No, the assertion that personal responsibility and determinism are incompatible is called incompatibalism and “it’s a serious position in philosophy”. I do suggest therefore that you try to understand what a fallacy is. One might, however, call it a fallacy to believe that the mere mention of an opposing school of thought renders the one in question “a complete fallacy”, if such an “argument” were not so obviously stupid.

I am of course well aware of “compatibalism”, as it is precisely the position against which I have been arguing! I maintain, moreover, that compatibalism is a philosophical fudge in which “many of history’s greatest philosophers” have been involved (and if you don’t understand that “many of history’s greatest philosophers” have been involved in many a philosophical fudge, then you have an “embarrassingly naïve” view of philosophy that does not go beyond a quick read of wikipedia – which is, I suspect, the sum total of your knowledge).

“Indeed many have argued that to say that someone is responsible for something relies on determinism: to claim that events were caused by their actions, their actions by their choices and their choices by their character.”

Some indeed have argued for it – but so what? Many have argued for the existence of God, spirits, etc – but I notice that you have provided no argument for it, principally, I suspect, because you have no argument. Citing that some people have argued for something constitutes a pretty poor argument. But anyway, onto the fudge: what caused their character? If as determinism has it, everything has its cause, and thus necessarily everything must go back to the first cause, then one cannot be held personally responsible for anything (not least for the content of one’s character), because it was caused without one’s will from the very beginning, before one’s very existence. If determinism is true (and that means that everything, not just some things, has its cause), then a will free of cause is false. If free will is true, such that some aspect of our consciousness has the final say, as it were, without cause, then determinism is false. I do not say – nor have I yet said – which is true, only that the two are wholly incompatible.

I suggest you think about it, rather than take other people’s words for it, lest you embarrass yourself again.

I too have had an enjoyable and successful tertiary education, seven years thereof. And am a woman. So we balance out on this front, and this factor can be discounted in the assessing the relative worth of our contributions. :-)

Now, tell me: in which “tradition of reason and rationality” does such irrationality appear? (I live in dread of the answer.)

“More, even if we deny free will, we are still capable of defining acts, and in cases, people, as wicked.”

We are capable of defining bananas as fishmongers if the perverse will takes us.

“But to make recourse to free will as a philosophical concept in understanding action (as opposed to a political concept associated with ‘freedom’ – these are different levels, even kinds of thought) is to play the deus ex machina card, and is no more a part of reason than to say; this is not amenable to explantion, therefore God did it.

Free will is a philosophical concept. When you call someone wicked or take them morally to task for what they say or do, you are imputing to them the deus ex machina which you find so reprehensible; for you are imputing to them choices in their actions. In doing so, you are presupposing free will. If you are not imputing that they have a choice, or in other words, that they have no free will, then to damn them as wicked even though they are totally determined – even though they are completely caused to act through no fault of their own – makes as much sense as damning a rock as wicked for falling on your toe. I am not demanding belief in free will. I demand only logical consistency from your position, which you have so far failed to provide. The fudge of claiming that somehow it all comes together under a political label is one to which I shall not pay the dignity of attention.

Nonsense. You can define morality in such a way as to demand free will, but if you do you really are going to fall down a either a shaft of amorality or the pit of unreason. Either you maintain the existence of a causal univerise, in which case you deny morality, or try to argue for the acausal will, in which case you effectively deny reason.

This does not mean that we should behave as if we do not have free will. Part of the human experience is behaving as if we do. It no more demans this than a belief in that the universe is, in theory, reducible to physics demands we abandon economics, history or sociology.

More, even if we deny free will, we are still capable of defining acts, and in cases, people, as wicked. We acknowledge that the have a will and an experience of that will – and internal life -, we just deny that it is acausal. Rather, in the tradition of reason and rationality, we assert that it is a causal will, even if we find that these causes are not amenable to investigation. But to make recourse to free will as a philosophical concept in understanding action (as opposed to a political concept associated with ‘freedom’ – these are different levels, even kinds of thought) is to play the deus ex machina card, and is no more a part of reason than to say; this is not amenable to explantion, therefore God did it.

Dsquared: “oh yes we will”

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Looks like dsquared still has not read this or this or this. Never mind. As long as he has got his reliable govt statistics, I’m sure he is happy. I would hate to have him confront a preconception. That wouldn’t do.

Katherine:

See my comment earlier where I said:

“The settlement between the sexes – which was desperately needed in the 1960s and 70s – has possibly not reached yet a stable conclusion. There is no direct force, but more a very pervasive societal pressure: This pressure did not exist pre 1960, and now women have to walk the tightrope (and let’s face it, it still remains largely for women) between childcare and keeping up with a career.”

You will notice that, other than this, I have been extremely careful throughout to refer to “parents” – n.b. the PLURAL – not mothers. My position is that we are in transition. What women have gained (and quite rightly so), men have – as it were, and as you correctly highlight – not yet lost. MY point is that it is the children that have lost out in the middle as a result of our failure to reach a workable settlement for all concerned.

To the rest of you, many apologies: there is a considerable amount of good stuff in all your comments (with the possible exception of dsquared who just won’t read my clearly stated views on phonics). In particular Andy has lots of comment at the top re HRA etc which will take time to answer – time that I do not have. If he would like to email me at thepedantgeneral AT gmail -dot- com I will try to let him know when I have posted in more detail on this, so that we can give this the time it deserves.

Toodle Pip!
PG

You sound terribly entertaining, Berinike. Could I book you for a kitchen supper in late Jan?

And to bring out a tired old feminist argument, why is that conversation about women ‘having it all’ – family, career etc – tend to ignore the fact that men, by default, seem to be able to ‘have it all’ – family, career etc – without there being deep discussion about whether their working away from home leads to feral semi-literate children?

All this talk about parental responsibility, and yet fathers can just do what they always did and there is little or no discussion about their role. All this waffle about “parental” responsibility is focussing on mothers, so don’t try to deny it. The word “father” does not get a single look in in the discussion above, that I can see.

And, by the way, I do not believe that children should always be with mothers in the event of family breakdown, yes, the family courts are unbalanced in that. As the child of a single father for at least some of my teenage life, I can hardly argue otherwise.

Maybe we could talk about parental roles in a rather more even handed fashion chaps? Perhaps we can acknowledge that the recent changes in gender roles, which are certainly still in flux, can lead to benefits and disadvantages to both sexes. Fathers get to be more part of their child’s life (like mothers do)! Mothers get to have a life other than just with their children (like fathers do)!

oh yes we will

I would like to live where dsquared lives.

Green planet, third from the sun, plenty of room, reliable government statistics.

Perhaps we could repackage your ‘thoughts’ on the Rant from various comment threads into next week’s Rant?

I would hope that you could manage something better than that, although recent evidence is not compelling.