Sure, they can claim to know, but basically for all they know this claiming is like your leg jumping when the doctor does a knee reflex test.
I don’t have an argument for the best versions of these. I have repeatedly said that ‘physical’ is a meaningless term and also that we are in the middle of the history of science, not the end, so final proclamations seem weak to me.
Basically the determinist has to argue that there are two possibilities: random and completely controlled events. Or what is basically a combination in stochasitic processes. We use deduction from here and decide free will is not supported by either. Fine. But science has thought it understood the range of possibilities before and then found out this was not the case.
Sure, the determinist could ARGUE like this. But as social mammals I see no reason for them too. And, in fact, non-determinists, for example religious ones, have justified rape either openly or indirectly with victim blaming coded messages.
It’s just not my experience that determinists are less sympathetic here. In the abstract, they could be, using some line like you say, but I don’t find that they do. Whatever the weakness of the rationalist determinist, they seem less likely to certain kinds of mental manipulation - such as the kind that can justify rape.
I find that most people do not actually try to see what ideas do in situ. What is actually happening, not what should happen given the words in the mind and the logic in the mind, etc.
I find Stanford’s online philosophy resource generally very clear. Here is their article on compatibilism.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
However I suspect that what you really mean, or will end up meaning, is how compatibilism will satisfy your concerns, even once you ‘get’ it. It probably does not.
But notice what your focus is on here: your focus is on how you feel about the whole situation. You have not argued that you would no longer strive to be kind. Or to put this in determinist terms. You are not arguing that believing in determinist would CAUSE you to be more cruel or less caring. And this was the issue. I absolutely agree about the emotional effects of the non-existence of free will, but that I would end up being meaner, I don’t think so.
So we change the language into determinist. I don’t think that if I was convinced determinism was the case, this would cause me to treat children or anyone else less well. How bout you?
I interact with others ambiguously, precariously. I see good reasons for endorsing many conflicting sides in most moral and political issues. I make my leap knowing that, had things been different in my life, I might not have.
As, in other words, an ironist.
[/quote]
YOu mean if you became convinced determinism was true you would no longer be an ironist, no longer see conflicting sides in moral and political issues, etc.?