>>102212
>What is your opinion on Destiny's argument in this video?
It's bad. He isn't even tackling how libertarians view free will. He's right in saying that there has been an issue with free will and separatism - how do we become free agents in a world without god - but he's not attacking libertarian's view on free will. He's attacking compaitablism, and calling it libertarian's view on free will.
Libertarians follow the concept called the principle of alternative possibilities to link up moral structures to actions: A person is morally responsible for performing a given act only if he could have acted otherwise. To a libertarian, a person could have acted differently, but not as to be purely random or arbitrary. It's founded on the notion that the world is constantly changing, the rules of "the game" are constantly changing, so it's impossible to predict any difinitive end-state. Instead, it's a procedural process of finding out what works and what doesn't work - then re-evaluating along the way.
The most classic example of this is to examine what game theory tries to do, but many times fails: Make people into mechanized computers of if - then statements.
It's also a core problem with his belief that, "If only the rules of the game were clearly defined, would we see smooth outcomes."
We know that simply isn't the case. In fact just the opposite. People have a tenancy to organize things fine without any "clear rules of the game." Society doesn't implode. A person won a nobel prize proving this is the case.
As a counter-example to show how absurd Destiny is:
>Be put into destiny's shoes
>be successful streamer
>claim "he didn't build his success, his community did"
>destiny in the future decides he doesn't want to stream anymore. he wants to do something else in his life.
Is it Destiny's responsibility to make sure everyone who has ever donated to him in his lifetime finds an equal or better alternative form of entertainment? I'm certain he would say "no."
Or better yet: Ask him, if his argument for determinism is true, then would he agree that it is the moral responsibility of a gay person to remain straight in a straight society? Their claim would fundamentally be, "You can't be gay. You've been raised straight in a straight society with straight beliefs, so it's impossible for you to be gay. You owe everything and everyone in this society to be straight." Again, I'm certain Destiny would deny this to be morally responsible. He would have to deny the idea that the environment makes you, or that you could control the environment in such a way as to create people deterministically.
Or how about a person who pulls good grades in school, top of his class, but decides to drop out last minute because he realizes he hates what he's studying. Is it his moral obligation to stay in school, since his family put so much time and effort into raising him into becoming a doctor? Does he have a moral obligation to not follow his dreams elsewhere, and instead stay headlong into a carrier path that he knows he will hate?
So his argument for a better "moral structure" under pure environmental decision-making is retarded.
Fundamentally the problem with his argument is that you are not allowed to dissent from the society. Rather it is not possible for anyone to dissent from the society. This is clearly not the case: we see entrepreneurs, independents, individuals all the time choose to break off from what everyone else is doing so they can do their own thing all the time.
To this "Destiny's" view: Freedom is nothing more than the freedom to obey the law. A freedom to obey society. This robs a person's sense of self-autonomy. This robs a person's sense of personal responsibility - you are viewed not as a person, but as a gear in society.
To many democrats: Freedom is tied to wealth. Slavery, in this view, is okay only if you treat your slaves handsomely.
To a libertarian: Freedom is the ability to make choices for yourself, unhindered by other agents upon you.