CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I agree. I would go so far as to say that your choices aren't truly 'choices,' as they are determined who you are, which you cannot control. This is why I don't believe in free will.
Now that I've looked at what sparked this debate, I'd be more careful about how I used the word 'choice.' free will isn't the ability to choose, it is the ability to act without the constraint of fate or necessity.
The outcome of the choice made is constrained by necessity. Who the chooser is (their character) is constrained by necessity (I think you and Amarel agree there?). Who they are is responsible for the choice. By extension the choice is constrained by necessity. It's a choice but it isn't free. I'm still not sure what you and Amarel are disagreeing about.
Seeing as I agree that "'humans' are not responsible for who they are, but who they are is responsible for their choices," it must follow that 'humans' are not responsible for their choices. But aren't humans who they are though?
Does this mean that humans are responsible for their choices even though they aren't free choices?
I have two choices before me. I can keep at my job until I find another one or I can do exactly what I want at this very moment and walk out, flipping to bird to everyone. Both choices have an effect on me and my family. How am I not responsible for the choice I make?
The argument is that the decision you make depends on the kind of person you are. Since you cannot fundamentally choose the kind of person you are, all derivative choices are also fundamentally unchoosen
I agree for the most part. I would tend to support more the idea that the decisions you make typically depend on the type of person you are. There are people who make decisions that can go against their character; sometimes it can take a drastic circumstances to go against what one would normally choose to do but it is still their choice and ultimately their responsibility.
The decision you make here is predetermined by your character, which was determined by nature and nurture, which are out of your control. You cannot be held responsible for the way you were born, or for the effect that your environment had on developing your character, correct? If this is correct, you are not responsible for your character. Your character is responsible for the decision you make, what else could be? You cannot help but be the way you are, so you cannot help but make the decisions you will. You may think that either outcome of that decision is possible, but I think that only one is possible when the circumstances are fixed - I think your character will always respond the same way. An analogy I like is the way that we don't hold criminally insane people responsible for their actions in the same way we do normal criminals, we say they can't help themselves, which seems true, but I don't think anyone can help themselves from making the choices they will make.
It confuses me when I ask myself "aren't you and your character the same person?"
If your character is responsible, and you are your character, then you must be responsible. I think the only conclusion I can make is that your character is just a part of you which you cannot control, like a criminally insane person's insanity.
My character may be a part of who I am, but if I tried hard enough and wanted to, I could change my actions to where they go against my character, that is my responsibility and my fault if it goes wrong. As you grow you are subject to the whims of society and those you are dependent on. Once you are able to stand and survive on your own then you are responsible for where your feet take you and what you do.
It confuses me when I ask myself "aren't you and your character the same person?"
That interesting, how many times have you heard someone explain something and say "that's not who I am, I don't know why I did that!"
I think I would argue that while you and your character may be the same at the base, it may not remain that. Outside circumstance or even something majorly internal may change your actions to the point they go against your character.
"My character may be a part of who I am, but if I tried hard enough and wanted to, I could change my actions to where they go against my character, that is my responsibility and my fault if it goes wrong."
Wouldn't your character be responsible for the will to try to change your actions, therefore meaning that to try to change your actions would be in accordance with your character?
I think that your character is responsible for the way in which you respond to outside circumstances.
Wouldn't your character be responsible for the will to try to change your actions, therefore meaning that to try to change your actions would be in accordance with your character?
Not if it's against what is normally considered my character. People can act "out of character" in certain circumstances.
I think we need to step back and clarify what we mean by "character."
When I say "character" I mean the thing that determines what your actions will be, not just the way someone usually behaves. Your character is your nature and it is impossible to do something truly out of character.
When people say someone is acting "out of character" it is just the person acting in a way they haven't normally been seen to act. It is still in their character. If I was someone who always went to the gym everyday (I'm not) and then one day I don't go to the gym, it might be said I was acting out of character, but I think that by definition, the decision to not go to the gym must have come from my character. There would be a line of reasoning in my head that lead to the decision not to go to the gym, and that line of reasoning must have been a result of my character, or at least my character's reaction to external circumstances. I don't see what else could have caused that decision other than my character combined with other factors out of my control.
I ask you; when someone acts "out of character," what is the cause of this action if not their character or maybe some uncontrollable external factor (like drugs?)?
FactMachines argument here is that you cannot choose what kind of person you are (a good person wouldn’t choose to be shitty). Since you cannot choose what kind of person you are, he argues that you cannot be responsible for the choices determined by the kind of person you are. He would say they aren’t even choices.
Ahhhhh. Ok. See, it seems to me that line of thinking is just to provide an excuse to do crappy things and shirk the blame. If you intentionally do bad things knowing they are bad, you are responsible for your choice to do it.
A person could not be considered responsible for their actions if their actions weren’t determined by the kind of person they are. The fact that people do things for reasons (causes) does not eliminate responsibility, it creates it.
If a person could choose the kind of person they are (superficially they can), their choice would still be determined by what kind of person is choosing the kind of person to become. (ie, a mentally healthy person would not choose to become a mentally unhealthy person.). Thus, the fundamental determination of who you are is out of your hands.
Engaging in very immoral behavior causes others to believe you are a “bad person”, which is precisely why others hold you responsible. The kind of person you are is a bad one, hence you choose bad things.
A choice is nothing more than selecting between alternatives. We do it all the time. If we choose things for literally no reason, we would not be more free than choosing things because of the kind of person we are. Responsibility arises from peoples decisions being based on the kind of person they are. Only if choices were meaningless (without cause) could we say that people are not responsible.
I don't believe we have total free will but I believe in a kind of partial free will. That is we can't determine most of our traits but our brains have a mechanism which allows us to introspect in a deeper way than other animals and "edit" our own behavioural patterns.
