Massimo Squirms on Free Will vs. Fate

It’s been awhile since I poked into Massimo’s place to see what the NY Atheists are up to. Today I had some time, and I found this, from Massimo who was discussing whether rejecting free will necessitates the acceptance of fate:

”“Yes and no” isn’t a wishy-washy non-answer to the question of whether or not I believe in fate because I can answer that question differently on the two sides of the is/ought divide. Metaphysically: yes, there is only one way the universe will unfold; Aubrey Plaza’s character will cause events that lead to her mother’s death no matter how many times she rewinds time. Morally: no, the way the universe unfolds isn’t the way things are supposed to be; it’s just the way things happen, in part because of our actions, and so Ms. Plaza’s character (indeed, any one of us) can still be responsible for what she does.

What do you do with a degree in philosophy? Obviously, you’d like to be doing something worthwhile and productive. It just isn’t clear to me that debating free will as a metaphysical issue accomplishes that. Intuition tells me that it’s not possible for the past to have proceeded differently; intuition may tell you otherwise. How do we resolve that debate? Our ignorance of what is and isn’t possible is so profound that philosophers can’t even agree on a system of logic with which to judge the truth of possibility claims. Discussions of free will in the metaphysical context just aren’t going to go very far; however, if philosophers get around to the moral context at all, it’s only after they’ve had the metaphysical debate.”

There appear to be a couple of misapprehensions involved here. First, changing the past, or rather the inability to change the past by going back in time, has no bearing on the ability to change the future from that same time. The time traveler argument merely diverts from the actual argument which is, “can a decision I make change the actuality occurred in the future?” And more specifically, “Can I actually make decisions, or has my deterministic brain made all the decisions without my actual conscious input, and made those decisions based on the positions of atoms and the flow of electrons through cranial impedances, as predetermined clear back to the origin of the universe?”. Massimo doesn’t address this, apparently because it is too metaphysical and our ignorance is “too profound”. Yet isn’t that what philosophers do?

Massimo conflates personal free will with teleology when he decides that the way the universe unfolds is not the way things are “supposed to be..”, which is not the issue at all. The issue of free will is this: can the way the universe unfolds be steered, in any miniscule fashion, by human decisions which result in human actions? So, Massimo continues, “…it’s just the way things happen, in part because of our actions…”.

Yes, in part because of our actions. And still Massimo does not address free will: are our actions deliberate and intentional, or not? Massimo’s final endorsement of personal responsibility seems to imply that he thinks they are.

Still, he has written an entire blog article based on the concept of using “yes and no” and “profound ignorance” as an answer, thereby placing the question into a category of implacable imponderability, beyond the reach of even philosophers.

So why are philosophers paid by public tax dollars, then?