Leo Fernevak on Nostr: An argument against free will is an argument for tyranny. ...
An argument against free will is an argument for tyranny.
Free will is a recognition of individual sovereignty. Your free will is an ethical boundary against coercion. Your boundary against coercion can either be respected or disrespected.
If you have no free will then you are considered to be programmed by your environment and its stimuli, with predictable results just as dominos will fall as gravity compels them.
With this perception comes a belief in a fixed outcome based on a number of inputs - you can't change your path by yourself if you are not more than the stimuli that shaped you. The assumption is that in order for you to change, you need external stimuli.
Without a free will you may be considered to be a puppet on strings, shaped by circumstances and other people, with no free agency of your own. This is reflected in the naive psychological theory that criminals are not responsible for their actions. Their agency is believed to be on-rails. This idea is rooted in determinism.
As a result from this idea of determinism, bureaucrats who deny free will have no moral qualms about nudging or forcing you onto the path that they consider correct.
This abandonment of the boundary of free will, can and will be used to justify a re-programming of your mind from the perspective of the bureaucrats in charge.
If you believe that we are not facing a global warming catastrophy, then your opinions are considered to be shaped - not by reasoning - but by stimuli. The same principle applies if you prefer to eat healthy food over insects or chemical sludge. Or if you think private transports are a good idea.
The underlying idea here is that without a free will, sovereign reasoning cannot exist. If the process of sovereign resoning doesn't exist, then we are merely products of stimuli.
If we are merely products of stimuli, the absurd conclusion from this is that only power exists; the power to control all stimuli in order to achieve a desired outcome.
This is the foundation of central planning. It is built on a disregard for individual agency, free will and the possibility of sovereign reason.
Be sovereign.
Free will is a recognition of individual sovereignty. Your free will is an ethical boundary against coercion. Your boundary against coercion can either be respected or disrespected.
If you have no free will then you are considered to be programmed by your environment and its stimuli, with predictable results just as dominos will fall as gravity compels them.
With this perception comes a belief in a fixed outcome based on a number of inputs - you can't change your path by yourself if you are not more than the stimuli that shaped you. The assumption is that in order for you to change, you need external stimuli.
Without a free will you may be considered to be a puppet on strings, shaped by circumstances and other people, with no free agency of your own. This is reflected in the naive psychological theory that criminals are not responsible for their actions. Their agency is believed to be on-rails. This idea is rooted in determinism.
As a result from this idea of determinism, bureaucrats who deny free will have no moral qualms about nudging or forcing you onto the path that they consider correct.
This abandonment of the boundary of free will, can and will be used to justify a re-programming of your mind from the perspective of the bureaucrats in charge.
If you believe that we are not facing a global warming catastrophy, then your opinions are considered to be shaped - not by reasoning - but by stimuli. The same principle applies if you prefer to eat healthy food over insects or chemical sludge. Or if you think private transports are a good idea.
The underlying idea here is that without a free will, sovereign reasoning cannot exist. If the process of sovereign resoning doesn't exist, then we are merely products of stimuli.
If we are merely products of stimuli, the absurd conclusion from this is that only power exists; the power to control all stimuli in order to achieve a desired outcome.
This is the foundation of central planning. It is built on a disregard for individual agency, free will and the possibility of sovereign reason.
Be sovereign.
quoting nevent1q…hn9cA few thoughts on free will.
Free will involves self sovereignty, from the simplest of organisms to the more advanced species.
When we ask if free will exists, we are asking if sovereignty and free agency is possible.
Free will can be viewed as a spectrum, from low degrees of sovereignty to higher capacity for autonomy.
If we are intoxicated, our freedom of deliberation is clearly impacted. If we had a brain implant that forced us to carry out someone else's command, we would basically have zero free will, hence no sovereignty.
Considering this spectrum then, from lower to higher degrees of sovereignty, it makes sense to define the higher echelons of self sovereignty as free will, as contrasted by its opposite; complete subjugation to the will of another.
If I would sum up the arguments against free will, in the most favorable way I could steel-man it, what I hear is this: you are the sum of your parts. Hence you must act within the confines of your personality.
This does not contradict the definition of free will as self-sovereignty. We are free to build and change our inner environment to our heart's content. We are free to build positive or negative responses to our experiences. We are free to explore any subject and press beyond our previous boundaries. This doesn't mean that we are without flaws and limitations, just that we have the potential to be sovereign.
We know that colors exist because we can observe a whole spectrum of colors that can be differentiated. Saying that colors doesn't exist gives us no practival advantage when we are dealing with colors, quite the contrary.
Free will is a spectrum that defines the extent of our self sovereignty and free agency. It makes little sense to claim that sovereignty and individual autonomy doesn't exist, unless we want sovereignty to not exist.
It would be a disastrous mistake to claim that an obedient cog-in-the-wheel, who is requiered to follow its commands without the chance of refusing, is equivalent to a free-willed individual with the capacity to break free from its bonds and challenge every command.
Free will exists because we can observe a spectrum of free agency and the more of it we have, the more sovereign we are.
Free agency exists.
The opposite is slavery.