NationStates Jolt Archive

One big question that's come up in another thread again, and that's been bugging me for a while.

Most people would agree that "luck" plays a part in determining one's success in life, both in economic terms and in everything else.

I'm not sure everyone would agree though on what exactly "luck" is.

I hate the idea of stuff being outside my control. I think that a person's lot in life can largely be traced back to individual choices made. And to that extent I consider "luck" to be little more than the positive results of well-made choices.

If someone is rich, and people say "Oh, he was lucky.", then I generally think that the luck part was simply having been able to put oneself in the right place at the right time to take advantage of whatever came along. And likewise, if someone says they were unlucky in life, that means that the person was unable to see and grasp the opportunities that came along.

In line with my rejection of determinism (and the fatalism it brings with it), I therefore think that everyone gets opportunities in life, but not everyone takes advantage of them. And in that sense, everyone has the same amount of "luck" in life.

Now, that's not the traditional meaning of the word though, is it. Luck often means things that are outside our control. One thing might just be whether you happen to be born the daughter of a hotel tycoon. Another thing might be a lightning striking you, or even a drunk driver running you over.

But if we accept that...are some people just unlucky? Are some people doomed to be poor? Would it be right to compensate them for their unluckiness?

What is luck, and how does it fit into your system of thought?

Luck, hehehehehe, get it?

One big question that's come up in another thread again, and that's been bugging me for a while.

Most people would agree that "luck" plays a part in determining one's success in life, both in economic terms and in everything else.

I'm not sure everyone would agree though on what exactly "luck" is.

I hate the idea of stuff being outside my control. I think that a person's lot in life can largely be traced back to individual choices made. And to that extent I consider "luck" to be little more than the positive results of well-made choices.

If someone is rich, and people say "Oh, he was lucky.", then I generally think that the luck part was simply having been able to put oneself in the right place at the right time to take advantage of whatever came along. And likewise, if someone says they were unlucky in life, that means that the person was unable to see and grasp the opportunities that came along.

In line with my rejection of determinism (and the fatalism it brings with it), I therefore think that everyone gets opportunities in life, but not everyone takes advantage of them. And in that sense, everyone has the same amount of "luck" in life.

Now, that's not the traditional meaning of the word though, is it. Luck often means things that are outside our control. One thing might just be whether you happen to be born the daughter of a hotel tycoon. Another thing might be a lightning striking you, or even a drunk driver running you over.

But if we accept that...are some people just unlucky? Are some people doomed to be poor? Would it be right to compensate them for their unluckiness?

What is luck, and how does it fit into your system of thought?

Luck is on the side with the most artillery.

Luck is the result of our own choices, as you have observed. Our own preparedness, or lack thereof. Just as there is no such thing as coincidence, luck only has a place in the lives of those who do not feel that they are living a life of consequence.

Long story short: I agree with you. :)

One big question that's come up in another thread again, and that's been bugging me for a while.

Most people would agree that "luck" plays a part in determining one's success in life, both in economic terms and in everything else.

I'm not sure everyone would agree though on what exactly "luck" is.

I hate the idea of stuff being outside my control. I think that a person's lot in life can largely be traced back to individual choices made. And to that extent I consider "luck" to be little more than the positive results of well-made choices.

If someone is rich, and people say "Oh, he was lucky.", then I generally think that the luck part was simply having been able to put oneself in the right place at the right time to take advantage of whatever came along. And likewise, if someone says they were unlucky in life, that means that the person was unable to see and grasp the opportunities that came along.

In line with my rejection of determinism (and the fatalism it brings with it), I therefore think that everyone gets opportunities in life, but not everyone takes advantage of them. And in that sense, everyone has the same amount of "luck" in life.

Now, that's not the traditional meaning of the word though, is it. Luck often means things that are outside our control. One thing might just be whether you happen to be born the daughter of a hotel tycoon. Another thing might be a lightning striking you, or even a drunk driver running you over.

But if we accept that...are some people just unlucky? Are some people doomed to be poor? Would it be right to compensate them for their unluckiness?

What is luck, and how does it fit into your system of thought?Luck plays a very large role in people's lives. I'm not going to go so far as to say our lives are completely determined, but a sizable portion of our lives is.

Luck plays a very large role in people's lives. I'm not going to go so far as to say our lives are completely determined, but a sizable portion of our lives is.
Determined by whom or what? Where does that leave free will?

And does this mean that people should be compensated for bad luck?

Determined by whom or what? Where does that leave free will?

And does this mean that people should be compensated for bad luck?

Well, although you are given opportunities that you may or may not take, there are some born with far more opportunities than others.

You can have good or bad parents. Rich parents, who may or may not allow you to benefit from their money and position.

You still have to take advantage of the opportunities - but in some cases, you barely have to acknowledge the opportunities.

We all have free will, just an unequal start.

We need to make all our decisions under uncertainty. While I agree that there are different qualities of decisions, I do not agree that this is the only source of good outcome. a person could spend his last money on a lottery ticket and win the jackpot of 30 Million €, another person can put money on the bank and said bank go insolvent one day before he needs it (this did happen in Germany to a family of immigrants). Luck is the statistical component in every decision.

Determined by whom or what? Determined by the actions of other people, for the most part. We don't choose to be born, and that decision by our parents is the most critical decision of our lives. (:))

Where does that leave free will?Well, I suppose different people have different amount of free will. A person who is completely paralyzed is going to have substantially less free will than someone who has the ability to move their bodies.

And does this mean that people should be compensated for bad luck?I'd say it's more that the benefit from good luck should be reduced.

I hate the idea of stuff being outside my control. I think that a person's lot in life can largely be traced back to individual choices made.There are a number of very important factors that you have no control over. Where you were born, to whom you were born, as what you were born, etc.
You'll have a lot more control over your life as an american white male of middle class parent, than as a black somali farmers daughter.

There is a difference between a decision having an effect on your life... and you having reason to know beforehand what that effect might be.

If you decide to get lotto number 18-4-15-88, or what-not, and win, you had no reasonable cause to know that decision would get you money.

I get stuck trying to leave a party in the middle of nowhere, and that sets of a chain of events that ends with my teaching fencing to overweight kids the next summer. Luck had everything to do with that; it just happened, and I had no reasonable way of knowing that it would work out that way.

There's a lot of luck behind almost every success story, whether it is a fortuitous circumstance or your parents having given you the money to start out with or made the opportunities for you. This isn't deterministic; it's highly unpredictable. That's life.

When you start a software company because you feel like it, and find yourself coasting to success in the budding personal computer market that erupts underneath you, that's luck.

If you started it because you foresaw the market coming, well, that's not so lucky - but you'll probably be telling yourself one or the other story without regard to how it actually was.

Everybody's story is founded on luck.

I think that a person's lot in life can largely be traced back to individual choices made.

I would say that luck plays a massive part even if this is true. Making the right choices has a lot to do with your intelligence, which of course is down to your genetics and upbringing, rather than any choices 'you' have made. And of course there are a lot of elements of success that aren't about choices, like the charisma you need to convince the bank manager to lend you money to start up your business. It might help here if you're not particularly ugly or strange-looking...as say studies showing that attractive people are more successful (eg, http://www.kaaj.com/psych/BeyondIQ.html).

And that's before we've gotten on to the less philisophical aspects of people having different starts in life.

External influences account for so much because you have no control over how you are raised, what opportunities you are afforded and associated cultural capital.

People don't like this because, as you observed, you don't like things being out of your control (and I think, whilst it's an irrationality it's one of the more productive irrationalities). Unforunately it's true, however much people want to buy into the American dream - if you look at the other thread you are referring to someone states they would be against a wage cap because it would limit how much money they got when they were rich. That guy will never be getting $10million dollars a year and yet he wants to make plans for it.

Unfortunately, life isn't fair or totally up to you and hard work doesn't correlate with wealth anywhere near as much as it should.

I feel we've been talking about general issues in this thread and in the other but with underlying implications about specific situations, so although I'm more interested in the "I want all the wealth group" I'll comment on myself.

I'm fairly wealthy, I'm no millionaire but I can afford a posh apartment in London and I'm in the process of tying up a six figure deal. My wife and I enjoy fairly enviable lives with interesting jobs and good money. I am - as I remind myself when I'm feeling less than optimistic - a success. But that money didn't come from hard work, there are waitresses who work a hell of a lot harder than me. They came from my parents who instilled certain values, from the associated cultural capital and from the educational opportunites they offered me.
My wife, an actress, works a lot harder than me (as anyone who heard her original attempt at an english accent would testify) but again if she'd been born poor she wouldn't be where she is today.

I work in one of the most American Dream sort of fields - if anyone has a great screenplay they can be rewarded hansomely (the writers of Deja Vu got $5million) but yet I meet a restricted section of society. Middle class white and jewish men. Is it just that these people tend to be the hardest working? Bullshit. These people have recieved opportunities that a kid in the ghetto could never dream of.

It would be self-indulgent if I put my success down to factors purely in my control and it would also make me appear to be a lot better person than I am.

One big question that's come up in another thread again, and that's been bugging me for a while.

Most people would agree that "luck" plays a part in determining one's success in life, both in economic terms and in everything else.

I'm not sure everyone would agree though on what exactly "luck" is.

I hate the idea of stuff being outside my control. I think that a person's lot in life can largely be traced back to individual choices made. And to that extent I consider "luck" to be little more than the positive results of well-made choices.

If someone is rich, and people say "Oh, he was lucky.", then I generally think that the luck part was simply having been able to put oneself in the right place at the right time to take advantage of whatever came along. And likewise, if someone says they were unlucky in life, that means that the person was unable to see and grasp the opportunities that came along.

In line with my rejection of determinism (and the fatalism it brings with it), I therefore think that everyone gets opportunities in life, but not everyone takes advantage of them. And in that sense, everyone has the same amount of "luck" in life.

Now, that's not the traditional meaning of the word though, is it. Luck often means things that are outside our control. One thing might just be whether you happen to be born the daughter of a hotel tycoon. Another thing might be a lightning striking you, or even a drunk driver running you over.

But if we accept that...are some people just unlucky? Are some people doomed to be poor? Would it be right to compensate them for their unluckiness?

What is luck, and how does it fit into your system of thought?
I use "luck" to refer specifically to chance elements.

For instance, it was pure luck that I happened to come across an ad for my ideal apartment just moments after it was posted. Now, my terrific rental history and good credit and charming attitude were what allowed me to convince the owner to rent to me, and those were not "luck". However, no matter how great my rental history or credit or attitude, I still would never have gotten that apartment if not for the lucky chance that led me to see the ad at just the right moment.

I'd say it's more that the benefit from good luck should be reduced.

And how do we tell the difference between luck and hardwork or skill?

I'd say it's more that the benefit from good luck should be reduced.
That's an interesting idea. Why?

I'm actually trying to sort out what I think about this, I'm not just being an ass. Why would it be better to reduce the benefit from good luck, as opposed to reducing the harm from bad luck? (Assuming either one is possible, of course.)

I believe luck exists, but I do not believe some people are inherently lucky or unlucky.

For instance, you and a friend are equally good at an arts subject (no definitive right or wrong answers) and have both performed as best you can on an exam. However, your exam is marked at the beginning of the day when the examiner is in a good mood and thus is likely to give you a better mark. Whereas your friend's exam is marked at the end of the day when the examiner is tired and in a foul mood. Consequently he is given a slightly worse mark. Now these slight differences in marks are just enough to push you up one grade and your friend down one grade. It can be considered luck that you got a better mark than your friend.

OR, two people lose their job for the same reason (in state that does not provide welfare of any sort), but at different times. Both people own a house and have a mortage on that house. However, the first person loses their job during an economic boom, their house is in positive equity and is able to remortage their house to provide an income for theirself over the period in which he or she is jobless. As opposed to the second person who loses their job during an economic down turn. The house has fallen into negative equity, the person is unable to keep up repayments on the mortage and is forced to declare bankruptcy and falls into destitution. Was one person lucky and not the other?

So I believe there are many circumstances which our outside of our control. I do believe that people should be compensated to an extent for this (to what extent is another question). I believe this is what is called social justice.

Where does that leave free will?

absolute 'i can always do anything and its opposite' free will is an incoherent concept.

No matter how much you try, you cannot control 100% of the things that can affect your life. that small percentage that you cannot control is determined by randomness is called "Luck".

I don't believe in luck.

That's an interesting idea. Why?

I'm actually trying to sort out what I think about this, I'm not just being an ass. Why would it be better to reduce the benefit from good luck, as opposed to reducing the harm from bad luck? (Assuming either one is possible, of course.)

To do that fairly requires a perfect foreknowledge of outcomes.

Say, if I notice you have what appears to be good luck, and I know for a fact you will benefit from it in the future.

No matter how much you try, you cannot control 100% of the things that can affect your life. that small percentage that you cannot control is determined by randomness is called "Luck".

It's not really random though. Everything happens according to a purpose, as a result of some act or circumstance. If you don't control it, it is the result of someone or something else's control of a circumstance that led to that collision with you.

If you don't control it, it is the result of someone something else's control of a circumstance that led to that collision with you.

people aren't the only causal forces

people aren't the only causal agents

Yes, I should have put an "or" between "someone something." Thanks for the correction.

I don't believe in luck.

what happens in games of chance then?

It's not really random though. Everything happens according to a purpose, as a result of some act or circumstance. If you don't control it, it is the result of someone or something else's control of a circumstance that led to that collision with you.

and you cannot control what that other person does with what they control. so the randomness of what they did/do and how and when it interacts with you and yours is sometimes referred to as "luck"

also, there are factors that no one controls. the weather for one. There have been unexpected shifts in weather patterns before.

what happens in games of chance then?

everyone has the same odds, there are no people with better odds or worse odds (good luck or bad luck)

everyone has the same odds, there are no people with better odds or worse odds (good luck or bad luck)

ah, but some people call that randomness "luck"

if it falls on you and is beneficial, (you won the Megabucks with your LAST $3) then it's good.

if it falls on you and is not beneficial, (a Potted plant is blown off of a windowstill and lands on your car, while you're stuck in traffic.) then it's bad.

ah, but some people call that randomness "luck"

if it falls on you and is beneficial, (you won the Megabucks with your LAST $3) then it's good.

if it falls on you and is not beneficial, (a Potted plant is blown off of a windowstill and lands on your car, while you're stuck in traffic.) then it's bad.

kinda like when someone gets cancer and if they are a "good Christian" they are being tested and if they are not they are being "punished" ?


yeah, I don't buy into all that either.

I don't like the word luck that much as I prefer to refer at opportunities.

In line with my rejection of determinism (and the fatalism it brings with it), I therefore think that everyone gets opportunities in life, but not everyone takes advantage of them. And in that sense, everyone has the same amount of "luck" in life.

And this is the key...

It would be foolish to assume everyone get the same opportunities in life.

A rich kid going to Yale and having a guaranteed job in is dad's business will have it much more easier than an average ghetto kid having to work hard to get money for is degree in a cheapo university and then having to fight with 50 others candidates for a job.

Personal contact is what will you move in a hierarchy way before competence.

kinda like when someone gets cancer and if they are a "good Christian" they are being tested and if they are not they are being "punished" ?


yeah, I don't buy into all that either.
what has being tested by God have to do with Random events?

Luck is random, I never stated anything otherwise.

You call it random events, others call it luck.

my ability to blag my way through exams and essays is often referred to as luck. i prefer to think of it as a gift.

what is luck, though, is the fact that just before my exam last friday (which i had only started revising for the night before) i happened to read a page of my notes that had almost the complete answer for one of the questions and so was able to write a 4 page essay with a combination of what i remembered verbatim from that and my ability to flesh out an answer with little actual knowledge.

what has being tested by God have to do with Random events?

Luck is random, I never stated anything otherwise.

You call it random events, others call it luck.

the problem is when you say luck you attach "some people are just born lucky" and "he always had bad luck" when the truth is that random things happen to random people.



*general you

everyone has the same odds, there are no people with better odds or worse odds (good luck or bad luck)

that is a weird use of the term

the problem is when you say luck you attach "some people are just born lucky" and "he always had bad luck" when the truth is that random things happen to random people.

by sheer chance there are going to be people who appear to have long runs of bad or good luck. that's the nature of luck.

Luck is unexplained variance.

When unpredictable events go predominantly one way or the other, that's luck (good or bad). It's just unexplained variance.

by sheer chance there are going to be people who appear to have long runs of bad or good luck. that's the nature of luck.

observed by humans who find patterns where there are none.

observed by humans who find patterns where there are none.

while we are capable of wrongly attributing strings of good or bad luck, that doesn't mean that such things don't exist.

while we are capable of wrongly attributing strings of good or bad luck, that doesn't mean that such things don't exist.

Ahem.

If I have a six-sided die, and I roll a 4, what are the odds that I will again roll a 4?

If you believe in "luck", your answer will not be mathematically correct.

while we are capable of wrongly attributing strings of good or bad luck, that doesn't mean that such things don't exist.

lets say I take out a coin and flip it 4 times 3 of the 4 times the coin lands on heads........does that mean that the odds of it landing on heads are 3:4

no, they are 1:2

even if I had what you would call "good luck" in getting the coin to flip 75% of the time and land on heads, it still doesn't exist.

lets say I take out a coin and flip it 4 times 3 of the 4 times the coin lands on heads........does that mean that the odds of it landing on heads are 3:4

no, they are 1:2

even if I had what you would call "good luck" in getting the coin to flip 75% of the time and land on heads, it still doesn't exist.

Isn't it fascinating that two religious fundamentalists know about probability?

Isn't it fascinating that two religious fundamentalists know about probability?

I teach math, what's your excuse?:p

I teach math, what's your excuse?:p

I write software!

lets say I take out a coin and flip it 4 times 3 of the 4 times the coin lands on heads........does that mean that the odds of it landing on heads are 3:4

no, they are 1:2

even if I had what you would call "good luck" in getting the coin to flip 75% of the time and land on heads, it still doesn't exist.

luck doesn't mean the odds are different. it just means that they worked out for you somehow.

lets say I take out a coin and flip it 4 times 3 of the 4 times the coin lands on heads........does that mean that the odds of it landing on heads are 3:4

no, they are 1:2

even if I had what you would call "good luck" in getting the coin to flip 75% of the time and land on heads, it still doesn't exist.

You're confusing the concept of being lucky in a specific situation with the concept of being generally lucky (this sort of confusion wouldn't happen if we spoke spanish :mad:). Someone can be described as sad about a specific situation but could also be described as a sad person.

Luck isn't someone having a 3/4 chance of getting heads, luck is getting 3 heads of four. Just because people aren't inherently lucky or unlucky doesn't mean that luck doesn't exist.

If the wind blows fifty dollars into your hand that's luck, there was no skill involved. The odds of it happening might be the same to everyone but that's irrelevant, what's important is that it happened to you. If you want heads when you flip a coin it's luck if it goes your way (assuming you use no skill)

Ahem.

If I have a six-sided die, and I roll a 4, what are the odds that I will again roll a 4?

If you believe in "luck", your answer will not be mathematically correct.

1/6. and luck still exists.

1/6. and luck still exists.

No. You either believe in probability, or luck. Which is it?

luck doesn't mean the odds are different. it just means that they worked out for you somehow.
you have the same odds as everyone else, things don't "work out for you" more or less often than they would anyone else.

You're confusing the concept of being lucky in a specific situation with the concept of being generally lucky (this sort of confusion wouldn't happen if we spoke spanish :mad:). Someone can be described as sad about a specific situation but could also be described as a sad person.

Luck isn't someone having a 3/4 chance of getting heads, luck is getting 3 heads of four. Just because people aren't inherently lucky or unlucky doesn't mean that luck doesn't exist.

If the wind blows fifty dollars into your hand that's luck, there was no skill involved. The odds of it happening might be the same to everyone but that's irrelevant, what's important is that it happened to you. If you want heads when you flip a coin it's luck if it goes your way (assuming you use no skill)

what matters is that the odds of it happening to anyone are the same.

No. You either believe in probability, or luck. Which is it?

luck is just value-laden probability. if you need the dice to come up 4 again for some reason, and it does, then you were lucky.

luck is just value-laden probability. if you need the dice to come up 4 again for some reason, and it does, then you were lucky.

oh, you man of psuedoscience!

http://pics.obra.se/RoflMao.jpg

luck is just value-laden probability. if you need the dice to come up 4 again for some reason, and it does, then you were lucky.

you mean you are happy. There is no luck involved, whether you like your random circumstances or not has nothing to do with "luck" but more with your outlook on life. .

you have the same odds as everyone else, things don't "work out for you" more or less often than they would anyone else.

on average. what of it? nearly everyone gets lucky approximately the same percentage of the time. some people by sheer luck will get lucky more often, some less. thus is the nature of probability.

on average. what of it? nearly everyone gets lucky approximately the same percentage of the time. some people by sheer luck will get lucky more often, some less. thus is the nature of probability.

How very unscientific of you.

There is no luck involved

your use of the term is incorrect

what matters is that the odds of it happening to anyone are the same.

The odds of me getting fifty dollars blown into my hand are the same as anyone else. If it happens then I have benefited from good fortune outside of my control (in other words: luck).

your use of the term is incorrect

define luck

you said if you get 3 out of 4 on odds that are 1 in 2 that you are "lucky" whereas I said you are not, that you have the same odds as anyone else and randomness is in fact random.

The odds of me getting fifty dollars blown into my hand are the same as anyone else. If it happens then I have benefited from good fortune outside of my control (in other words: luck).

there is no such thing as "good fortune"

define luck

you said if you get 3 out of 4 on odds that are 1 in 2 that you are "lucky" whereas I said you are not, that you have the same odds as anyone else and randomness is in fact random.

You're getting cause and effect mix up.

No one is claiming the cause of getting 3 out of four is luck. The effect of benefiting from this randomness is called luck.

there is no such thing as "good fortune"

Are there such things outside of your control? Yes

Can they effect you positively? Yes

"Good Fortune"

Are there such things outside of your control? Yes

Can they effect you positively? Yes

"Good Fortune"

quoted for obviousness

You're getting cause and effect mix up.

No one is claiming the cause of getting 3 out of four is luck. The effect of benefiting from this randomness is called luck.
luck is an effect?

so when idiots tell me that I have money because I am lucky, what they are saying is "because of your hard work you have money" ?:confused:

Are there such things outside of your control? Yes

Can they effect you positively? Yes

"Good Fortune"

are there things outside of my control? yes

can they affect me negatively? yes

can they affect me positively? yes

do I have any control over which? no

there is no good luck or bad luck.

quoted for obviousness

you're just too funny....

define luck

valued (either positive or negative) events outside of your control

valued (either positive or negative) events outside of your control

oh, so I was right, you mean that if you are happy about something random that it is good, and if you are upset about something random then it is bad

emotions have no effect on real life.

I don't believe that some people have "good luck" or that some people have "bad luck" I think some people whine a lot and some people just realize they can't control everything and move on to the things they can.

valued (either positive or negative) events outside of your control

Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Science, but "luck" is not a scientific term or concept. So you're not allowed to believe in it.

oh, so I was right, you mean that if you are happy about something random that it is good, and if you are upset about something random then it is bad

emotions have no effect on real life.



Are you kidding me? Something random that is good was good luck. I don't see how that's a problem. Emotions are a massive part of all out lives.

emotions have no effect on real life.

that's beyond stupid

that's beyond stupid

Now, be fair to him - he's right. I'm going to kill your family and you won't really care. After all, your emotional attatchment has no effect on real life.

Are you kidding me? Something random that is good was good luck.
define good.

there is a huge grey area with random events that nobody can sort out. I choose how to react when something random happens to me, that is what I can control.


I don't see how that's a problem.
it's a problem because luck doesn't exist.




Emotions are a massive part of all out lives.
they may be a massive part of your life, but they are pretty much useless to me.

Something random that is good was good luck.

it doesn't even have to be random. just outside of your direct control. like place of birth and such.

define good.

I choose how to react when something random happens to me, that is what I can control.


Give me a break :D

Give me a break :D

you don't believe in personal responsibility?

it doesn't even have to be random. just outside of your direct control. like place of birth and such.

Quite. I was just following his line of reasoning.

Quite. I was just following his line of reasoning.

her ;)

you don't believe in personal responsibility?

I believe in personal responsibility to an extent.

But unless you're actually saying you decide whether what happens to you is good or bad I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're discussing

her ;)

Oh, that explains a lot. Don't worry your pretty little head about this dear.




























;)

you don't believe in personal responsibility?

what would personal responsibility have to do with whether you won or lost a game of pure chance?

I believe in personal responsibility to an extent.

But unless you're actually saying you decide whether what happens to you is good or bad I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're discussing
I decide how I react, I have no control over random things, I control my reaction to them.

Oh, that explains a lot. Don't worry your pretty little head about this dear.


;)

I was totally about to *smack* you pre-viewing of the smiley........still almost thinking about doing it anyway...........:p


what would personal responsibility have to do with whether you won or lost a game of pure chance?
it doesn't, neither does "luck"

what would personal responsibility have to do with whether you won or lost a game of pure chance?

That's not the issue, because when you win snakes & ladders it's apparantly irrelevant because it's just your zany wierdness attatching the value 'good' to the outcome 'win'. They are random events and should you be seeking the outcome 'lose' it wouldn't have been good luck to win.

That's not the issue, because when you win snakes & ladders it's apparantly irrelevant because it's just your zany wierdness attatching the value 'good' to the outcome 'win'. They are random events and should you be seeking the outcome 'lose' it wouldn't have been good luck to win.

close.

You are the one who attaches value to things, so it is your own emotions that are at the heart of the issue not any "luck"

the problem is when you say luck you attach "some people are just born lucky" and "he always had bad luck" when the truth is that random things happen to random people.



*general you

and when one person experiences a random event, he or she is lucky.

I've also heard that person also be called "Blessed" and "Cursed" do people actually mean they are blessed and cursed or just happen to be at the proper place at the proper time?

Oh and MY birth was lucky... I was 3 months pre-mature. So I say I was lucky that I survived.

I decide how I react, I have no control over random things, I control my reaction to them.


But do you not agree that your reaction to them (your decision making abilities) has been shaped by external influences? Without wanting to reel off all the obvious sociological concepts.

But do you not agree that your reaction to them (your decision making abilities) has been shaped by external influences? Without wanting to reel off all the obvious sociological concepts.

of course and I strive each day to deprogram myself of the social distractions that hinder me from being the best I can.

close.

You are the one who attaches value to things, so it is your own emotions that are at the heart of the issue not any "luck"

Are you being serious? :D

Yes, but it's pretty darn obvious to most people that win is the good item. In the same way, earning money is a good item.

How about this rephrasing

"Luck is when an outcome outside of your control works to give you a favourable emotional response"

Given you can't control your own emotional response (please say you're not going to argue that!) that seems to cover it.

of course and I strive each day to deprogram myself of the social distractions that hinder me from being the best I can.

The very fact you have decided to do that has been shaped by others. If you were subjected to difference agents of socialisation you would be a different person.

Ahem.

If I have a six-sided die, and I roll a 4, what are the odds that I will again roll a 4?

If you believe in "luck", your answer will not be mathematically correct.I can flip a coin ten times and make 9 of em Heads. is that mathematically possible?

yes.

Is it probable?

I can do it frequently enough to make it almost a certainty.

Are you being serious? :D

Yes, but it's pretty darn obvious to most people that win is the good item. In the same way, earning money is a good item.

How about this rephrasing

"Luck is when an outcome outside of your control works to give you a favourable emotional response"

Given you can't control your own emotional response (please say you're not going to argue that!) that seems to cover it.

I strive to control my own emotional response, most of the time I can.

The very fact you have decided to do that has been shaped by others. If you were subjected to difference agents of socialisation you would be a different person.

that depends on your view of socialization and human nature, may I recommend a book (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518)?

I strive to control my own emotional response, most of the time I can.

Your desire to control your own emotional response has been created by external influences - your enviroment.

Your desire to control your own emotional response has been created by external influences - your enviroment.

I can agree with that. My need to control, my drive to control, my emotional response is due to my prior environment and my poor reactions to it.

that depends on your view of socialization and human nature, may I recommend a book (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518)?

Oh, I make no claims that an "infant's mind is a blank state" there's no real movement towards that idea. We can see through language and learning tendencies that there is a certain amount of hard-wiring. But primary and secondary socialisation is massively - and undeniably - important in influencing our value systems.

I can agree with that. My need to control, my drive to control, my emotional response is due to my prior environment and my poor reactions to it.

Now this is what I'm getting at. Even something as seemingly contradictory as a desire to take personal responsibility is shaped by external factors. Now, the decision to work hard and gain skills is a great one and will give you an advantage but you wouldn't have just 'decided' to do that on your own. "No man is an island" and all of that.

I gave an earlier example about how I work in television/film and meet white/jewish men to a disproportionate degree. In that business the things that get you ahead are passion, hard work and talent. The three things the "poor are poor because they are lazy" brigade say gets you ahead in life generally. However, these guys didn't wake up one morning and decide to be passionate. A massive majority enjoyed an enviroment growing up in which passion and ambition were nurtured and encouraged. I feel confident that had they not had this I would be working with a completely different set of people.

It's important to realise decisions aren't made indipendent of everyone else. You will never have full control over yourself, so you exploit the good luck and minimise the bad luck that comes your way by having the determination and acquiring the skills needed.

that depends on your view of socialization and human nature, may I recommend a book (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518)?

of course, not being blank slates actually opens up the door to a huge pile more luck by moving tons of things outside of our control.

Luck is merely a chain of events outside of your notice that will affect you positively or negatively. Are they random? No, the seemingly small choices you made at various points led you to be there when the event occured.

Luck is merely a chain of events outside of your notice that will affect you positively or negatively. Are they random? No, the seemingly small choices you made at various points led you to be there when the event occured.

the choices that led you to be sitting at a specific table in a certain restaurant at a particular time don't cause the bus to hit you. that's sheer bad luck. and i'm not even going to get into the case of schrodinger's poor kitty cat...

Luck is unexplained variance.
"Luck is when an outcome outside of your control works to give you a favourable emotional response"
Fair enough.

So what are the implications from a public policy point of view?

Jello Biafra said we should minimise the positive outcome from good luck. In other words: outlaw lotteries, personal relationships and networking which may lead to the next generation having an easier time and force everyone to give back the dollar note they found on the street.

Doesn't seem practical, nor particularly fair to me. Since economics isn't a zero-sum game, you'd only be doing it to make other people feel less envious.

On the other side, there is the option of compensating people for their bad luck. Which may be fine if someone gets hit by a meteorite and ends up paralysed...but is being born to poor parents unlucky? And would that justify compensation? And who pays for it?

but is being born to poor parents unlucky? And would that justify compensation? And who pays for it?

Being born to poor parents would fall under that classification and can be adressed by government backed community initiatives, income support and increasing educational opportunities.

Whether you want to spend tax money on that is another matter.

Luck is on the side with the most artillery.

Luck is the result of our own choices, as you have observed. Our own preparedness, or lack thereof. Just as there is no such thing as coincidence, luck only has a place in the lives of those who do not feel that they are living a life of consequence.

Long story short: I agree with you. :)

No it isn't.

Luck, as Penn Gillette puts it, is "probability taken personally."

Like it or not, there is a lot that goes on that we can neither control nor prepare for. Even artillery cannot always overcome luck.

When the Mongols attacked Japan they had them severly, metaphoricly, outgunned. Luck was on the side of the Japanese, and the Mongols were wiped out by a storm.

Anyone who has ever made it big in business will tell you "to succeed you have to take chances."

What are those chances, and what determines if they'll pay off?

Luck.

If it was anything else, it wouldn't be called taking a chance. It would be called making an investment.

A lot of people seem to be completely ignoring the basic fact that while a lot of circumstances in a person’s life are attributed to ‘luck’, it usually takes a lot of hard work to get you to the point where you have the knowledge, experience, and plain gumption to take advantage of that opportunity.

Even just being in the right place at the right time isn't enough – you have to have the skills and abilities to take advantage of being there. Someone before mentioned a random meeting that got them teaching fencing – they would not have been able to do that had they not invested the time in learning that skill. It isn't always easy learning how to fence; you have to hone your haggling and appraising skills… ;)

Just because an unexpected event leads to an opportunity does not mean there was nothing more to it than luck if the person prospers from it.

A lot of people seem to be completely ignoring the basic fact that while a lot of circumstances in a person’s life are attributed to ‘luck’, it usually takes a lot of hard work to get you to the point where you have the knowledge, experience, and plain gumption to take advantage of that opportunity.


But often it is luck that someone was afforded the situation to gain that knowledge. Not luck as in co-incidence but luck as in the good fortune to be born into wealth.

On luck, determinism and free-will, some things must first be clarified.

Determinism would argue that (a) all events are causally determined and that (b) human actions are events like any other, therefore (c) human actions are determined. This is problematic - how do we know for a fact that premise (b) is in fact so? This is question-begging. It faces another problem. Hume identified this one. Cause-and-effect appear to us as such because of our own direct experience with how we act - it is antecedent to our understanding of cause and effect, which determinism is so very much dependent upon.

Determinism faces a few problems in addition to this. It is impossible to conceptualise moral responsibility if there is no choice in actions taken. So-called compatibilists argue, via tenuous means, that it can (by redefining how we use words such as "freedom"); they still, however, refuse to acknowledge an element of choice in actions, and therefore fail in their attempts. The only arguments in favour of assigning moral responsibility in determinism are utilitarian, which means we use praise and "dispraise" to mould one's future actions (which faces another problem - if past, present and future are determined, how can we change the future?).

The other issue with determinism is this: if someone dies in a horrible murder, one is left with two options - sheer pessimism and blind optimism. In the former case one will argue that this horrible murder was causally determined from the beginning of time, and is therefore an inherent part of the universe; this essentially means that if one is to blame anything for the murder, they must blame the universe itself. The other, sillier yet, view is the belief that rerum natura are such so as to give individuals a taste of evil, and therefore dissuade it from its path. They therefore would praise every action as a necessary and good part of the universe. Take your pick which is worse...

On these grounds I reject pure, hard determinism and soft determinism, its joke of a variant. As for luck, as in pure randomness, it too must be rejected. If free will is merely pure chance, actions cannot be said to be free in truth. A madman acts at random - how free would one say he is?

To me it would seem humans are able of starting chains of causation themselves, via their free will. This does not refute cause-and-effect; it merely challenges the premise that human actions are unlike any other. Man is now mover in addition to being moved. Luck, as far as I am concerned, does not exist as a concept in and of itself, much like nature is too mystical a word for what it describes. If anything, it is, to me, the differing outcomes depending on the choices individuals make. Philosophers like William James would argue that this itself is chance, luck, whatever you want to call it, but not in the conventional meaning of pure, senseless randomness.

Neither determinism nor free-will can tell us how we ought to act, beyond determinism's inability to cohede with a concept of moral responsibility.

the choices that led you to be sitting at a specific table in a certain restaurant at a particular time don't cause the bus to hit you. that's sheer bad luck. and i'm not even going to get into the case of schrodinger's poor kitty cat...

No its not the direct cause but it certainly plays a role. Take the bus, had you forgot your keys to your car and had to go back inside to get them, the bus would have missed you by a minute or two.

Luck consists of those events that occur outside of one's perception that effect one's well-being.

It becomes an extremely tricky issue when we consider negligence.

No its not the direct cause but it certainly plays a role. Take the bus, had you forgot your keys to your car and had to go back inside to get them, the bus would have missed you by a minute or two.

Yes, but just because it's the effect of a previous action doesn't mean it's not a question of luck.

In the scenario you didn't know about the bus so although an action somewhere along the line was taken (putting your keys somewhere different than usual for example) it wasn't a question of skill or judgement but of luck that you weren't there at that point in time. As placing your keys somewhere differently has no effect on the probability of whether you'll get hit by a bus it is therefore not a factor in whether you were lucky or not.

And how do we tell the difference between luck and hardwork or skill?There isn't an algorithm for doing so, but in particular cases you can sometimes do so. When someone wins the lottery, that's pure luck. In cases where the line is blurrier, the effect of good luck would need to be reduced less.

That's an interesting idea. Why?

I'm actually trying to sort out what I think about this, I'm not just being an ass. Why would it be better to reduce the benefit from good luck, as opposed to reducing the harm from bad luck? (Assuming either one is possible, of course.)Well, I would say that the net effect is essentially the same as reducing the harm of bad luck, but the reason I like to think of it differently is because most people don't realize the effect that good luck has on their lives.
With that said, an example of what I'm talking about is the aforementioned lottery winnings. If you tax those heavily, you have reduced the benefit of the person's good luck. Of course, the question is - where does the tax money go? It benefits people who weren't lucky enough to win the lottery. So the net effect is the same, but the focus is on the good luck as opposed to the bad.

Jello Biafra said we should minimise the positive outcome from good luck. In other words: outlaw lotteries, personal relationships and networking which may lead to the next generation having an easier time and force everyone to give back the dollar note they found on the street.I said we should minimize good luck, not eliminate it. Taxing lottery winnings and inheritance heavily would go a long way toward this. I fully accept that some people will have good luck and others bad luck, and that this can't be totally eliminated.
I don't advocate a Harrison Bergeron type of thing, even if such a thing were logically possible.

On luck, determinism and free-will, some things must first be clarified.

Determinism would argue that (a) all events are causally determined and that (b) human actions are events like any other, therefore (c) human actions are determined. This is problematic - how do we know for a fact that premise (b) is in fact so? This is question-begging. It faces another problem. Hume identified this one. Cause-and-effect appear to us as such because of our own direct experience with how we act - it is antecedent to our understanding of cause and effect, which determinism is so very much dependent upon.

Determinism faces a few problems in addition to this. It is impossible to conceptualise moral responsibility if there is no choice in actions taken. So-called compatibilists argue, via tenuous means, that it can (by redefining how we use words such as "freedom"); they still, however, refuse to acknowledge an element of choice in actions, and therefore fail in their attempts. The only arguments in favour of assigning moral responsibility in determinism are utilitarian, which means we use praise and "dispraise" to mould one's future actions (which faces another problem - if past, present and future are determined, how can we change the future?).

The other issue with determinism is this: if someone dies in a horrible murder, one is left with two options - sheer pessimism and blind optimism. In the former case one will argue that this horrible murder was causally determined from the beginning of time, and is therefore an inherent part of the universe; this essentially means that if one is to blame anything for the murder, they must blame the universe itself. The other, sillier yet, view is the belief that rerum natura are such so as to give individuals a taste of evil, and therefore dissuade it from its path. They therefore would praise every action as a necessary and good part of the universe. Take your pick which is worse...

On these grounds I reject pure, hard determinism and soft determinism, its joke of a variant. As for luck, as in pure randomness, it too must be rejected. If free will is merely pure chance, actions cannot be said to be free in truth. A madman acts at random - how free would one say he is?

To me it would seem humans are able of starting chains of causation themselves, via their free will. This does not refute cause-and-effect; it merely challenges the premise that human actions are unlike any other. Man is now mover in addition to being moved. Luck, as far as I am concerned, does not exist as a concept in and of itself, much like nature is too mystical a word for what it describes. If anything, it is, to me, the differing outcomes depending on the choices individuals make. Philosophers like William James would argue that this itself is chance, luck, whatever you want to call it, but not in the conventional meaning of pure, senseless randomness.

Neither determinism nor free-will can tell us how we ought to act, beyond determinism's inability to cohede with a concept of moral responsibility.I think you're confusing determinism with predeterminism. Determinism happens in the moment.
Furthermore, even if human actions aren't merely events, it still leaves a lot of events that are outside of human control.

I think you're confusing determinism with predeterminism. Determinism happens in the moment.
From what I know it goes all the way back into the past and moves all the way into the future.

From Wiki

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No wholly random, spontaneous, mysterious, or miraculous events occur, according to this philosophy.


It would therefore seem to involve all events. It is not implicit in determinism that one has no influence over future events, but with no choice in the matter, this makes absolutely no sense - else the future is simply not determined.

Furthermore, even if human actions aren't merely events, it still leaves a lot of events that are outside of human control.
I don't doubt that, given how much we interact with one another; but this itself does not constitute a denial of free-will.

From what I know it goes all the way back into the past and moves all the way into the future.

From Wiki



It would therefore seem to involve all events. It is not implicit in determinism that one has no influence over future events, but with no choice in the matter, this makes absolutely no sense - else the future is simply not determined.Sure it is, it is determined by the things that people have done before it.

I don't doubt that, given how much we interact with one another; but this itself does not constitute a denial of free-will.No, but it shows that the amount of free will that we can have is much lower than what some people think.

Sure it is, it is determined by the things that people have done before it.
Determinism wholly rejects the notion of free-will and choice; it does not simply state that current actions were influenced by prior events. It treats humans as biological machines, to put it simply, devoid of a capacity to initiate a chain of causation themselves. For instance, a person who is told to move their hand to prove their free-will could said to be responding to an external stimulus according to determinism. How would such a being possibly mould the future in a meaningful sense?

No, but it shows that the amount of free will that we can have is much lower than what some people think.
How much lower it truly is depends on how determined things really are. I think individuals have enough free-will to influence their lives.

Determinism wholly rejects the notion of free-will and choice; it does not simply state that current actions were influenced by prior events. It treats humans as biological machines, to put it simply, devoid of a capacity to initiate a chain of causation themselves. For instance, a person who is told to move their hand to prove their free-will could said to be responding to an external stimulus according to determinism. How would such a being possibly mould the future in a meaningful sense? Wouldn't the knowledge that the future could turn out one way be an external stimulus?

How much lower it truly is depends on how determined things really are. I think individuals have enough free-will to influence their lives.I'm fine with the idea that individuals have enough free-will to influence their lives, but I do not believe that they have total or even most of the control over their lives.

Economically speaking, people try to maximize satisfaction in accord with their resources and preferences, but can they choose their preferences?

Wouldn't the knowledge that the future could turn out one way be an external stimulus?
It could be, but the problem is if everything is involved in an unbroken chain of causation, how is it possible that the future be exempt? Look at it this way - if you cannot make choices at the present, how will alternate futures be possible? I am certain a few determinists will try and wriggle themselves out of this spot, but it raises the question as to whether even utilitarian concepts of praise and blame are possible under the philosophy. This doesn't challenge determinism's logical consistency on the whole though; merely the issue of influencing the future.

I'm fine with the idea that individuals have enough free-will to influence their lives, but I do not believe that they have total or even most of the control over their lives.
I haven't heard of a free-will advocate who would go that far (although I am sure philosophy is more than open to such extremism).

One big question that's come up in another thread again, and that's been bugging me for a while.

Most people would agree that "luck" plays a part in determining one's success in life, both in economic terms and in everything else.

I'm not sure everyone would agree though on what exactly "luck" is.

I hate the idea of stuff being outside my control. I think that a person's lot in life can largely be traced back to individual choices made. And to that extent I consider "luck" to be little more than the positive results of well-made choices.

If someone is rich, and people say "Oh, he was lucky.", then I generally think that the luck part was simply having been able to put oneself in the right place at the right time to take advantage of whatever came along. And likewise, if someone says they were unlucky in life, that means that the person was unable to see and grasp the opportunities that came along.

In line with my rejection of determinism (and the fatalism it brings with it), I therefore think that everyone gets opportunities in life, but not everyone takes advantage of them. And in that sense, everyone has the same amount of "luck" in life.

You were doing fine up till this point.....
Everybody has "Luck" as you put it.

But the odds are not the same for everyone.

If both my parents have a gene for cystic fibrosis I have a 1 in 4 chance of having it....

I could be lucky and not get both copies.. I may even be lucky enough to get neither nad have no chance of passing it on to my children.

But I most definitely don't have the same chance of doing so as a child who comes from parents neither of whom have the faulty genes.

Its much the same as a child from a poor family.They most certainly can be successful if they work hard. But are their chances the same as a child from a rich parent. The answer is no. Yes they both have a chance.. but they don't have the SAME chance.

Is that any reason to just give up because you have a low chance of success... most certainly not.

The problem is that in order to get ahead if you are poor already you will probably have to take greater risks. Greater risks result in greater numbers of failures.


Now, that's not the traditional meaning of the word though, is it. Luck often means things that are outside our control. One thing might just be whether you happen to be born the daughter of a hotel tycoon. Another thing might be a lightning striking you, or even a drunk driver running you over.

But if we accept that...are some people just unlucky? Are some people doomed to be poor? Would it be right to compensate them for their unluckiness?

What is luck, and how does it fit into your system of thought?
I don't think some people are naturally more unlucky in this sense.. but some people do have greater hurdles to overcome than others. I believe in trying to make the number and size of hurdles for people more equal. That way if you do work hard and really push yourself you are likely to succeed.

I would rather see 100 people succeed than one person exceed.

I believe that you should be able to make your own luck.. but I believe that people shouldn't need an absolutely enormous amount of luck just to be able to get by...

And others should actually need some luck .. they should need to put in some effort to succeed. I don't believe its healthy at either extreme.... How many messed up kids of excessively rich parents do you see...

I don't think some people are naturally more unlucky in this sense.. but some people do have greater hurdles to overcome than others. I believe in trying to make the number and size of hurdles for people more equal. That way if you do work hard and really push yourself you are likely to succeed.
So you would argue that some people have it harder than others, but you wouldn't call those people "unlucky"?

Look, I believe there are many things in this world of ours that can improve the odds of people succeeding. But I also see that quite a few of these options would be gross infringements on people's freedom.

You may argue that it would be fairer to distribute Mr. Hilton's inheritance to many people, but ultimately it wasn't you or me who made that inheritance in the first place, it was Mr. Hilton. And as such I firmly believe that it is up to Mr. Hilton to decide what happens to it.

So I'm all in favour of measures who make it easier on poor people, without infringing the freedom and lives of those who aren't poor (or indeed other poor people). Which makes for a rather narrow field of options, I guess.

It could be, but the problem is if everything is involved in an unbroken chain of causation, how is it possible that the future be exempt? Look at it this way - if you cannot make choices at the present, how will alternate futures be possible? I am certain a few determinists will try and wriggle themselves out of this spot, but it raises the question as to whether even utilitarian concepts of praise and blame are possible under the philosophy. This doesn't challenge determinism's logical consistency on the whole though; merely the issue of influencing the future.Alternate futures are possible because, as I said, determinism occurs in the moment. The knowledge that the future might turn out one way changes what happens in the next moment.

I haven't heard of a free-will advocate who would go that far (although I am sure philosophy is more than open to such extremism).How far do such advocates go?

You may argue that it would be fairer to distribute Mr. Hilton's inheritance to many people, but ultimately it wasn't you or me who made that inheritance in the first place, it was Mr. Hilton. ...as well as events that were outside of Mr. Hilton's control, which we call good luck, since they affected him positively.

...as well as events that were outside of Mr. Hilton's control, which we call good luck, since they affected him positively.
Yes. Though I am still not convinced that we should somehow limit or minimise the effects of good luck on people. It just seems such a vile thing to do, since it won't help anyone, but it would certainly hurt them.

Determinism wholly rejects the notion of free-will and choice; it does not simply state that current actions were influenced by prior events. It treats humans as biological machines, to put it simply, devoid of a capacity to initiate a chain of causation themselves.

So?

The question of free will is simply: do my choices and preferences cause my actions? Determinism does not preclude that.

Fate does, but fate says something else - that some EXTERNAL FORCE (not you) decides what will happen to you and how you will go about life. That is incompatible with free will, because it eliminates the role of choice. Determinism isn't, because it doesn't.

Yes. Though I am still not convinced that we should somehow limit or minimise the effects of good luck on people. It just seems such a vile thing to do, since it won't help anyone, but it would certainly hurt them.If you tax Mr. Hilton and then use the money for educational opportunities, it would help them.

Alternate futures are possible because, as I said, determinism occurs in the moment. The knowledge that the future might turn out one way changes what happens in the next moment.

Doesn't work. The fact that you will have knowledge of the future is determined as well, and incorporated into the model of the future you discover.

Predetermination is the logical consequence of determinism.

If you tax Mr. Hilton and then use the money for educational opportunities, it would help them.
The problem of course being that education isn't a simple consumption good. Some kids (the "lucky" ones?) get good marks even at very bad schools, and some kids get bad marks at very good schools. And again, there's both an element of hard work in there, and perhaps an element of luck.

See, introducing luck into the equation just screws up so many little things in my train of thought (and I'm sure it's the same for many others if they're honest with themselves) that I feel like I need that issue sorted out.

So you would argue that some people have it harder than others, but you wouldn't call those people "unlucky"?

Look, I believe there are many things in this world of ours that can improve the odds of people succeeding. But I also see that quite a few of these options would be gross infringements on people's freedom.

You may argue that it would be fairer to distribute Mr. Hilton's inheritance to many people, but ultimately it wasn't you or me who made that inheritance in the first place, it was Mr. Hilton. And as such I firmly believe that it is up to Mr. Hilton to decide what happens to it.

So I'm all in favour of measures who make it easier on poor people, without infringing the freedom and lives of those who aren't poor (or indeed other poor people). Which makes for a rather narrow field of options, I guess.

yeah I guess thats where you and me differ. I can see that Mr Hilton made an enormous amount of money by exploiting others.. I see no reason for him to keep all of it. He doesn't need all of it. I have no problem with being wealthy.... its the absolutely obscene wealth disparity that I have a problem with. I wouldn't mind in the slightest is everybody remained at exactly the same ranking of income and wealth if the levels were brought closer together.
I am all for Mr Hilton living a lavish life..

but there reaches a point where that welath ceases to mean anything to the person who acquires it.. but means a great deal to those whom they are depriving it.

So?

The question of free will is simply: do my choices and preferences cause my actions? Determinism does not preclude that.

Fate does, but fate says something else - that some EXTERNAL FORCE (not you) decides what will happen to you and how you will go about life. That is incompatible with free will, because it eliminates the role of choice. Determinism isn't, because it doesn't.
Fate has nothing, however, to do with luck.

Determinism eliminates luck, IMO. You may have good or bad fortune, but it wasn't lucky or unlucky, because it was going to happen anyway. Key to luck is its random nature.

In a way, luck is free will - it's the "free will" of agencies outside of your control. Even an electron has free will; it may have an influence upon you as an external force, which has absolutely nothing to do with what you've done.

Doesn't work. The fact that you will have knowledge of the future is determined as well, and incorporated into the model of the future you discover.

Predetermination is the logical consequence of determinism.Oh, I see what Europa Maxima means now. Should've gotten that before, though, thanks.

The problem of course being that education isn't a simple consumption good. Some kids (the "lucky" ones?) get good marks even at very bad schools, and some kids get bad marks at very good schools. And again, there's both an element of hard work in there, and perhaps an element of luck.

See, introducing luck into the equation just screws up so many little things in my train of thought (and I'm sure it's the same for many others if they're honest with themselves) that I feel like I need that issue sorted out.Actually, the more obvious example of luck is that some kids are going to good schools, and some are going to bad schools, especially for elementary/primary schools, which totally depends on where their parents live.

(Also, the grade that a student receives doesn't necessarily reflect hard work, but I think that's better tied into a discussion of whether or not schools grade as well as they could.)

Yes. Though I am still not convinced that we should somehow limit or minimise the effects of good luck on people. It just seems such a vile thing to do, since it won't help anyone, but it would certainly hurt them.

imagine a situation where political power was mainly distributed by accident of birth. would it be unjust to stop that? why or why not?

Determinism eliminates luck, IMO.

No, it doesn't.

The result of a dice roll is perfectly predictable if we are aware beforehand of all the factors that will influence it, but as long as we do not, any connection between our guess as to what the result will be and the actual result is one of luck.

So you would argue that some people have it harder than others, but you wouldn't call those people "unlucky"?

I would. Luck isn't a causal force, its a way of decribing the outcomes of random chance. If something "good" happens its luck. If the its "bad" its unlucky. However, talking about it as if it is causal force makes it easier to talk about. Its like talking about genes as if they want to replicate and are selfish. Genes don't have motivations but talking as if they do can make it easier to talk about them.

Look, I believe there are many things in this world of ours that can improve the odds of people succeeding. But I also see that quite a few of these options would be gross infringements on people's freedom.

You may argue that it would be fairer to distribute Mr. Hilton's inheritance to many people, but ultimately it wasn't you or me who made that inheritance in the first place, it was Mr. Hilton. And as such I firmly believe that it is up to Mr. Hilton to decide what happens to it.

Taxing inheritences could lead to smaller income taxes. Smaller income taxes is better, in my opinion, than having higher income taxes and no inheritance tax.

So I'm all in favour of measures who make it easier on poor people, without infringing the freedom and lives of those who aren't poor (or indeed other poor people). Which makes for a rather narrow field of options, I guess.

What measures would that leave? Any taxes infringe on the freedom's of others a bit. You have advocated some, if relatively small, taxation. Why tax at all?

Yes. Though I am still not convinced that we should somehow limit or minimise the effects of good luck on people. It just seems such a vile thing to do, since it won't help anyone, but it would certainly hurt them.

I think that minimizing bad luck is much better than trying to minimize good luck, but I can see it being a good thing in a few instances.

The problem of course being that education isn't a simple consumption good. Some kids (the "lucky" ones?) get good marks even at very bad schools, and some kids get bad marks at very good schools. And again, there's both an element of hard work in there, and perhaps an element of luck.

See, introducing luck into the equation just screws up so many little things in my train of thought (and I'm sure it's the same for many others if they're honest with themselves) that I feel like I need that issue sorted out.

The students that do well in bad schools are lucky. They had parents involved in helping their education, some internal drive to work hard, or both.

It screws up a lot because reality is very complex and rarely simple. We can choose different trade-offs to maximise utility in accord with our preferences, but we don't usually choose our preferences.

imagine a situation where political power was mainly distributed by accident of birth. would it be unjust to stop that? why or why not?
If I answered, we'd just come back to the same old story about whether or not being rich denotes exploitation.

Taxing inheritences could lead to smaller income taxes. Smaller income taxes is better, in my opinion, than having higher income taxes and no inheritance tax.
Governments don't have the tendency to trade the two off though. Firstly I doubt that the proportion of total government income taken in by inheritance taxes is really all that big, and secondly they'd always find a reason to just spend the extra money without giving anything back.

What measures would that leave? Any taxes infringe on the freedom's of others a bit. You have advocated some, if relatively small, taxation. Why tax at all?
Precisely because of "luck", I suppose. I am a fan of personal responsibility and personal achievement. And yet, there are things that influence your reward that don't fall within those two areas.

There are basically two things I would want a government to do. Firstly, the utilitarian considerations of providing security and some level of environmental protection (ie, create markets where there are none but they would be desirable).

And secondly, try to provide equal opportunity at the start of someone's career as much as possible. That includes quality education, to some extent proper healthcare and the like. I don't believe that the government can actually run these things itself at anywhere near the level of efficiency that the market can, but it does have the scope to allow people who would otherwise be excluded from these markets to participate (eg school vouchers).

I think the big thing that's been said a few times when it comes to poverty being handed down to the next generation is that it all depends on the parents. Being poor doesn't mean that your kids will be poor if you do your job as parents, and instill the sort of values and interests that will lead to success.

It's obvious that many people (not only poor people, but it usually hurts less in the case of rich kids) fail to do that. Ideally I would want to see some sort of action that could make that failure disappear. Whether it's charity (which would probably have to be initiated on a grander scale by some sort of government marketing campaign) or something else, I don't know.

I'd say it's more that the benefit from good luck should be reduced.

I honestly don't see any problem with removing the benefit of good luck.

A maxim by Publilius Syrus:

If you pray a thing may
And it does come your way
'Tis a long way from being your own.

I personally believe we should make an emphasis on removing all luck.

EDIT: If you luck into some benefit, it does not mean you deserve it. The obvious problem being, who does deserve the benefit?

.Governments don't have the tendency to trade the two off though. Firstly I doubt that the proportion of total government income taken in by inheritance taxes is really all that big, and secondly they'd always find a reason to just spend the extra money without giving anything back.

Probably true.

Precisely because of "luck", I suppose. I am a fan of personal responsibility and personal achievement. And yet, there are things that influence your reward that don't fall within those two areas.

We could always count inheritance's as income. You find taxtion to be acceptable so taxing inheritances as part of income would be no more infringement on freedom than regular income taxes.

And secondly, try to provide equal opportunity at the start of someone's career as much as possible. That includes quality education, to some extent proper healthcare and the like. I don't believe that the government can actually run these things itself at anywhere near the level of efficiency that the market can, but it does have the scope to allow people who would otherwise be excluded from these markets to participate (eg school vouchers).

Sounds good to me.

I think the big thing that's been said a few times when it comes to poverty being handed down to the next generation is that it all depends on the parents. Being poor doesn't mean that your kids will be poor if you do your job as parents, and instill the sort of values and interests that will lead to success.

Yep. The problem is that you can't pick your parents.

It's obvious that many people (not only poor people, but it usually hurts less in the case of rich kids) fail to do that. Ideally I would want to see some sort of action that could make that failure disappear. Whether it's charity (which would probably have to be initiated on a grander scale by some sort of government marketing campaign) or something else, I don't know.

I don't think it'll disappear unless only the "good" parents have children.

everyone has the same odds, there are no people with better odds or worse odds (good luck or bad luck)

that is a weird use of the term

It is not entirely off (I actually kind of like it), can the acceptance of a risk with good odds but turns out bad be considered bad luck?

Determinism isn't, because it doesn't.
Determinism recognises both external and internal causes of things. Now, if something is externally caused, and your preferences are nothing but internal causes, how is there possibly an element of choice? These external causes are precisely the force you spoke of, except that they are not caused by some other higher being, just the "laws" of nature. To be able to choose between preferences that are causally determined, you must have an element of choice. If you are causally determined to always make a certain choice, the word becomes a contradiction - is free-will still possible? This would lead to a "block universe".

Now, if determinism allowed the existence of several distinct possibilities, and the future were to be malleable, it would not preclude an element of choice (I do not see then how it would contradict what certain free-will advocates argue - introduce choice, and moral responsibility makes a return). However, why then do certain compatibilists constantly claim that to say one could have done otherwise, in the sense that a china plate falling from a certain height doesn't break, yet falling from a greater height it does otherwise (ie breaks)? It amounts to saying one could have done otherwise, yet they wouldn't have, in a given set of conditions. The plate cannot choose to fall from a greater height.

How far do such advocates go?
No more than saying that man can be the cause of events. He remains influenced by external and internal events, but can still make choices and initiate actions of his volition.

And secondly, try to provide equal opportunity at the start of someone's career as much as possible.


Personally, I think it's a mistake to say that opportunities at the beginning may be different, but then the rest is down to you. What about stuff like not being intelligent enough to be successful, not being aggressive or articulate enough, or just being the kind of guy that always gets screwed over? You wouldn't expect an autistic, for example, to have a successful career. I know that's extreme, but these things come in shades of grey, and there will always be those of us less to adapted to thriving in society. Is it morally right that people be punished for this with a less satisfying life? I'm not suggesting a 'from each according to his abilities' approach here, but I would expect government to do all it could to reduce this dilemma.

I would think that inheritance tax is less damaging to the economy than income tax. You have to be allowed to keep some proportion of the money you earn to give you an incentive to do something the rest of society wants you to. If you have your whole life to enjoy your money, that's surely incentive enough. With inheritance, the money is enjoyed by someone who didn't earn it; it's useless money, in the sense that its enjoyment by one person dosen't do anything for anyone else.

I think I am going to ask you to define free-will as you see it before I proceed any further.

I haven't read your whole debate, but maybe I could suggest that free will and determinism are two different social/ethica/psychological models that are both valuable, maybe a little bit analogous to the scientific models of Newtonian gravity and general relativity. Determinism is essentially the right one, since all the scientific evidence so far points our actions being determined by physical effects in our brains, and it's the one we have to consider for profound ethical dilemmas. But on the other hand, it's impossible to live your life like a determinist, with no sense of personal responsibility, so the free will model is the one you use for simpler problems, ie. it takes the role of Newton's theory.

I haven't read your whole debate, but maybe I could suggest that free will and determinism are two different social/ethica/psychological models that are both valuable, maybe a little bit analogous to the scientific models of Newtonian gravity and general relativity.
What of micro-indeterminism then? Quantum physics has outlined that certain events occur at random.

Determinism is essentially the right one, since all the scientific evidence so far points our actions being determined by physical effects in our brains, and it's the one we have to consider for profound ethical dilemmas.
That doesn't eliminate a possibility of choice, does it? How do you know that it is not your choice that is the cause of the cerebral activity?

If I answered, we'd just come back to the same old story about whether or not being rich denotes exploitation.

not necessarily. we have a number of goods that are distributed mainly by accident of birth - in what cases is it good that this be so and why?

I honestly don't see any problem with removing the benefit of good luck.

A maxim by Publilius Syrus:

If you pray a thing may
And it does come your way
'Tis a long way from being your own.

I personally believe we should make an emphasis on removing all luck.

EDIT: If you luck into some benefit, it does not mean you deserve it. The obvious problem being, who does deserve the benefit?I don't have a problem, personally, with the idea of removing most luck, but not all of it. If someone is lucky enough to be born better looking, would you remove that
It is not entirely off (I actually kind of like it), can the acceptance of a risk with good odds but turns out bad be considered bad luck?I would say so, yes.

No more than saying that man can be the cause of events. He remains influenced by external and internal events, but can still make choices and initiate actions of his volition.Ah, fair enough. It seemed to me that free will advocates usually minimize the effect of determinism; if they recognize that it limits the amount of free will you can have, then that's fine with me.

Ah, fair enough. It seemed to me that free will advocates usually minimize the effect of determinism; if they recognize that it limits the amount of free will you can have, then that's fine with me.
It would depend on the philosopher ; the ones I have read through so far focus more on the actual premises of determinism (e.g. cause-and-effect) than the degrees to which it exists. Some, such as William James, were arguing against so-called block universe determinism. My reading on the matter for the moment is limited, and will remain so until I have more time, so if you're interested in the subject I'd suggest you explored it a bit.

It is not entirely off (I actually kind of like it), can the acceptance of a risk with good odds but turns out bad be considered bad luck?

thanks for defending me, I knew what I said must have made sense to someone.

I am with Penn though
"luck is probability taken personally" which is basically what I meant to convey

I don't have a problem, personally, with the idea of removing most luck, but not all of it. If someone is lucky enough to be born better looking, would you remove that

I would not alter his appearance, I would alter those social factors that make his appearance lucky.

I would say so, yes.

Read my reply to Smunkee, I will kind of explain there.

I would not alter his appearance, I would alter those social factors that make his appearance lucky.

You'd ban people finding attractive people attractive?

thanks for defending me, I knew what I said must have made sense to someone.

I am with Penn though
"luck is probability taken personally" which is basically what I meant to convey

It struck a chord with me because I am a student of poker.

When I play poker, I can give you reasonably close pot odds and percentages that the card I need will be flipped up. I play my hand very mathematically to avoid any instance of luck, as the closer you play to the probability the better you will do.

A key to this is to set your thinking right. One must realize that every player and every hand maintains the same set of probabilities, and that winning and losing is not a matter of bad luck or good luck, but a matter of those set probabilities playing themselves out.

If you maintain this objective view of luck and probability, then you will avoid much of the emotional reaction we assign to bad luck or good luck and normalize your risk taking.

I think the same goes for just about any decision (and this is what you were getting at) objectively, there is no luck. We accept risks and the probabilities play out accordingly, and it is not luck that they do.

You'd ban people finding attractive people attractive?

I would hope for a society where being attractive was no social or economic windfall.

I realize that it is not possible to undo luck altogether, but luck would be the absense of merit, and merit is big in my book.

(Which is very strange for a determinist, I have some resolution to undertake.)

I would hope for a society where being attractive was no social or economic windfall.
You mean in a society of automatons. It will always have, at the very least, a social windfall. So long as humans value attractiveness, at any rate - unless you were to remove their sexual urges altogether, or significantly suppress them.

You mean in a society of automatons. It will always have, at the very least, a social windfall. So long as humans value attractiveness, at any rate - unless you were to remove their sexual urges altogether, or significantly suppress them.

What cannot be helped cannot be helped.

But it is a sad commentary that tall people on average earn more money than their shorter coworkers.

But it is a sad commentary that tall people on average earn more money than their shorter coworkers.
If the employee is dealing with individuals outside of the firm, keep in mind their looks and social skills come into play alongside their mental faculties; the same cannot be said of individuals who don't. So, you, as a good future employer, may base your employment choices solely on your rationality, and reap the benefits of doing so. That may still involve including looks in evaluating the prospective employee.

What about stuff like not being intelligent enough to be successful, not being aggressive or articulate enough, or just being the kind of guy that always gets screwed over?
I prefer to believe in the good in people. Everyone has success within them, they just need to unlock it.

Mental disabilities like autism will make that so much harder, I agree, and at some point I guess charity needs to take over (as it could in any other case of people being at rock bottom).

But rather than provide people with a viable economic alternative to not succeeding (which successful people likely end up paying for), we should be hoping to build a system in which success is rewarded and failure is undesirable.

not necessarily. we have a number of goods that are distributed mainly by accident of birth - in what cases is it good that this be so and why?
What in particular are you thinking of?

Luck is what we call anything that happens to us as a result of the cause being outside of our control.

It would depend on the philosopher ; the ones I have read through so far focus more on the actual premises of determinism (e.g. cause-and-effect) than the degrees to which it exists. Some, such as William James, were arguing against so-called block universe determinism. My reading on the matter for the moment is limited, and will remain so until I have more time, so if you're interested in the subject I'd suggest you explored it a bit.Okay, thanks. If I think about it and have some time, I'll probably do so.

I would not alter his appearance, I would alter those social factors that make his appearance lucky.How might you go about doing so?

We accept risks and the probabilities play out accordingly, and it is not luck that they do.I would say that this is exactly what luck is.

No, it doesn't.

The result of a dice roll is perfectly predictable if we are aware beforehand of all the factors that will influence it, but as long as we do not, any connection between our guess as to what the result will be and the actual result is one of luck.
A good die roll is not very easy to predict even with fairly precisely measured initial conditions. The interaction of the die with its surroundings is fairly chaotic.

And then there are truly and completely random bits. Uncertainty and chaos propagate through time and add up to the fact that we can't predict the future with great precision. Determinism took a severe body blow when scientists learned that predictability is fundamentally only a function of statistics. You have to appeal to a special and otherwise impossible divine ability to know the unknowable in order to use determinism.

While I agree that not having reason to know is what makes your guess lucky when it's right, I say that if it's all fated, then it's not really lucky in the absolute sense. It may be locally "lucky," i.e., from your perspective, as I discussed earlier, but it won't be globally lucky. If life is deterministic, luck isn't lucky; it was fated. Meant to be, because God knew it would happen.

Traditionally, determinism has led to a sort of fatalism; those with poor "luck" must have deserved it. Those with good "luck" must have deserved it. That, for the now, the past, or for something they would do in the future, or for simply who they are. That's not lucky; that's a grand scheme, determinism.

Traditionally, determinism has led to a sort of fatalism; those with poor "luck" must have deserved it. Those with good "luck" must have deserved it. That, for the now, the past, or for something they would do in the future, or for simply who they are. That's not lucky; that's a grand scheme, determinism.
Determinism as such - and especially block universe determinism - is incompatible with the notion of deserving praise or blame, given that it makes no sense to blame one for actions they did not choose to commit. This is the reason it attracts so much attention. Wouldn't it be horribly inconsistent of its adherents to then claim that one deserves something in such a universe?

Just to jump in at the end here:

Luck is the impact of random chance on the observer.

What of micro-indeterminism then? Quantum physics has outlined that certain events occur at random.


That doesn't eliminate a possibility of choice, does it? How do you know that it is not your choice that is the cause of the cerebral activity?

I think we're mixing up two different kinds of determinism here. The first is 19th century style clockwork determinism, which did indeed go out the windo with quantum mechanics, but I wouldn't say that's very relevant to this debate. The other is the notion that our actions and thoughts arise purely as a result physical interactions entirely describable on a microscopic level in terms of impersonal rules. I wouldn't think there are many times when the macroscopic effects of your thoughts and actions depend on the quantum states of a few particles, but even they are that has nothing to do with free will; quantum physics is completely random...'you' didn't choose anything.

And I think there are plenty of examples of times our thought processes are changed by something that clearly wasn't our choice. The simplest example is the effect of alcohol or drugs, but you also have stuff like the guy who became a paedophile because of a brain tumour, and was cured when it was removed. Scientifically speaking, when we see physical effects in our brain precluding our actions or thoughts, the hypothesis that these are in turn guided by some undefined extra-physical entity becomes unnecessary as long as there is no evidence for this.

Determinism as such - and especially block universe determinism - is incompatible with the notion of deserving praise or blame, given that it makes no sense to blame one for actions they did not choose to commit. This is the reason it attracts so much attention. Wouldn't it be horribly inconsistent of its adherents to then claim that one deserves something in such a universe?

Ah, but inconsistency is part of life. It's not that hard justify punishing undesirable behaviour in deterministically; the purpose of the punishment is to discourage future such actions. But all our language and intuition are geared towards a free will viewpoint, so it makes sense to use notions of blame and desert as a kind of shorthand for this concept. You just need to be careful not to take it too far.

I prefer to believe in the good in people. Everyone has success within them, they just need to unlock it.


I think we've hit the nub of the right/left division here; I would dispute that on so many levels. In particular, the implication that what is good is the same thing that will lead you to success. And are you arguing that apart from a couple of extreme cases, everyone is essentially equipped equally to become a success in life?


But rather than provide people with a viable economic alternative to not succeeding (which successful people likely end up paying for), we should be hoping to build a system in which success is rewarded and failure is undesirable.


We don't have to work very hard at that...it's the pretty much the definition of the word success that it rewards itself. However, the natural state of affairs is that failure is catastrophic, so undesirable is an improvement.

Determinism as such - and especially block universe determinism - is incompatible with the notion of deserving praise or blame, given that it makes no sense to blame one for actions they did not choose to commit. This is the reason it attracts so much attention. Wouldn't it be horribly inconsistent of its adherents to then claim that one deserves something in such a universe?
It's not inconsistent. You deserve praise because you're good, and you're good because you were fated to be good. All that means is that you were fated to deserve praise. It may seem a bit circular and empty, but it's not really inconsistent per se.

quantum physics is completely random...'you' didn't choose anything.
True, but is this not an example of physics in fact leading to indeterminism?

And I think there are plenty of examples of times our thought processes are changed by something that clearly wasn't our choice. The simplest example is the effect of alcohol or drugs, but you also have stuff like the guy who became a paedophile because of a brain tumour, and was cured when it was removed. Scientifically speaking, when we see physical effects in our brain precluding our actions or thoughts, the hypothesis that these are in turn guided by some undefined extra-physical entity becomes unnecessary as long as there is no evidence for this.
The problem with this is that the very notion of cause and effect come from our direct experience - we see two events, one being the "cause", the other the "effect". This naturally is prone to the post hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy. Even if one may say that certain internal compulsions exist by virtue of one's constitution (such as the examples you provided), this in no way proves it to be a universal rule. Science has the luxury of ignoring metaphysical concepts - philosophy does not. If a theory is yet-unproved, it can go in favour of either disputant - determinists assume that human actions are like any others, yet what is their conclusive proof for this?

Ah, but inconsistency is part of life. It's not that hard justify punishing undesirable behaviour in deterministically; the purpose of the punishment is to discourage future such actions. But all our language and intuition are geared towards a free will viewpoint, so it makes sense to use notions of blame and desert as a kind of shorthand for this concept. You just need to be careful not to take it too far.
That is a purely utilitarian viewpoint, akin to J. C. C. Smart's. He advocates the use of praise (and dispraise, as he calls it) in order to change how one acts in the future. This still says nothing of actually deserving the (dis)praise, and may run into serious issues if one comes to the realisation that by punishing a few innocents (who are for all purposes undeserving) that they may dissuade future tortfeasance.

Again, inconsistency is not a luxury philosophy - or philosophers - can afford, whatever the case may be for the public at large.

It's not inconsistent. You deserve praise because you're good, and you're good because you were fated to be good. All that means is that you were fated to deserve praise. It may seem a bit circular and empty, but it's not really inconsistent per se.
I find that hard to swallow - you deserve something merely because you were fated to be of a certain nature? It would be akin to saying you deserve praise simply for being intelligent, not for putting your intelligence to use. In what sense then do you deserve it, since you didn't earn it?

luck is beating the odds.

luck there are countless outcomes to a situation and one in you favour happens.

EDIT: what mean is probability.

I find that hard to swallow - you deserve something merely because you were fated to be of a certain nature? It would be akin to saying you deserve praise simply for being intelligent, not for putting your intelligence to use. In what sense then do you deserve it, since you didn't earn it?
Oh, but you earned it by being good. ^_^Just because it was known in advance that you would be good doesn't make you not-good. You chose to be good, after all. You were fated to choose to be good, of course, but you chose to be good. Same way you penalize people for being bad. You're supposed to lock up thieves; doesn't matter that they were fated to steal - since they were fated to be caught, too, the powers that be want you to lock them up for it.

After all, it's the "right thing to do." And if you're a good person, you'd be fated to praise and punish appropriately.

You're simply hung up on the standard that someone only deserves praise for doing something they otherwise wouldn't have done. Pshhht. Take classical conditioning - you praise (whether semi-randomly or consistently) even when you were pretty sure they'd do it if you want to stay sure they'll do it.

Oh, but you earned it by being good.
Now that just reeks of Calvinism. :)

You were fated to choose to be good, of course, but you chose to be good.
A choice presumes an alternative course of action. If you were fated to do something, there is no alternative. That would appear contradictory on part of the abovementioned position's proponents.

After all, it's the "right thing to do." And if you're a good person, you'd be fated to praise and punish appropriately.
Indeed - but wouldn't your motive for doing so be utilitarian? You praise or dispraise certain actions to encourage or disencourage them respectively. Which is fine prima facie, but where does leave the notion of moral responsibility? To use an analogy, it is as though you are blaming a tea cup for breaking when falling from a certain height - it is its nature. If a human's actions are no different to any others, why judge them by a different standard? I am not questioning the concepts of praise or blame themselves, merely the underlying motives behind them in a purely deterministic world. I think what you have in mind is something similar to Smart's argument, according to which praise means nothing more than grading something; for instance, as we grade apples. Essentially to treat individuals as objects in a way.

You're simply hung up on the standard that someone only deserves praise for doing something they otherwise wouldn't have done. Pshhht. Take classical conditioning - you praise (whether semi-randomly or consistently) even when you were pretty sure they'd do it if you want to stay sure they'll do it.
See above.

How might you go about doing so?

I have no idea.

I would say that this is exactly what luck is.

Then I would say that no one is "unlucky" as everyone is operating on the same set of probabilities. Probability does not pick sides.

True, but is this not an example of physics in fact leading to indeterminism?


Yes, but I don't think that's really what we're arguing about; we're arguing about whether consciousness arises from any set of fundamental physical laws, be they deterministic or not.


Science has the luxury of ignoring metaphysical concepts - philosophy does not. If a theory is yet-unproved, it can go in favour of either disputant - determinists assume that human actions are like any others, yet what is their conclusive proof for this?


We also assume that the actions of a washing machine are like any others; what is the proof of this? There isn't any, and we could indeed probably invent a whole new set of laws that applied only to washing machines. But of course that would be ridiculous when we have a set of laws that applies equally to everything. I would say that talking about an unproven truth is meaningless; the only truth is the theory that works best in helping us to understand the world and manipulate it. So if the brain seems to operate through physical laws, it does. If this metaphysical force has no observable effects, then it is utterly pointless to speculate about it and by any meaningful definition of the word it dosen't exist.

The same is true for causality. There is no proof that it isn't an illusion, and scientists may come up with a theory that dosen't feature any sort of 'arrow of time' (in fact a lot of scientists think there's quite a good chance of this eventually happening). But it is awfully useful in understanding how the world works, so in some sense it will always be true.

It's also for similar reasons that I don't think determinists should be forbidden from using words like 'choice' and 'deserve'. The concept of free will may not be scientifically useful, but it is certainly socially useful (you can't live like you're just a bundle chemicals), so in that sense it isn't entirely wrong.


This still says nothing of actually deserving the (dis)praise, and may run into serious issues if one comes to the realisation that by punishing a few innocents (who are for all purposes undeserving) that they may dissuade future tortfeasance.


So the question, more or less, is if you couldn't catch anyone for a crime would it be any more immoral to frame an innocent man and punish him in order to dissuade others? Hmmmm...yeah, that is a tricky one. I would say that covering up the man's innocence to the world is inherently immoral; I am generally a utilitarian but I don't subscribe to the 'ignorance is bliss' principle. That and the fact that he would probably suffer more than someone who was actually guilty. I'll also hedge my bets by pointing out it would be perfectly consistent to say that determinism is true and therefore there is no rational justification of morality.

To be able to choose between preferences that are causally determined, you must have an element of choice.

The idea of "choos between preferences" is incoherent.

How would I go about choosing between preferences? If I chose preference A over preference B, clearly I would PREFER preference A to preference B - and suddenly I have a preference behind my choice.

Every choice is based on preferences. All free will is based on preferences. A free choice is a choice that is based on OUR preferences, and is not compelled by an external force independent of our preferences. I don't see why determinism precludes that.

However, why then do certain compatibilists constantly claim that to say one could have done otherwise,

Of course one could have - if one's preferences had been different.

That is the essence of freedom. My choices are dependent on what I prefer. Yes, they are determined. They are determined by my preferences - by myself. I am free.

in the sense that a china plate falling from a certain height doesn't break, yet falling from a greater height it does otherwise (ie breaks)? It amounts to saying one could have done otherwise, yet they wouldn't have, in a given set of conditions. The plate cannot [I]choose to fall from a greater height.

Apples and oranges. The plate is caused to fall by external forces; its preferences (assuming a plate has preferences) are irrelevant.

I think we've hit the nub of the right/left division here; I would dispute that on so many levels. In particular, the implication that what is good is the same thing that will lead you to success.
Well, "good" on the least morally charged level I can think of is survival and improvement and extension of one's physical existence.

Capitalism is all about working and producing to do that.

Of course, if we get into the intricacies of different moralities, we can think of all sorts of things that might be called good but would not be rewarded by capitalism (eg inflicting pain on oneself to be closer to god). In that respect I'm enough of a relativist to know that apart from survival and the production of value, people can do whatever they want, but the system shouldn't be geared towards any particular type of "goodness" people came up with over the centuries.

I have no idea.Ah, okay. This is purely an ideal thing, then.

Then I would say that no one is "unlucky" as everyone is operating on the same set of probabilities. Probability does not pick sides.Neither does luck. But there are sides. Those who win have good luck. Those who lose have bad luck. Luck doesn't choose these people, but they exist.

In that respect I'm enough of a relativist to know that apart from survival and the production of value, people can do whatever they want, Why is the production of value important if you've already provided for survival?
What if somebody doesn't want to produce value?

Why is the production of value important if you've already provided for survival?
Well, you'll be unlikely to provide for survival unless some sort of value is produced in the first place.

But if you find people who'd be fine with only a certain amount of value and no more, I'd find enough kindness in my heart to let them live in their sort of society and not bother them. :p

The problem is if they want more than the bare minimum but are not ready to produce more than the bare minimum.

One big question that's come up in another thread again, and that's been bugging me for a while.

Most people would agree that "luck" plays a part in determining one's success in life, both in economic terms and in everything else.

I'm not sure everyone would agree though on what exactly "luck" is.

I hate the idea of stuff being outside my control. I think that a person's lot in life can largely be traced back to individual choices made. And to that extent I consider "luck" to be little more than the positive results of well-made choices.

If someone is rich, and people say "Oh, he was lucky.", then I generally think that the luck part was simply having been able to put oneself in the right place at the right time to take advantage of whatever came along. And likewise, if someone says they were unlucky in life, that means that the person was unable to see and grasp the opportunities that came along.

In line with my rejection of determinism (and the fatalism it brings with it), I therefore think that everyone gets opportunities in life, but not everyone takes advantage of them. And in that sense, everyone has the same amount of "luck" in life.

Now, that's not the traditional meaning of the word though, is it. Luck often means things that are outside our control. One thing might just be whether you happen to be born the daughter of a hotel tycoon. Another thing might be a lightning striking you, or even a drunk driver running you over.

But if we accept that...are some people just unlucky? Are some people doomed to be poor? Would it be right to compensate them for their unluckiness?

What is luck, and how does it fit into your system of thought?

For me, luck is indeed the ability to dive into whatever comes along that will benefit you. To jump into opportunities, so to speak. I see myself as a quite lucky person in life. I fail at some points(love, study), but I make more than make it up on other points (friends, experience, self-development). So for me I'd say it's quite good. Maybe that's also because I value the latter more than the former(about study: After more than 14 years of gibberish I tend to be quite sceptical about the value of education).

But anyway, I'm lucky to have friends and to have the opportunity to grow, experience, enjoy life and learn :)

The idea of "choos[ing] between preferences" is incoherent.
Substitute preferences for alternatives, then.

Every choice is based on preferences. All free will is based on preferences. A free choice is a choice that is based on OUR preferences, and is not compelled by an external force independent of our preferences. I don't see why determinism precludes that.
It doesn't, so long as it is acknowledged that you may choose between alternatives (and can always do so, when they arise).

Of course one could have - if one's preferences had been different.
See below.

That is the essence of freedom. My choices are dependent on what I prefer. Yes, they are determined. They are determined by my preferences - by myself. I am free.
If you determine your preferences, it is by an internal, mental action. That sounds a lot like free-will. Then the compatibilist arguments make sense. However, to say you could have done otherwise (as in a possibility, not the result of your own choice) is meaningless unless you are capable of actually doing otherwise, ie willing something and transforming that will into acts.

Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. That is, when one says that one could either continue to read this page or to delete it, one doesn't really mean that both choices are compatible with the complete state of the world right now, but rather that if one had desired to delete it one would have, even though as a matter of fact one actually desires to continue reading it, and therefore that is what will actually happen.

Hume also maintains that free acts are not uncaused (or mysteriously self-caused as Kant would have it) but rather caused by our choices as determined by our beliefs, desires, and by our characters. While a decision making process exists in Hume's determinism, this process is governed by a causal chain of events. For example, one may make the decision to support Wikipedia, but that decision is determined by the conditions that existed prior to the decision being made.

How does the bolded constitute a genuine preference? To say "if my preferences had been otherwise" means nothing if I have no say in the matter. It is still not choice, however much compatibilists may like to re-define the word "freedom".

Apples and oranges. The plate is caused to fall by external forces; its preferences (assuming a plate has preferences) are irrelevant.
Why should internal forces be any different? They are part of your constitution and moulded by interaction with your environment and others. Keep in mind, when I refer to internal forces (which do not include free-will) I mean those which compel, in a given set of conditions, to take a certain course of action, and give no alternative - . What is a human in this case but a glorified, fleshy automaton? Would you say a robot running on a program has preferences?

The same is true for causality. There is no proof that it isn't an illusion, and scientists may come up with a theory that dosen't feature any sort of 'arrow of time' (in fact a lot of scientists think there's quite a good chance of this eventually happening). But it is awfully useful in understanding how the world works, so in some sense it will always be true.
This is why I am somewhat confused as to why hard determinists reject one "illusion" yet accept another. Even if we say human actions are like any other, the free-will advocate might retort that we can feel that our actions are caused by ourselves. I would say both positions are weak. You see, our understanding of cause-and-effect is derived from the first "illusion" - that of free-will. What determinists are in effect doing is relying on a derived "illusion" whilst rejecting its basis.

It's also for similar reasons that I don't think determinists should be forbidden from using words like 'choice' and 'deserve'. The concept of free will may not be scientifically useful, but it is certainly socially useful (you can't live like you're just a bundle chemicals), so in that sense it isn't entirely wrong.
If we are determined in the manner hard determinists argue, we couldn't do otherwise anyway.

So the question, more or less, is if you couldn't catch anyone for a crime would it be any more immoral to frame an innocent man and punish him in order to dissuade others? Hmmmm...yeah, that is a tricky one. I would say that covering up the man's innocence to the world is inherently immoral; I am generally a utilitarian but I don't subscribe to the 'ignorance is bliss' principle. That and the fact that he would probably suffer more than someone who was actually guilty.
He probably would - but the argument in favour would run that the benefit might be far greater than the cost involved.

I'll also hedge my bets by pointing out it would be perfectly consistent to say that determinism is true and therefore there is no rational justification of morality.
Which is a problem of sorts when it comes to dealing with the abovementioned position.

what an odd thread. this is the first time i looked at it since it started.

skimming through it im amazed that no one knows what luck is.

as was quoted "luck is probability taken personally".

all luck is is the JUDGEMENT we make about the past.

think about it.

i flip a coin 4 times betting that it will turn up heads and 4 times it comes up heads. I HAVE GOOD LUCK. does that mean that i will flip heads next time? well no. there is no way to know what will happen next, i might flip 4 tails in a row and lose all my money....then i would have BAD LUCK.

you have good luck or bad luck only based on what has happened in the past. its a simple judgement call on how life is going. it has no effect or predictive value on what is going to happen in the future. my life is great now, im lucky. tomorrow a fire could burn my house down killing my family and i could wake up covered in boils. oops. then i would be unlucky.

as the stock come-on ads say "past performance is no guarantee of future results"

it has no effect or predictive value on what is going to happen in the future. my life is great now, im lucky. tomorrow a fire could burn my house down killing my family and i could wake up covered in boils. oops. then i would be unlucky.
Agreed. That is sort of why the whole debate of determinism vs free-will came into play. Luck is pretty much like nature - the assignment of a mystical nature to the laws of the universe; in this case to past events.

Substitute preferences for alternatives, then.

No, it amounts to the same thing.

Determined or not, we choose alternatives based on preferences. We are free.

What would you rather have? Choice based on randomness?

It doesn't, so long as it is acknowledged that you may choose between alternatives (and can always do so, when they arise).

Of course. And you can.

If you determine your preferences, it is by an internal, mental action. That sounds a lot like free-will. Then the compatibilist arguments make sense. However, to say you could have done otherwise (as in a possibility, not the result of your own choice) is meaningless unless you are capable of actually doing otherwise, ie willing something and transforming that will into acts.

And you are. I don't understand why this is so hard to see.

You do x. Had you preferred to do y, you could have done that, too.

The only thing stopping you from doing y is your own preferences - that is, your own free choice. You contemplate the action; you decide to do x instead of y. Thus you do not do y. That is hardly a violation of your freedom.

How does the bolded constitute a genuine preference? To say "if my preferences had been otherwise" means nothing if I have no say in the matter. It is still not choice, however much compatibilists may like to re-define the word "freedom".

What kind of say can I have in base preferences? This is not made impossible by determinism. This is made impossible by the nature of choice. I cannot make a free choice without preferences; any such "choice" would be arbitrary and random. Thus I must start with preferences I do not choose.

Why should internal forces be any different? They are part of your constitution and moulded by interaction with your environment and others.

So? They are YOU.

Keep in mind, when I refer to internal forces (which do not include free-will) I mean those which compel, in a given set of conditions, to take a certain course of action, and give no alternative - .

Right.

Now consider this example for a moment. Your glorious incompatibalist freedom amounts to this - the capability to choose arbitrarily and unfreely, that is, to choose what you do not prefer. For in both cases your preferences are exactly the same - that's one of the premises of the example. You desire x over y. What you are saying is just that at one of those points, you will arbitrarily decide to do y over x - that is, to do what you do not prefer. You will make a choice based on something OTHER than your preferences - perhaps, say, the random fluctuations of cosmic indeterminism.

What's the difference between these two situations? Nothing at all. Yet in one you make one choice, in the other another. The clear implication is that your choices are ARBITRARY, not free. They are not based on what you actually want; they are uncaused, that is, baseless.

The picture of human choice you offer here is far more depressing than that offered by determinism.

Would you say a robot running on a program has preferences?

Obviously not. And that is the difference between the human and the robot that makes one an automoton and the other not. The robot has no preferences; it just has a program. The human's biological program operates through preferences.

can the acceptance of a risk with good odds but turns out bad be considered bad luck?

yes

"In my experience, there's no such thing as 'luck.' " - Obi-Wan Kenobi

What would you rather have? Choice based on randomness?
No. I am simply not impressed by compatibilist redefinitions of the word "freedom". Perhaps I have misinterpreted them, but what they seem to amount to is saying that because alternative options could theoretically have existed, that you had a choice in the matter. It is this link that I find hard to draw.

You do x. Had you preferred to do y, you could have done that, too.

The way I have understood determinism is that you do x because it is your only possible preference. Even if you could theoretically have done y, it would never have been a preference of yours to begin with. And this is precisely why compatibilism strikes me as odd.

What's the difference between these two situations? Nothing at all. Yet in one you make one choice, in the other another. The clear implication is that your choices are ARBITRARY, not free. They are not based on what you actually want; they are uncaused, that is, baseless.
I am not against the idea of determinism per se - merely against the notion that there is no such thing as a free-will (as in the cause of human actions and the ability to choose between preferences).

No. I am simply not impressed by compatibilist redefinitions of the word "freedom". Perhaps I have misinterpreted them, but what they seem to amount to is saying that because alternative options could theoretically have existed, that you had a choice in the matter. It is this link that I find hard to draw.

The problem is that you are not considering it fully.

Why is it important to freedom that alternative options exist?

The way I have understood determinism is that you do x because it is your only possible preference. Even if you could theoretically have done y, it would never have been a preference of yours to begin with.

Explain to me how it is possible to choose anything in a meaningfully free way without starting with preferences, ever.

I am not against the idea of determinism per se - merely against the notion that there is no such thing as a free-will (as in the cause of human actions and the ability to choose between preferences).

If you object to the notion that in the exact same circumstances identical people will make the exact same choice, then you object to determinism.

The problem is that you are not considering it fully.

Why is it important to freedom that alternative options exist?
Given that internal forces are you yourself, they can hardly be considered compulsions, and therefore do not invalidate freedom. Thus, even if only one preference is possible according to your nature, you still act freely on it, even without an element of choice. Ergo, choice is not a prerequisite of freedom. I suppose this is what you mean?

Explain to me how it is possible to choose anything in a meaningfully free way without starting with preferences, ever.
All right, I see your point. The exception I can think of is choosing to do something due to compulsion, but even then it is precisely because you prefer avoiding the alternative.

If you object to the notion that in the exact same circumstances identical people will make the exact same choice, then you object to determinism.
If you mean identical in every possible aspect, then no, I do not. Would you go so far as to say everything from a person's biological makeup to their notions of morality are determined? I assume you are a compatibilist of sorts?

Given that internal forces are you yourself, they can hardly be considered compulsions, and therefore do not invalidate freedom. Thus, even if only one preference is possible according to your nature, you still act freely on it, even without an element of choice. Ergo, choice is not a prerequisite of freedom. I suppose this is what you mean?

No, choice is most certainly a prerequisite of freedom. My only point was that we see alternatives as necessary for freedom only because we conceive of "alternatives" as EXTERNAL alternatives. If we had no alternatives in that sense, our choice would not be free - it would not be dependent on our preferences, but rather on our circumstances.

If you mean identical in every possible aspect, then no, I do not. Would you go so far as to say everything from a person's biological makeup to their notions of morality are determined?

I leave that question to the scientists. I do not think that such a level of determinism is incompatible with free will, however, as long as a person's preferences are the determining factors.

I assume you are a compatibilist of sorts?

Yes.

No, choice is most certainly a prerequisite of freedom. My only point was that we see alternatives as necessary for freedom only because we conceive of "alternatives" as EXTERNAL alternatives. If we had no alternatives in that sense, our choice would not be free - it would not be dependent on our preferences, but rather on our circumstances.
Right. I understand compatibilism better now. It simply seemed absurd to me from the point of view that merely because you could do otherwise this implies you have a choice in the matter - but given that doing otherwise is based on preferring to do so (and that choices are preference-based), it makes sense. I should've drawn this conclusion myself...

I leave that question to the scientists. I do not think that such a level of determinism is incompatible with free will, however, as long as a person's preferences are the determining factors.
I agree on this.

Well, you'll be unlikely to provide for survival unless some sort of value is produced in the first place.True, but you said both survival and the production of value, implying that you wanted survival and then something more.

But if you find people who'd be fine with only a certain amount of value and no more, I'd find enough kindness in my heart to let them live in their sort of society and not bother them. :p How thoughtful of you. ;)

The problem is if they want more than the bare minimum but are not ready to produce more than the bare minimum.I suppose that could be a problem, yes.

Even if we say human actions are like any other, the free-will advocate might retort that we can feel that our actions are caused by ourselves. I would say both positions are weak.


I would not dispute that my actions are caused by 'myself', where 'myself' is a description of a mass of complex interactions in my brain, some of which produce the feeling of 'self'. The way I see it, the free-will/determinsim question is very much a scientific one; is the sensation of consciousness generated by series of physical interactions which on a microscopic scale are not extraordinary and operate according to the same fundamental laws as anything else? Or do we need to take account of a mysterious, indefinable force, which influences physical matter in a totally indefinable way and has not been observed anywhere in nature?


You see, our understanding of cause-and-effect is derived from the first "illusion" - that of free-will.


I have to say I don't see the link here.


He probably would - but the argument in favour would run that the benefit might be far greater than the cost involved.


There probably are situations in which this might be true - most people accept that there are times when it is right that blameless people are sacrificed for the greater good. However, I would say that the fact that you are forcing everyone else under you to make decisions under false pretences is a massive moral cost, that will outweigh the benefits of this nearly all the time. Intuitively, of course, I feel it's wrong because the victim dosen't deserve it, and reconciling our feeling of free will with a determinist scientific reality is major problem in ethics as well as other spheres, and it's one that we're going to have to confront more and more as brain science develops.

In that respect I'm enough of a relativist to know that apart from survival and the production of value, people can do whatever they want, but the system shouldn't be geared towards any particular type of "goodness" people came up with over the centuries.

The trouble is, capatalism is also geared towards a certain type of goodness, not necessarily any less arbitrary than any other. For instance, which is the greater goodness: being a good businessman, a good teacher or a good parent? I know which choice capitalism makes. Is this the objective truth? I'm not convinced, and inevitably the sort of goodness capitalism promotes will sometimes come into conflict with the other kinds. So I would suggest that capitalism's biases need to be ameliorated somewhat.

The trouble is, capatalism is also geared towards a certain type of goodness, not necessarily any less arbitrary than any other. For instance, which is the greater goodness: being a good businessman, a good teacher or a good parent?
Define "businessman".

I know which choice capitalism makes. Is this the objective truth?
"Capitalism" doesn't make any choice. That's the beauty of it.

Because it is a decentralised system in which everyone makes their own decisions, the only people making a choice are the people who trade with/employ the person in question.

Now, is that objective? No, obviously not. It's as subjective as it gets. So subjective in fact, that no one should ever be unhappy with the decisions made, unless they plan on infringing on other people's choices.

Define "businessman".


"Capitalism" doesn't make any choice. That's the beauty of it.

Because it is a decentralised system in which everyone makes their own decisions, the only people making a choice are the people who trade with/employ the person in question.

Now, is that objective? No, obviously not. It's as subjective as it gets. So subjective in fact, that no one should ever be unhappy with the decisions made, unless they plan on infringing on other people's choices.

You're born into a poor family, there is no school provided because that would be robbing the hard working rich of their much needed money.
You get a cleaning job, it's all you're qualified to do. You are forced to work fourteen hours a day for minimal pay and no benefits. You live in the only place you can afford.

I don't see a lot of choices.

Define "businessman".


A salesman, a manager, a negotiator, other things too probably. Maybe the confusion is the fact not many people are just businessmen...it's just a set of skills that come in useful making a business successful.


"Capitalism" doesn't make any choice. That's the beauty of it.

Because it is a decentralised system in which everyone makes their own decisions, the only people making a choice are the people who trade with/employ the person in question.


You're right it's a misnomer to personify capitalism as having intrinsic desires, but that's really just a metaphor. I guess what I'm getting at is that if you have everyone making choices indivually, the overall 'choice' that the system makes is different to what everyone might individually want. For instance, let's say everyone believes that the benefits of maternity leave are greater than the costs (higher prices for instance). Women with a reasonable chance of having a baby obviously want maternity leave, but then there are other women competing with them who don't. Single women want for the mothers to have maternity leave, but none of them is prepared to take an individual stand that will probably be futile. Consumers want maternity leave, so they could only buy products made by companies that do this, but that would probably be pointless as well on an individual basis and it's too much effort anyway.

So what's the solution? Democracy. You do indeed restrict other peoples' choices, but you do so with the collective will. I'm not saying this is always a valid thing to do, but I think there's a balance to made here.

One big question that's come up in another thread again, and that's been bugging me for a while.

Most people would agree that "luck" plays a part in determining one's success in life, both in economic terms and in everything else.

I'm not sure everyone would agree though on what exactly "luck" is.

I hate the idea of stuff being outside my control. I think that a person's lot in life can largely be traced back to individual choices made. And to that extent I consider "luck" to be little more than the positive results of well-made choices.

If someone is rich, and people say "Oh, he was lucky.", then I generally think that the luck part was simply having been able to put oneself in the right place at the right time to take advantage of whatever came along. And likewise, if someone says they were unlucky in life, that means that the person was unable to see and grasp the opportunities that came along.

In line with my rejection of determinism (and the fatalism it brings with it), I therefore think that everyone gets opportunities in life, but not everyone takes advantage of them. And in that sense, everyone has the same amount of "luck" in life.

Now, that's not the traditional meaning of the word though, is it. Luck often means things that are outside our control. One thing might just be whether you happen to be born the daughter of a hotel tycoon. Another thing might be a lightning striking you, or even a drunk driver running you over.

But if we accept that...are some people just unlucky? Are some people doomed to be poor? Would it be right to compensate them for their unluckiness?

What is luck, and how does it fit into your system of thought?
Good topic! The free will-determinism debate, haven't seen that one in a long time :) (j/k)

In your subjective view of the world, you are entirely justified in rejecting that determinism rules all. In your objectification of "luck", you are not justified at all.

Hold onto it, dude; grip that subjective perspective on the world and hold onto it for all you're worth. In the end, it's all that should matter to you.

I use "luck" to refer specifically to chance elements.

For instance, it was pure luck that I happened to come across an ad for my ideal apartment just moments after it was posted. Now, my terrific rental history and good credit and charming attitude were what allowed me to convince the owner to rent to me, and those were not "luck". However, no matter how great my rental history or credit or attitude, I still would never have gotten that apartment if not for the lucky chance that led me to see the ad at just the right moment.

Good post.

Most of the really big things that happen in the lives of most people are due to things beyond their control. If you want to call that luck, go ahead.

You're born into a poor family, there is no school provided because that would be robbing the hard working rich of their much needed money.
I already said though that providing for those who really can't afford to join the market for education (and I would argue that most people could, even the poor ones) in the form of school vouchers is a function of government I believe in.

It's obviously an ongoing process (it would be sad if it wasn't), but my belief system revolves around the ideas of individual effort, individual skill and individual achievement, I suppose. Insofar as a lacking education prevents these things from being realised, I'd want it to be provided. But obviously you're going with the maxim "you can lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink." I have no particular sympathy for people who don't do well in school or drop out early, and I don't think a system in which those sorts of people would be equal to those who do well is desirable, nor just.

I would also say that because I believe in flat taxes, you'd be robbing everyone equally, not the rich in particular.

I don't see a lot of choices.
That's not the choice I'm talking about though. Say a big corporation has a few million dollars to spend.

They could either pay the money to a CEO to work for the company, or they could pay a teacher (or indeed many teachers) to teach at a school.

We know that the company's directors will probably think that their money is better spent on the CEO, and because I'm not going to go ahead and presume what is best for the company, I'm happy to leave that decision up to them and see the market price for CEOs be much higher than the market price for teachers.

A salesman, a manager, a negotiator, other things too probably. Maybe the confusion is the fact not many people are just businessmen...it's just a set of skills that come in useful making a business successful.
Well, what is "business"? One word to use instead might be "trade" or "exchange".

A businessman in that sense is a guy who spends his time trading or exchanging something for something else.

If we see our labour as a resource we can sell, everyone who participates in a market of any type is a businessman. For example, a doctor isn't only a doctor, he's someone who sells medical skills to other people (and it doesn't even have to be in exchange of money, it could be other goods or just the affection of other people).

Now, are some people better at selling stuff and convincing others? Obviously.

But given that we live in a social environment, people with better social skills are always going to do better, regardless of the system. They'll have an easier time making friends, finding a mate and so on.

I'm not sure I see a way to make people equal in that respect, nor would I see why we would really want to. Again, it might have a lot to do with the "luck" of being born to capable parents.

For instance, let's say everyone believes that the benefits of maternity leave are greater than the costs (higher prices for instance). Women with a reasonable chance of having a baby obviously want maternity leave, but then there are other women competing with them who don't. Single women want for the mothers to have maternity leave, but none of them is prepared to take an individual stand that will probably be futile. Consumers want maternity leave, so they could only buy products made by companies that do this, but that would probably be pointless as well on an individual basis and it's too much effort anyway.

So what's the solution? Democracy.
Indeed. Though strictly speaking, you wouldn't need democracy, you could also start public action groups and the like. You don't need the force exerted by government, you could just coordinate your actions in the marketplace with people who think like you. Unions do it, as do employers' associations and some consumer rights- and environmental protection groups.

I'm a big fan of democracy though, but I'd want my ideal government heavily limited by a strict constitution that doesn't bend to public whim. You can too easily get into a position in which populism takes over.

Few people like the rich. I'd argue that many people are envious, or just plain misinformed about what rich people do and how they became rich. And the same would go for most other minorities. I'd expect my government to defend the rights of all minorities equally, be they rich people, black people or indeed the smallest of all minorities: the individual.

You do indeed restrict other peoples' choices, but you do so with the collective will. I'm not saying this is always a valid thing to do, but I think there's a balance to made here.
Exactly. It seems that I'm just less willing to compromise on individual freedom and choice than you are.

But given that we live in a social environment, people with better social skills are always going to do better, regardless of the system. They'll have an easier time making friends, finding a mate and so on.

I'm not sure I see a way to make people equal in that respect, nor would I see why we would really want to. Again, it might have a lot to do with the "luck" of being born to capable parents.


You're right, and I'm not arguing either for the replacement of capitalism or for some sort of forced equalisation of peoples' abilities. Just for taking the edge off these advantages by making people generally more equal, through progressive taxation and spending this on making certain services available to everyone.


Indeed. Though strictly speaking, you wouldn't need democracy, you could also start public action groups and the like. You don't need the force exerted by government, you could just coordinate your actions in the marketplace with people who think like you. Unions do it, as do employers' associations and some consumer rights- and environmental protection groups.


It's great when this sort of thing works, but I just think most of the time it won't. Take the Fairtrade movement. A group of people think that Third World farmers should be paid more, so they excercise their consumer choice accordingly. Fine and good, apart from since not everyone is doing this, you run into problems like
a) the higher prices encourage Fairtrade farmers to produce more, lowering prices for farmers who don't sell to the Fairtrade scheme
b) retailers use Fairtrade to identify consumers who don't mind paying more, and jack up the prices far more than the cost, pocketing the profit

Centralised action is the only way to sidestep these issues. I think right-libertarians have a lot in common with left-libertarians in their unjustified optimism in decentralised action, although not to such an extreme degree.


I'd expect my government to defend the rights of all minorities equally, be they rich people, black people or indeed the smallest of all minorities: the individual.


Agreed. Mugabe-ism does nobody any favours, but even if it did it isn't right to treat people like that. I don't think progressive taxation is persecution though. I think it's debatable that a flat tax is more equal than a poll tax (everyone pays the same amount rather than percentage) or, as I favour, a progressive tax, since an extra dollar is worth a lot more to a poor person than a rich one.

I think it's debatable that a flat tax is more equal than a poll tax (everyone pays the same amount rather than percentage) or, as I favour, a progressive tax, since an extra dollar is worth a lot more to a poor person than a rich one.
I think we're basically agreeing on stuff, so I'll just pick up this last point.

Using the concept of marginal utility has a bit of a problem attached to it.

Strictly speaking, spending a given dollar of health expenditure on a middle-aged person is going to yield more effect than spending the same dollar on a 90 year-old. Would you argue that we stop providing healthcare to old people?

Arguably a given dollar of education budget can be spent better on a smart kid than a stupid one. Should we stop schooling stupid people?

So even avoiding the problem of "utility" in economics being a concept that can't be compared between people and is therefore extremely iffy in public policy applications, most people wouldn't think that using utility as a prime benchmark is such a good idea.

I already said though that providing for those who really can't afford to join the market for education (and I would argue that most people could, even the poor ones) in the form of school vouchers is a function of government I believe in.


If you're taking money off people I'm not sure where this (seemingly) arbitary line is. Justified for vouchers? Then, logically, why not for welfare?

And anyway, if they're that poor the kids will be working even if they have the option of school. Unless you legislate, which is again erroding a little bit on the libertarian spirit. Keep it up and you'll soon end up a moderate!

I think it actually does might make sense to spend more per person on healthcare for the younger for that reason, although the law of diminishing returns for each person says you're never going to end up spending nothing on healthcare for anyone. With the education thing, it might be better for the economy to only educate the clever, but if the welfare of the unintelligent is more important to you then that dosen't hold. But how about we admit that using any economic principle is a bit iffy, and leave it at that.

I already said though that providing for those who really can't afford to join the market for education (and I would argue that most people could, even the poor ones) in the form of school vouchers is a function of government I believe in.
.

But in this circumstance the poor parents can only provide for a poor quality education (through no fault of the child). The richer parents give their children better education and thus the cycle continues. Thus even if the kids are interllectually equals (for the sake of argument) the poor child will suffer through no fault of their own.



I would also say that because I believe in flat taxes, you'd be robbing everyone equally, not the rich in particular.
.

No robbing everyone equally would be to say everyone must pay the government X ammount of money (lets say $6000). But clearly a lot of the poor can't cope with paying that so thats not "fair".
So what you suggest taxing everyone a flat ammount (lets say 10%) is more equal? But 10% of a poor persons income is more vital to them, as in it will have a far greater effect on their quality of life than taking 10% of a more wealthy persons income.
So if you can see that asking everyone to pay 6000$ a year in tax is "unfair" perhaps you might be able to see how a flat tax is also unfair.



If we see our labour as a resource we can sell, everyone who participates in a market of any type is a businessman. For example, a doctor isn't only a doctor, he's someone who sells medical skills to other people (and it doesn't even have to be in exchange of money, it could be other goods or just the affection of other people).

Now, are some people better at selling stuff and convincing others? Obviously.
.

Back to eduction. By the "luck" of birth my parents are able to give me a better education and thus my "labour" is a more skillful labour than most other peoples. Sure I could have been lazy or dropped out of school but its hardly due to merit that you see many quality private schools producing the majority of the students who go to the top 5 universities.


But given that we live in a social environment, people with better social skills are always going to do better, regardless of the system. They'll have an easier time making friends, finding a mate and so on.
.

Yes but we can choose to be nice to people and friendly and thus make friends. Generally our personality is down to what we choose it to be.



I'm a big fan of democracy though, but I'd want my ideal government heavily limited by a strict constitution that doesn't bend to public whim. You can too easily get into a position in which populism takes over.
.

Ideology over pragmatism then?

Now that just reeks of Calvinism. :)
It should. IIRC, they're the ones that developed determinism the most within the European tradition.
A choice presumes an alternative course of action. If you were fated to do something, there is no alternative. That would appear contradictory on part of the abovementioned position's proponents.
That's a matter of perspective - again, I'm pretty much borrowing and presenting a rather Calvinist view here - as from your perspective, you think there's an alternate choice of action, but someone else (e.g., a divine being) already knows what choice you will make.

You could make a different choice, but won't. Again, it's simply a different view.
Indeed - but wouldn't your motive for doing so be utilitarian? You praise or dispraise certain actions to encourage or disencourage them respectively. Which is fine prima facie, but where does leave the notion of moral responsibility? To use an analogy, it is as though you are blaming a tea cup for breaking when falling from a certain height - it is its nature. If a human's actions are no different to any others, why judge them by a different standard? I am not questioning the concepts of praise or blame themselves, merely the underlying motives behind them in a purely deterministic world. I think what you have in mind is something similar to Smart's argument, according to which praise means nothing more than grading something; for instance, as we grade apples. Essentially to treat individuals as objects in a way.
And utilitarianism is a very popular method of measuring morality.

Bad teacup! Bad! Shame on you for falling! Let that be a lesson to all the other teacups!

Responsibility lies within that framework. It's strange, and when you're dealing with strict determinism, causality can seem a bit murky, but it's there.

If you were fated to freak out, did you freak out because your girlfriend dumped you, or because you lost your job, or just because you were fated to? There's still a cause, and because there's still a cause, there's still responsibility. It's all known ahead of time, though.

As I said, I'm not fond of determinism, but in its own twisted little way, it's consistent with itself.

One big question that's come up in another thread again, and that's been bugging me for a while.

Most people would agree that "luck" plays a part in determining one's success in life, both in economic terms and in everything else.

I'm not sure everyone would agree though on what exactly "luck" is.

I hate the idea of stuff being outside my control. I think that a person's lot in life can largely be traced back to individual choices made. And to that extent I consider "luck" to be little more than the positive results of well-made choices.

If someone is rich, and people say "Oh, he was lucky.", then I generally think that the luck part was simply having been able to put oneself in the right place at the right time to take advantage of whatever came along. And likewise, if someone says they were unlucky in life, that means that the person was unable to see and grasp the opportunities that came along.

In line with my rejection of determinism (and the fatalism it brings with it), I therefore think that everyone gets opportunities in life, but not everyone takes advantage of them. And in that sense, everyone has the same amount of "luck" in life.

Now, that's not the traditional meaning of the word though, is it. Luck often means things that are outside our control. One thing might just be whether you happen to be born the daughter of a hotel tycoon. Another thing might be a lightning striking you, or even a drunk driver running you over.

But if we accept that...are some people just unlucky? Are some people doomed to be poor? Would it be right to compensate them for their unluckiness?

What is luck, and how does it fit into your system of thought?

Luck is important, but skill is needed too.

PS: Stop saying luck in quotes.

close.

You are the one who attaches value to things, so it is your own emotions that are at the heart of the issue not any "luck"

It is the luck that causes it to happen. In some cases one persons luck can be someone elses malfortune. For example, some kid pulls the fire alarm in my physics class the same day I have a test, this causes us to be outside for along time. When we return to class the teacher says because we lost time we may come to class after school to finish the test. If I had something to do after class and had studied for the test this would be unlucky. I would consider myself this under this circumstance because without the fire alarm I could have enough time to do the whole test and do it will. Can I still do it? Yes, but I now have to rush causing me to mess up on a few questions. Because I studied I can do fairly well but not as well as I would normally do.
Now, another student in the same class as me did not study he then has an extrea 80 minutes to study before school ends and he may return to class to finish his test. He is lucky because this events outside of his control benifited him.
In this case our decisions to prepare before the test influences how we did but do to circumstance we was able to preform beyong his ability and I was hindered. We had some control but chance played a role too.


You have to work with what you got and sometimes what you got isn't enough. You can work as hard as you want and you won't get anywhere. Think of a kid born in Africa, with HIVwhich developed into AIDS. They do not have access to an education. No matter how hard the try they will die young just because of things that go on outside of their control. They will not have a good life.
I think we can all agree that this child would be considered unfortunate/unlucky/malfated.
Would someone argue otherwise?

As far as how it should effect us, we already have made decisions about if it is right to tax the rich to feed the poor, to give others a chance, to give others a good chance (education, micromanagament). It really comes down to where you believe one person's rights end and the other person's begins.

It is the luck that causes it to happen.

what is that supposed to mean? do you think there is some FORCE in the universe analagous to gravity that pushes chance in some people's favor?

LUCK is nothing but the judgement we make of past events. if they went in our favor we are lucky. if they didnt, we are unlucky.

It is the luck that causes it to happen. In some cases one persons luck can be someone elses malfortune. For example, some kid pulls the fire alarm in my physics class the same day I have a test, this causes us to be outside for along time. When we return to class the teacher says because we lost time we may come to class after school to finish the test. If I had something to do after class and had studied for the test this would be unlucky. I would consider myself this under this circumstance because without the fire alarm I could have enough time to do the whole test and do it will. Can I still do it? Yes, but I now have to rush causing me to mess up on a few questions. Because I studied I can do fairly well but not as well as I would normally do.
Now, another student in the same class as me did not study he then has an extrea 80 minutes to study before school ends and he may return to class to finish his test. He is lucky because this events outside of his control benifited him.
In this case our decisions to prepare before the test influences how we did but do to circumstance we was able to preform beyong his ability and I was hindered. We had some control but chance played a role too.


You have to work with what you got and sometimes what you got isn't enough. You can work as hard as you want and you won't get anywhere. Think of a kid born in Africa, with HIVwhich developed into AIDS. They do not have access to an education. No matter how hard the try they will die young just because of things that go on outside of their control. They will not have a good life.
I think we can all agree that this child would be considered unfortunate/unlucky/malfated.
Would someone argue otherwise?
I will not argue against "every action has a consequence" but there is no such thing as "luck" past the value that you attach to the random things that happen to you.

As far as how it should effect us, we already have made decisions about if it is right to tax the rich to feed the poor, to give others a chance, to give others a good chance (education, micromanagament). It really comes down to where you believe one person's rights end and the other person's begins.
who is this "we" you are talking about?

If you're taking money off people I'm not sure where this (seemingly) arbitary line is. Justified for vouchers? Then, logically, why not for welfare?
Because vouchers help people get to a half-decent starting grid. Welfare excuses failure.

Which isn't to say that I respect the wishes of those who want to spend their own money voluntarily on welfare for others. Voluntary charity plays its part in society, I suppose, even if some of it is not a part I particularly like.

And anyway, if they're that poor the kids will be working even if they have the option of school.
And if they choose to do that, they deserve every bit of hardship that follows.

Thus even if the kids are interllectually equals (for the sake of argument) the poor child will suffer through no fault of their own.
Again, education is not a consumption good like any other. How good the service ultimately is depends vitally on the user, and I would argue moreso than it depends on the provider.

I could go to Harvard and learn less by not doing my part than I could if I did my part at some Detroit Public School.

Now, in the real world the problem is twofold:

1. Because public education is more or less free for the users, poor parents don't spend as much time thinking about it. Like in any other case, when money gets involved people suddenly start figuring out the best way to do something. Money forces efficiency, so to speak.

2. At the moment, if I recall correctly, people in poor US neighbourhoods don't actually get to choose which school their kids attend. That's the real killer.

I think that even very bad parents would choose to send their kids to the school they think is best. So naturally good schools would find themselves with more students. And to make that an advantage for these good schools, I'd want to see them get money on a per student basis. If we could completely free schools from generalised blanket rulings and guidelines administered by the government, ie privatise them, that could then also free up markets for good teachers and the like (and in turn raise the salaries of good teachers, making that career more attractive).

And where parents really are so poor that they can't afford to send their kids to a decent school (and again, I'd argue that in many cases the money might actually be there, but current spending patterns are grossly distorted by the fact that school is currently free), that's where the vouchers would come in.

Is that going to result in everyone getting the same service provision? No, obviously not. The vouchers will be a fixed amount of money, and really good schools could set their fees above and beyond the voucher amount*.

But it will get rid of the poor public school that at the moment seems to be badly underperforming and seems to produce graduates that know less than when they came in. And since most of the education process is about the student rather than the teacher or whether the school has three tennis courts and a polo field, it would basically eliminate good, smart kids missing out on education because of their parents financial situation.

*And even in that case one might consider extending a HECS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HECS)-type scheme to secondary education as well for the left-over money, apart from private scholarships and the like.

No robbing everyone equally would be to say everyone must pay the government X ammount of money (lets say $6000). But clearly a lot of the poor can't cope with paying that so thats not "fair".
It's equal in proportion. The government is saying "15% of everyone's earnings is ours" rather than "if you're poor, 15% of your earnings is ours, if you're rich, make that 48%".

Paying a fixed amount wouldn't be fair because the government wouldn't be taking 15% of everyone's time, it would be taking a greater percentage from poor people.

I don't see why we need to pretend that taxes are about money. They may be on one level, but on another they're a sort of forced appropriation of one's effort and one's time. I'd just want for the government, if it has to tax, to do so equally, and take everyone's time at the same rate.

Sure I could have been lazy or dropped out of school but its hardly due to merit that you see many quality private schools producing the majority of the students who go to the top 5 universities.
To be honest, these days in the Ivy League hardly anything seems to be out of merit. It's all about alumni and donations. :rolleyes:

If they didn't have their researchers, those schools would be going down the drain.

Yes but we can choose to be nice to people and friendly and thus make friends. Generally our personality is down to what we choose it to be.

Ideology over pragmatism then?
As far as you can consider individual freedom an ideology like any other, yes.

Government plays a part in our lives, and it can be an extremely powerful part. So I'd want people to have their say in it - thus democracy.

But at the same time I believe that we have seen enough evidence that government is a dangerous thing. It can kill, steal, destroy and commit all sorts of other crimes at the push of a button, usually without fearing punishment. Couple that with my personal belief in individual effort and achievement, and you can see why I would want to see government heavily limited - thus the strict constitution.

It would also be neat to figure out a way to integrate the efficiency effects of a free market into the constitution to force the government to properly allocate its funds.

what is that supposed to mean? do you think there is some FORCE in the universe analagous to gravity that pushes chance in some people's favor?

LUCK is nothing but the judgement we make of past events. if they went in our favor we are lucky. if they didnt, we are unlucky.

Sorry, what I meant was the smunkee said: "so it is your own emotions that are at the heart of the issue not any "luck""

I meant that the luck or random chance is at the heart of the issue afterwards it will cause you to respond in a certain way or to have a certain advantage/disadvantage.

I will not argue against "every action has a consequence" but there is no such thing as "luck" past the value that you attach to the random things that happen to you.
Yes, comething random will happen to you, you will assign it either good or bad. Bad= bad luck, good= good luck. Positive or negative things happen to you which are outside your own control. The chances of something bad happening to you differ depending on your enviroment/family history/whatever if bad things outside of your control happen to you frequently you are "unlucky" if good things happen to you or you are lucky once and it has a severe impact on your life you are "lucky"

ho is this "we" you are talking about?
Most people on NSG have already formed there personal belief on the subject so each individual typically has already decided.

I would not dispute that my actions are caused by 'myself', where 'myself' is a description of a mass of complex interactions in my brain, some of which produce the feeling of 'self'. The way I see it, the free-will/determinsim question is very much a scientific one; is the sensation of consciousness generated by series of physical interactions which on a microscopic scale are not extraordinary and operate according to the same fundamental laws as anything else? Or do we need to take account of a mysterious, indefinable force, which influences physical matter in a totally indefinable way and has not been observed anywhere in nature?
I think you are referring to a Ghost in the Machine type of free-will, which I myself see no evidence for. So I largely agree on this.

I have to say I don't see the link here.
It's an argument that Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_problem_of_causation) posited. The way I have understood it, he argues that we base our entire idea of causation on the way we act - we cause something and it happens. From a compatibilist perspective this is not a problem for determinism; from a hard determinist view it is, because they are question-begging.


There probably are situations in which this might be true - most people accept that there are times when it is right that blameless people are sacrificed for the greater good. However, I would say that the fact that you are forcing everyone else under you to make decisions under false pretences is a massive moral cost, that will outweigh the benefits of this nearly all the time. Intuitively, of course, I feel it's wrong because the victim dosen't deserve it, and reconciling our feeling of free will with a determinist scientific reality is major problem in ethics as well as other spheres, and it's one that we're going to have to confront more and more as brain science develops.

I agree. I think in the future we will be asking ourselves whether or not we want to live in a Brave New World-like society. Although one may argue that the illusion of happiness as experienced by the Deltas and Epsilons in BNW is never tantamount to true happiness, this would seem to be more of a personal viewpoint than something that can objectively be ascertained.

It's equal in proportion. The government is saying "15% of everyone's earnings is ours" rather than "if you're poor, 15% of your earnings is ours, if you're rich, make that 48%".

Paying a fixed amount wouldn't be fair because the government wouldn't be taking 15% of everyone's time, it would be taking a greater percentage from poor people.

I don't see why we need to pretend that taxes are about money. They may be on one level, but on another they're a sort of forced appropriation of one's effort and one's time. I'd just want for the government, if it has to tax, to do so equally, and take everyone's time at the same rate.
As you may read about here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax), the government's take is highly inconsistent. Various forms of income are treated differently, and social security taxes are capped at $97,500 income.

The end result is that the rich are not being taxed out of proportion to their actual wealth, but often (in fact) below it compared with workers, especially considering the preferential treatment of many forms of income common among the wealthy and rare among the poor.

The tax system does need quite a bit of fixing.

The tax system does need quite a bit of fixing.
Hey, you won't hear me complaining.

Yes, comething random will happen to you, you will assign it either good or bad. Bad= bad luck, good= good luck. Positive or negative things happen to you which are outside your own control. The chances of something bad happening to you differ depending on your enviroment/family history/whatever if bad things outside of your control happen to you frequently you are "unlucky" if good things happen to you or you are lucky once and it has a severe impact on your life you are "lucky"
uh........no. random things happen, nobody has "more good luck" or "more bad luck" than anyone else, aside from their attitude about what happens to them.

For example, I got kicked out of my parent's home at 15, I ended up homeless for a while, and then lived in the store room of a restaurant for a few months while I got enough money to rent a POS studio apartment with 4 other people, working 40-80 hours a week and going to high school when I could.

I think it was good for me, most people would call it a "bad thing"

Most people on NSG have already formed there personal belief on the subject so each individual typically has already decided.
so what you mean is since you and most of the people you agree with think that it's right and good to tax the rich to feed the poor that you think that everyone thinks that?

I think you are referring to a Ghost in the Machine type of free-will, which I myself see no evidence for. So I largely agree on this.


Hmmm...I think it's possible we've been arguing about definitions of words all along, although I do think you said somewhere that our minds didn't arise from the conventional laws of physics. This is the only real question in the free will/determinism debate that it makes sense to me to ask. I certainly wouldn't argue against the sensation of free will. Any other arguments it seems to me are just over the semantics of freedom. As for cause and effect, it seems to me that since it works so well there must be some essential truth to it, even if the way we understand it it's a just a personification of the objects around us, so I don't think that causes a problem.

Welfare excuses failure.That's more than a bit presumptuous, don't you think? Especially given that capitalism requires unemployment.

That's more than a bit presumptuous, don't you think? Especially given that capitalism requires unemployment.
I'd say that the unemployment "required" by capitalism is always going to be around, because it's

a) structural - ie the stagecoach workers losing their jobs because Mr Ford just decided to mass-produce the Model T.

b) frictional - ie people leaving their current job to work somewhere else.

c) seasonal - ie some people won't be able to pick fruit in the winter months.

Unless you're going to outlaw progress which may change the ways and places labour is being used in the economy, and you outlaw people from changing where they work, those three are always going to form the natural rate of unemployment, not caused by anyone in particular, and to be honest, not really all that inherently bad either.

I'd say that the unemployment "required" by capitalism is always going to be around, because it's

a) structural - ie the stagecoach workers losing their jobs because Mr Ford just decided to mass-produce the Model T.

b) frictional - ie people leaving their current job to work somewhere else.

c) seasonal - ie some people won't be able to pick fruit in the winter months.

Unless you're going to outlaw progress which may change the ways and places labour is being used in the economy, and you outlaw people from changing where they work, those three are always going to form the natural rate of unemployment, not caused by anyone in particular, and to be honest, not really all that inherently bad either.Well, whether or not somebody accepts your reasoning, this leaves the question of how these people are going to live in the meantime that they're unemployed.

Well, whether or not somebody accepts your reasoning, this leaves the question of how these people are going to live in the meantime that they're unemployed.
Well, I suppose I was a teeny bit harsh. Still, a bit of forward thinking and keeping one's skills up to date would greatly help.

And then there's voluntary charity. Or maybe some sort of private society of workers all starting an "unemployment insurance", perhaps organised through a union or something. That way the only people who'd be paying are those who reasonably expect to take advantage of the service.

Well, I suppose I was a teeny bit harsh.Just a little ;)

Still, a bit of forward thinking and keeping one's skills up to date would greatly help.True, but the people who are least likely to do this are the people who are working the minimum wage jobs, as they probably need to work two of them to have enough to live on. (And thus wouldn't have time to go to work.) These people are the ones most likely to be affected by downturns in the market.

And then there's voluntary charity. Or maybe some sort of private society of workers all starting an "unemployment insurance", perhaps organised through a union or something. That way the only people who'd be paying are those who reasonably expect to take advantage of the service.All of these things would help, but they all rely on either the beneficience of others or people having more than enough to live on, to be able to put some of it away for the insurance.

All of these things would help, but they all rely on either the beneficience of others or people having more than enough to live on, to be able to put some of it away for the insurance.
I think people sometimes tend to underestimate the poor. I'm sure there are a few who really somehow manage to work two jobs and still only just get by...but most of those who have financial trouble could do a lot by just changing their personal consumption patterns. How many of these people drink too much? Play lotteries? Have all sorts of credit card debts to pay off? Worse yet, how many in the ghetto buy themselves bling bling stuff to show off?

Sometimes I think that a personal finance advisor could do a world more good than the best welfare program there is. Maybe that's an area for the government to spend some of its tax money. Give a man a fish, and you'll have fed him for a day. Teach him to fish...

I really want to believe that there's no such thing as luck.

But if you've ever seen me play Risk, you'd agree that I have luck in spades. Bad luck, at any rate. :(

I think people sometimes tend to underestimate the poor. I'm sure there are a few who really somehow manage to work two jobs and still only just get by...but most of those who have financial trouble could do a lot by just changing their personal consumption patterns. How many of these people drink too much? Play lotteries? Have all sorts of credit card debts to pay off? Worse yet, how many in the ghetto buy themselves bling bling stuff to show off?

Sometimes I think that a personal finance advisor could do a world more good than the best welfare program there is. Maybe that's an area for the government to spend some of its tax money. Give a man a fish, and you'll have fed him for a day. Teach him to fish...

But the drinking and the gambling often provide outlets for these people. Take that away and things can feel even more hopeless. It's a bad situation and a bad cycle that they leave themselves in, but they can't see a way out.

Give a zombie a fish, and he'll eat you. Teach him to fish, and he'll eat you. Don't give a zombie a fish.

But the drinking and the gambling often provide outlets for these people. Take that away and things can feel even more hopeless. It's a bad situation and a bad cycle that they leave themselves in, but they can't see a way out.
They wouldn't be drinking and gambling if in the first place they felt they could take control of their finances. It's a destructive spiral. Imagine if all the money spent on alcohol and other unnecessary goods were to be saved or put in secure investments. That would yield a sure income, and although not nearly as profitable as a lottery could be, it is much more certain - the money is not being wasted. Somewhere people have to take initiative and stop being pessimistic, and should stop being encouraged to feel pessimistic. I myself suffer from bouts of depression - were I to give into them I'd become a pathetic wretch of a human being.

How many of these people drink too much? Play lotteries? Have all sorts of credit card debts to pay off?
All matters in which the system has been carefully stacked.

Why is alcohol an expensive drain? "Sin" taxes. Take liquor in my home state of North Carolina. If you buy a bottle of vodka priced at $3.75, you can bet your hide it would only have cost a dollar before taxes and excise fees.

Who runs lotteries and markets them despite their ruinously low returns? The state. Nobody else could get away with it.

Why do gambling and alcohol become problems? Because they're highly addictive. Is it possible to break away? Yes. But it's hard, and once you get down in the hole, it gets harder and harder to get out. High interest debt is a particularly bad hole.

I'm lucky I was firmly warned to avoid it - but plenty don't know well enough until they start running into problems.

All matters in which the system has been carefully stacked.
But all that stuff would still be around if there were no poor people. Whether poor or rich, it's nice to have a few diversions. It can even be nice to have a credit card.

It's just that there's a vicious cycle going on: Poor people are arguably more likely to fall into the trap, and people who are in that trap are clearly likely to be less wealthy.

That's why I'm saying it would be good to tackle the former problem by teaching people to use money properly, and generally be more responsible with their life.

That's why I'm saying it would be good to tackle the former problem by teaching people to use money properly, and generally be more responsible with their life.
It would be good for education on financial responsibility to be more widespread.

So how would you propose implementing that?

So how would you propose implementing that?
School, I guess. That would be the main route of attack, and it should start early, before school gets massively uncool. In fact, someone oughta think of a way to prevent kids from starting to hate school and rebelling against it after a certain age.

Also a good idea would be for the government to initiate a program and then have charities get involved. Much like social workers travel out to houses to have a look at what's going on, you could have financial advisors do the same. And the more charities are involved, the more the government can provide the overall structure but doesn't have to pay for the expensive specifics.

School, I guess. That would be the main route of attack, and it should start early, before school gets massively uncool. In fact, someone oughta think of a way to prevent kids from starting to hate school and rebelling against it after a certain age.
kids hate school because all the natural learning fun is beat out of them by the government mandated curriculum.