As a physics PhD, I had to admit that Sapolsky's argument in Determined is airtight. As a human being, I agree with his own comment that Determined is a "dangerous book". If we really took "there is no free will" to heart, our motivation and morality would be completely undercut. Selectively and superficially applying this belief might arguably have some cultural benefits, but that is like cherry-picking data to make your case -- dangerous even if you're on the side of the angels.
For me, his conclusion highlights the limits of science itself. At the same time, scientific inquiry can help us construct robust value systems aligned with and respectful of human nature, even if these values ultimately rest on faith that we individually have something like free will, despite Sapolsky's counterargument. I would be more comfortable with research into the evolutionary basis of social systems than with erudite applications of determinism to law and social justice.
As far as I can tell you are just performing a semantic pivot by saying that a 'will' that is derived of cognitive processes that the individual cannot control or even be aware of is 'free will'. We all agree that personal moral responsibility is a necessary element of any functioning society, but it doesn't follow 'free will' is therefore cognitively feasible.
Still don't find the concept of "free will" to be coherently defined and hence not worth discussing or ever bringing up. Our conception of justice and responsibility does not require extra slop on top. I agree with you, that those people you call determinist, that argue that "free will" is conceptually coherent, but doesn't exist seem to come to morally abhorrent conclusions.
I agree that pragmatically speaking, Harris and Sapolsky's views on free will if implemented into policy would be disastrous for society on a large scale. However, they have both elucidated (but are far from offering a complete solution) how an absence of free will would affect the justice system and in some cases make it more just.
Sapolsky explains this when it comes to neurological disorders. Before modern medicine and science, people faced horrible consequences for diseases or neurological disorders like epilepsy. It was believed that these disorders were caused by witchcraft or demonic possession. But now because of our ability to understand the causes of these illnesses and how to treat them, we no longer believe that a person suffering from epilepsy is also suffering from moral or spiritual shortcomings. In this case, our removal of free will or attribution of responsibility to someone suffering from epilepsy has lead to a more just and humane society.
Another metaphor is the "the car with bad brakes." A car that has brakes that are malfunctioning or damaged should not be driven in situations in which it could harm others. But we do not view the car as responsible for it's faulty brakes. Instead we see it as a piece of malfunction machinery that is no longer serving or performing it's proper role, so there is no need to attribute free will in order to prevent it from causing harm. If humans are biological machinery, as Sapolsky and Harris believe, then machinery that is dangerous as a result of a malfunction can be removed (in this case imprisoned) because it has malfunctioning parts.
Obviously humans are far more nebulous than automotive vehicles, and unlike Sam Harris, Robert Sapolsky concedes that he has no real idea about what a society without free will would look like. On a pragmatic level applying this world view is incredibly stupid and damaging. Crime such as robbery and petty theft should be punished, regardless if someone has free will or not. People fear monger that if the average person learned that there is no free will, they will start to misbehave. But this is just intellectuals twirling in their armchairs. In fact, I don't believe the average person is or would be interested in being intellectually and morally consistent if they live in a society in which there is no punishment because the government doesn't believe in free will.
Neither of these men are particularly life inspiring when it comes to personal philosophy. I believe both of them are genuinely interested in working for the greater good and are good people, but they do not inspire others in the way Jordan Peterson did when he first became famous or David Goggins. Sapolsky himself has said that "pain is painful" and that we should do our best to prevent or ameliorate pain in the best way we know how. But this doesn't make people jump up and say "YES!" to life. The same may be said of Sam Harris, whose moral philosophy has also been put under much scrutiny. Regardless, I enjoy listening to them both.
Hoping this comes off less of a defense and more of an explanation, but feel free to express your opinions. I am so happy that you covered this topic!
As a physics PhD, I had to admit that Sapolsky's argument in Determined is airtight. As a human being, I agree with his own comment that Determined is a "dangerous book". If we really took "there is no free will" to heart, our motivation and morality would be completely undercut. Selectively and superficially applying this belief might arguably have some cultural benefits, but that is like cherry-picking data to make your case -- dangerous even if you're on the side of the angels.
For me, his conclusion highlights the limits of science itself. At the same time, scientific inquiry can help us construct robust value systems aligned with and respectful of human nature, even if these values ultimately rest on faith that we individually have something like free will, despite Sapolsky's counterargument. I would be more comfortable with research into the evolutionary basis of social systems than with erudite applications of determinism to law and social justice.
As far as I can tell you are just performing a semantic pivot by saying that a 'will' that is derived of cognitive processes that the individual cannot control or even be aware of is 'free will'. We all agree that personal moral responsibility is a necessary element of any functioning society, but it doesn't follow 'free will' is therefore cognitively feasible.
Still don't find the concept of "free will" to be coherently defined and hence not worth discussing or ever bringing up. Our conception of justice and responsibility does not require extra slop on top. I agree with you, that those people you call determinist, that argue that "free will" is conceptually coherent, but doesn't exist seem to come to morally abhorrent conclusions.
If you believe life is nothing more than physics, then, sure.
I agree that pragmatically speaking, Harris and Sapolsky's views on free will if implemented into policy would be disastrous for society on a large scale. However, they have both elucidated (but are far from offering a complete solution) how an absence of free will would affect the justice system and in some cases make it more just.
Sapolsky explains this when it comes to neurological disorders. Before modern medicine and science, people faced horrible consequences for diseases or neurological disorders like epilepsy. It was believed that these disorders were caused by witchcraft or demonic possession. But now because of our ability to understand the causes of these illnesses and how to treat them, we no longer believe that a person suffering from epilepsy is also suffering from moral or spiritual shortcomings. In this case, our removal of free will or attribution of responsibility to someone suffering from epilepsy has lead to a more just and humane society.
Another metaphor is the "the car with bad brakes." A car that has brakes that are malfunctioning or damaged should not be driven in situations in which it could harm others. But we do not view the car as responsible for it's faulty brakes. Instead we see it as a piece of malfunction machinery that is no longer serving or performing it's proper role, so there is no need to attribute free will in order to prevent it from causing harm. If humans are biological machinery, as Sapolsky and Harris believe, then machinery that is dangerous as a result of a malfunction can be removed (in this case imprisoned) because it has malfunctioning parts.
Obviously humans are far more nebulous than automotive vehicles, and unlike Sam Harris, Robert Sapolsky concedes that he has no real idea about what a society without free will would look like. On a pragmatic level applying this world view is incredibly stupid and damaging. Crime such as robbery and petty theft should be punished, regardless if someone has free will or not. People fear monger that if the average person learned that there is no free will, they will start to misbehave. But this is just intellectuals twirling in their armchairs. In fact, I don't believe the average person is or would be interested in being intellectually and morally consistent if they live in a society in which there is no punishment because the government doesn't believe in free will.
Neither of these men are particularly life inspiring when it comes to personal philosophy. I believe both of them are genuinely interested in working for the greater good and are good people, but they do not inspire others in the way Jordan Peterson did when he first became famous or David Goggins. Sapolsky himself has said that "pain is painful" and that we should do our best to prevent or ameliorate pain in the best way we know how. But this doesn't make people jump up and say "YES!" to life. The same may be said of Sam Harris, whose moral philosophy has also been put under much scrutiny. Regardless, I enjoy listening to them both.
Hoping this comes off less of a defense and more of an explanation, but feel free to express your opinions. I am so happy that you covered this topic!