ComputerSaysNo
Well-Known Member
I would think that without free will it's easier to cope with that -- also the concept of "guilt" makes not much sense then. Especially not with guilt towards human behaviour as a whole. None of us chose to be born a human.nobody wants to live with the guilt of what humanity is capable of - so if I have to pick one extreme, I go for free will
(Well according to the Tibetans some of us actually chose to be re-incarnated as a human, but those would be Bodhisatvas who chose the human life in order to liberate others.)
My argument was about "accountability" and not free will.If you didn't know the child was going to be a psycho and you didn't try to kill the child (your brakes failed, didn't see the kid, etc.) it wasn't an action of free will. No points for saving the world in that situation.
Even without free will you can still hold yourself accountable for something. I smoke tobacco, so if I get cancer I will hold myself accountable for that in some sense.
Maybe you can elaborate what the mechanism of "free will" is, in your eyes. Because either an action is caused by something else (then it's not free), or it isn't. However, how do I have to imagine an "uncaused" action? Is that just randomness?Again, that is when I would say a person is exercising free will.
If "free will" caused the action, then how did the free will interact with the world? It would need to be a cause, without having a cause itself. So it would need to stand outside the world and be part of it at the same time.