trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 14, 2014 23:15:04 GMT
I'd argue that the belief in free will causes much economic/wealth inequality (not to mention other inequalities - but that's for a different post) in the world by allowing us to place people on a pedestal of being more deserving over another person, and blame others who are of a lower status for their position (as if they could have done otherwise). I'd argue that once people recognize that they and others couldn't have, of their own accord, done otherwise, they will start to recognize that no one person is more or less deserving than any other person. With that recognition implemented on the masses and the psychology that follows, an age in which we look to equalize wealth and understand the importance of productivity for the sake of all people, rather than individualistic incentives - would be likely to follow. I devote a chapter to this in my book, but would like to hear other opinions and ideas surrounding such.
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 15, 2014 10:59:19 GMT
Yes, this is something I know very well from how my mother and I have been treated. Other people assume that our poverty is our fault even though almost all of it stems from the actions of my father.
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 16, 2014 9:29:17 GMT
The free will belief-income / inequality issue has two interesting dynamics. While I agree that less free will belief would naturally lead to less "entitlement," and the inequality it motivates, we humans are, nonetheless, hedonic creatures who respond well not just to punishment and its threat, but also to market-based rewards, and their promise.
|
|
trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 16, 2014 13:47:08 GMT
The free will belief-income / inequality issue has two interesting dynamics. While I agree that less free will belief would naturally lead to less "entitlement," and the inequality it motivates, we humans are, nonetheless, hedonic creatures who respond well not just to punishment and its threat, but also to market-based rewards, and their promise. I agree that it's not possible to remove all incentive, but I do believe the need for "personal" incentive to be productive something we need to move past to progress, especially in light of the fact that no person is more or less deserving than another. Until such a time, I agree, the (old fashioned) "whip and carrot" approach is needed to keep an economy viable, at least to a certain extent; though I'd suggest that such needs to be reduced and a balancing act needs to take place between equality (rational) and unfairness (whip/carrot).
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 16, 2014 21:00:51 GMT
Many social science experiments reveal that carrots are far more effective at molding behavior than are sticks, so between using that more enlightened and powerful approach, and teaching people that nothing is fundamentally up to us anyway, we may be able to inspire the far greater cooperation required for the kind of acroos-the-board equality that a climate-sustainable future, much more likely than not, will require.
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 16, 2014 22:45:24 GMT
Many social science experiments reveal that carrots are far more effective at molding behavior than are sticks, so between using that more enlightened and powerful approach, and teaching people that nothing is fundamentally up to us anyway, we may be able to inspire the far greater cooperation required for the kind of acroos-the-board equality that a climate-sustainable future, much more likely than not, will require. What you are saying is that people respond better to reward than punishment. This is something that I think everyone needs to think about and apply.
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 19, 2014 4:22:40 GMT
Yes, and in a very real sense, disbelieving in free will is akin to reward while believing in free will is akin to punishment. Although it seems we will still need punishment going forward, I would guess the more we overcome free will belief, the less, and less severely, we will need to punish.
|
|
trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 19, 2014 16:18:59 GMT
Yes, and in a very real sense, disbelieving in free will is akin to reward while believing in free will is akin to punishment. Although it seems we will still need punishment going forward, I would guess the more we overcome free will belief, the less, and less severely, we will need to punish. We also need to play a "reward" balancing act, especially when excessive rewards to one person would be given at the expense of another who doesn't even have basic necessities. We still need to keep in mind that no person actually deserves a larger reward than another person, and that we'd only be rewarding due to practical reasons (which usually stem from people thinking they are more deserving due to their action - or another less deserving, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 20, 2014 22:59:02 GMT
Excellent point; I think part of the value of overcoming free will belief is that, when rewarding and punishing cause unnecessarily pain, that pain can be minimized by minimizing the rewards and punishments. It may take decades, but, as we all come to understand free will as an illusion, I think eventually our world will not countenance people having so much more than they need while others don't have enough.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Soden on Nov 21, 2014 12:59:59 GMT
Such a paradigm shift will take years man, but I agree, we still need some form of capitalism, but one that recognizes the limitations each individual has, this isn't "rewarding people for failure" as some so called economists on the far right might claim. It is being fair to people who simply weren't able to compete with the top dogs or even at all as a result of their conditioning, it is appalling that we treat some animals better than we treat our homeless who by all rights should be receiving the necessities of life.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Soden on Nov 21, 2014 13:11:12 GMT
Yes, and in a very real sense, disbelieving in free will is akin to reward while believing in free will is akin to punishment. Although it seems we will still need punishment going forward, I would guess the more we overcome free will belief, the less, and less severely, we will need to punish. We also need to play a "reward" balancing act, especially when excessive rewards to one person would be given at the expense of another who doesn't even have basic necessities. We still need to keep in mind that no person actually deserves a larger reward than another person, and that we'd only be rewarding due to practical reasons (which usually stem from people thinking they are more deserving due to their action - or another less deserving, etc.) Businesses still need to make a profit to cover investments and need some reserve funding in case something goes wrong, but as far as wages go, well unfortunately the no free will idea assumes that no one is deserving of a higher pay than the other, but in the real world with limited resources, this isn't a realistic scenario, corporations still need to make enough money to keep them out of dept.
|
|
trick
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by trick on Nov 21, 2014 14:26:24 GMT
Indeed, in an ideal world the money to keep a business viable, and the money an owner personally obtains, would be separate things. But this assumes a world in which everyone's psychology about these things (and what production needs to be for in this new framework) have changed based on this rational understanding - which I agree...is quite a difficult (even unrealistic) task to reach such a point.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Soden on Nov 21, 2014 16:27:14 GMT
Indeed, in an ideal world the money to keep a business viable, and the money an owner personally obtains, would be separate things. But this assumes a world in which everyone's psychology about these things (and what production needs to be for in this new framework) have changed based on this rational understanding - which I agree...is quite a difficult (even unrealistic) task to reach such a point. Of course, living wages for the lowest paid workers and social security still have to be supported and I believe George Ortega would agree with making poverty history, but for these government programs to continue cost of living must come down, renewable energy is an option but the initial cost is tremendous and it would take decades to implement. There is also the issue of national dept but there should be limits on how much interest can be charged and dept shouldn't be inherited.
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 21, 2014 21:23:12 GMT
Yes, I'm hoping that as people overcome their delusion that what they do is up to them, they'll begin to overcome their profound sense of entitlement that makes them so callous and indifferent to the plight of so many people who were not as lucky as they in terms of making money, and who are really struggling. Free will belief causes arrogance, and a mistaken sense of "deserving," that makes many people very selfish; once they understand their success wasn't truly up to them, hopefully they will become more humble and compassionate.
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 21, 2014 21:36:13 GMT
Indeed, in an ideal world the money to keep a business viable, and the money an owner personally obtains, would be separate things. But this assumes a world in which everyone's psychology about these things (and what production needs to be for in this new framework) have changed based on this rational understanding - which I agree...is quite a difficult (even unrealistic) task to reach such a point. The thing about overcoming free will belief, and the benefits that will come about as a result, is that it will take time - maybe a couple of decades. It could, and should, happen sooner, but we would need to find a game-changing way of getting the public to look at the issue in a way that allows them to understand its profound implications on all aspects of our life.
|
|