Or the reason may be that this is unpalatable for compatibilists?
Nope. The conflation of "can" with "will" is a logical error that is unpalatable to the rational mind. Unfortunately, the rational mind is plagued by figurative thinking which routinely makes this kind of mistake: "If this is the only thing that I 'will' do, then it is AS IF it is the only thing that I 'can' do." But, like all figurative statements, it is literally false.
The figure of speech creates an illusion of truth, where there actually is none.
The words we use are a reflection of our experience of the world, an experience built on incomplete knowledge of the system as it transitions from past state to current and future states, which as FDI points out, 'when this, then that.' ''All that is present is that will must take place following then. Can in determined, is will. They are identical.''
If "they are identical" were actually true, then determinism would be satisfied with "would not have done otherwise" rather than saying, "could not have done otherwise". But the hard determinist uses the figurative illusion to overstep, leaving the world of necessity trying to eliminate the world of possibilities. (Hmm. A "War of the Worlds"?).
But it doesn't work, as I've demonstrated in the two examples. We end up with nonsense. For anyone just arriving, here is the first example:
Waiter (a hard determinist): "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer (hungry): "Gee, I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because we live in a deterministic universe, there is only one thing that you can order".
Customer: "Oh. That's disappointing. But, okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?".
Waiter: "I don't know."
The customer must (a) choose between a single possibility (which is itself impossible) and (b) do so without even knowing what that possibility is!
So, this is not something that is "unpalatable to compatibilists", but unpalatable to the rational mind.
Whatever happens must necessarily happen, therefore will happen.
Correct, as always.
'Could' and 'would' are expressions of uncertainty. Our uncertainty.
'Can' and 'could' are expressions of possibility and the notion of possibility evolved to deal with matters of uncertainty.
'Will' and 'would' are expressions of actuality, and only express uncertainty when used in a question.
For example, "What will you have for dinner, sir?", expresses the waiter's uncertainty as to what the customer actually will have for dinner. But the customer's response, "What are my possibilities?", is asking for a list of the things that he "can" order. He is not asking the waiter what he "will" order.
The waiter's response that "there is only one thing that you can order" throws a monkey wrench into the choosing process, totally breaking the logic.
Our mental uncertainty derives from our incomplete understanding of the state of the system and how events unfold.
The customer knows how events unfold. They unfold one event at a time, each event reliably caused by some prior event(s) ("this then that"). The customer expects the waiter to tell him the several things that he "can" order, and then he expects to consider these options, and then expects to tell the waiter what he will have for dinner. The customer has no uncertainty and no illusions about cause and effect.
What the customer is uncertain about is simply what's on the menu tonight (an incomplete knowledge of "the state of the system"). He cannot determine what he "will" order until he knows what he "can" order.
An illusion of the mind, an illusion of free will, and illusion of choice where no choice exists.
Our customer has no illusions. He knows exactly how the events will unfold. He knows that he will have to make a choice between two or more dinners that he "can" order and then tell the waiter the single dinner that he "will" order. These are all matters of fact. None of them are illusions.
An "illusion" is when a person sees something that is not a matter of fact. The only illusion here is the hard determinist's belief that what he sees happening in front of his own eyes is somehow not actually happening!
And demonstrating clearly what is actually happening is why we use the restaurant example.
Being determinism, there is no uncertainty within the system itself. Even our illusion of freedom is entailed, where all conditions are entailed and get delivered as fixed outputs.
When we constrain ourselves to matters of fact, we eliminate illusions. That's why compatibilists use the commonsense definition of free will, a choice we make while free of coercion and undue influence, and not some abstract and irrational notion of "freedom from cause and effect". The irrational notion is an illusion, created by the false suggestion that reliable causation was something that we needed to be free of in order to be absolutely free. Nobody needs or wants freedom from reliable cause and effect.
''Think of
someone that you dislike. Let’s call this person X. Now, imagine that you were born with X’s “genetic material.” That is, imagine that you had X’s looks, body odor, inherent tastes, intelligence, aptitudes, etc. Imagine, further, that you had X’s upbringing and life experiences as well; so, imagine that you had X’s parents growing up, and that you grew up in the same country, city, and neighborhood in which X grew up, etc.
Would behave any differently from how X behaves?
Well, since the question boils down to, "If you were X, would you behave differently than X behaves?", the obvious answer is no.
But this is not something we learn from the philosophical discussion of determinism. It is what we learn from a course in Psychology and Sociology. The notions of "empathy" and "walk a mile in my shoes" carry the same information. In Christianity, there is the slogan, "hate the sin, but love the sinner", and identifying ourselves as imperfect beings, and that even the worst sinner can be redeemed, and parables like "The Prodigal Son", and the "Good Shepard" who left the ninety-and-nine to recover the one lost sheep.
The question helps people realize that their thoughts and actions are determined entirely by their genetic and social conditioning. In other words, it helps people intuitively grasp the idea that free will is an illusion.''
But, free will, as commonly understood, is a matter of fact, and not an illusion. Either you made the choice yourself, according to your own goals and reasons, or someone or something forced the choice upon you against your will. Christians, who mostly believe in free will, are not ignorant of prior causes, of psychological and sociological factors that shape us. So, there is no need to destroy the notion of free will in order to obtain empathetic insights.
Understanding that free will is an illusion means recognizing that people behave in the only way they know how.
Nope. Recognizing that people behave in the only way they know how explains why they made the choices they did. It does not require us to embrace the illusion that they did not make any choices. Rehabilitation is about helping them to make better choices in the future. It is not about convincing them that their future, like their past, is out of their control.
As such, it is important to realize that, when people act in harmful ways, it is because they are ignorant of the forces that actually shape their thoughts and behaviors.''
Again, the specific knowledge of the forces that shape our thoughts and behaviors comes from psychology and sociology, and not from any philosophical study of determinism or free will. Every child should learn the basic lessons of human behavior at the earliest possible age. They should be taught that different families may have different beliefs, different customs, different accents, and different skin colors. And that each child has worth and value.
