision making process, they change the game and change the outcome. An unconstrained person makes one decision but with rules and repurcussions they make a different decision.