The following post is coming from the often mentioned Orson Scott Card novels, specifically the novel Xenocide. If you haven't read any of these novels, then you must forgo your homework and read them. For science fiction books they have a large amount of philosophy in them, so they would be acceptable as a replacement for homework... just kidding of course...hopefully the "Man" doesn't come and smite me now. Any way, so the section of the book I am going to...ah..."show" you, I guess, is a part in the book when Ender and Miro are having a discussion about how to save Jane from being shut down/killed, and that discussion leads into a discussion of free will. Ender talks about how the official philosophical answer is that that free will doesn't exist, only the illusion of it and explains some of the reasons why. Ender then describes what his sister, Valentine says about free will:
"Even if there is no free will, we have to treat each other as if there were free will in order to live together in society. Because otherwise, everytime somebody does something terrible, you can't punish him , because he can't help it, because his genes or his environment or God made him do it, and every time someone does something good, you can't honor him, because he was a puppet, too....we conceive of ourselves and everyone around us a volitional beings. We treat everyone as if they did things with a purpose in mind, instead of because they're being pushed from behind. We punish criminals. We reward altruists....its all a maade-up story, but when everybody believes that everybody's actions are the result of free choice, and takes and gives responsibility accordingly, the result is civilization."
This idea enfuriates Miro, and he argues with Ender about whether humans truly have free will. Then Ender gets into a theory of how we do have free will as a result of philotes, which would take to long to explain, especially if you have not read about philotes in the novels. So the question is, does Valentine's arguement sound reasonable to you?
"Even if there is no free will, we have to treat each other as if there were free will in order to live together in society. Because otherwise, everytime somebody does something terrible, you can't punish him , because he can't help it, because his genes or his environment or God made him do it, and every time someone does something good, you can't honor him, because he was a puppet, too....we conceive of ourselves and everyone around us a volitional beings. We treat everyone as if they did things with a purpose in mind, instead of because they're being pushed from behind. We punish criminals. We reward altruists....its all a maade-up story, but when everybody believes that everybody's actions are the result of free choice, and takes and gives responsibility accordingly, the result is civilization."
This idea enfuriates Miro, and he argues with Ender about whether humans truly have free will. Then Ender gets into a theory of how we do have free will as a result of philotes, which would take to long to explain, especially if you have not read about philotes in the novels. So the question is, does Valentine's arguement sound reasonable to you?
posted by BradyJVK at 8:13 PM
2 Comments:
I sounds reasonable to say that we have to at least believe we have free will even if we don't. I think there should be a focus on what is meant yb free will though. I certainly have free will. I can choose to tie my shoes, get up in the morning, do my homework, or any of an almost infinite number of other activities and to an extent these activities will shape my life and my future. But there is always the chance that something "unexpected" is going to occur and that this unexpected event will change my life and my future from that which I was attempting to attain. So, if unexpected events can change my future do I really still have free will in regard to how I wish to live my life? I'd still say yes. After said unexpected event I can choose to continue going about my life living how I wish to. This unexpected event may have changed how much I can live my life the way I want to but not the fact that I still can.
I guess the important part of free will is whether or not you have as much of it as you want.
I totally agree. Not saying I agree that we don't have free will, but agrreing with, "If we don't have free will, then we at least have to pretend that we do." Free will seems to give value to actions, wether they are good or bad. If we were pawns simpling being moved arround the board then there is no need to appreciate life. Just let it happen so you can get to the end. By pretending to have free will you have some drive and purpose. You have some sort of power. And power, in the mind of a human, gives greater value.
Post a Comment
<< Home