| IIIIITHE1IIIII said: The concept of free will is very basic. When a man is faced by two or more different alternatives, he supposedly has the ability of independently make a decision. This makes us able to tell him that: "You should not have murdered that man. You could have chosen to not murder him, yet you chose to do it." In other words, we are able to accuse him of making the "wrong" decision. To the great masses all of this is- or at least should be something obvious, but to me this makes no sense. Let's begin with going through the basics of how to make a decision. A kid goes to the store and is faced with two options: Buying a Coke for one dollar or some candy for at least 50 cent. On one hand, he can save 50 cent by buying candy, but he is also confident that he would enjoy the Coke more since it's a sunny day. In the end though, he goes for the candy since he want to be able to buy candy tomorrow as well. But did the kid make this decision? No. All he did was acting according to personal preference. Had it been more sunny outside, he would probably have made a different decision, but in this case he would prefer to enjoy candy the next day as well. The decision was already made through previous and current sensory input which shaped his preferences. Thus, selecting the Coke was not an option. This goes for every single decision we make throughout our lives. We search through our past and choose whatever matches our personal preferences the most. We were not ever able to make any decisions independently, because preference is not something you choose. That would be like saying: "Today my favorite colour shall be green." when in reality you know that red will always be your favorite. You can't "choose" otherwise. This is why I don't think it makes any sense to say that the previously mentioned murderer made the "wrong decision". All he did was to act according to personal preference just like everybody else does every single day. We can say that his actions were awful and that actions need to be made so that he won't do something similar again, but we can't blame him for acting according to preference, just like we can't blame anyone for liking whichever sports team he may prefer.
To sum it up: Every single decision you make is entirely based on your personal preference, which you can't overlook. Humans will always seek for the greatest possible amount of profit through their actions, and whatever that profit consists of is based on that very same personal preference. |
Nope, I don't agree.
@bold. For decisions that are made earlier in a muderer's lifetime, I believe, before his past decisions forged his destiny, his decision making isn't as simple as you put it.
For example, a murderer may have the option to satisfy a temporary craving to kill, or resist the craving and suffer withdrawal temporarily.
For example, if he chooses to resist, he may suffer withdrawal and doubt his decision. He may or may not be aware of this phenomenon, and his awareness to the inconvenience of not satisfying a temporary pleasure may be the outcome of previous choices. At some point in his life he made choices over which he also did not know the consequences exactly, but someone told him "this you shouldn't do" or "this you should do". Ultimately the person made choices that formed their identity, and they may or may not have resisted the need to satisfy a temporary pleasure instead of resisting and obeing the best practice of a parent or mentor.
As such, a person may go through this situation educated or not, but ultimately the person can choose one or the other, they are never forced. It's as simple as rolling a dice really, not as deterministic as you say.
Even, I dare you to base some decisions on the roll of a dice, it could be interesting.
