The Lazy Argument
I came across this argument (dubbed "the lazy argument"):
If it is fated that you will recover from this illness, then, regardless of whether you consult a doctor or you do not consult [a doctor] you will recover. But also: if it is fated that you won't recover from this illness, then, regardless of whether you consult a doctor or you do not consult [a doctor] you won't recover. But either it is fated that you will recover from this illness or it is fated that you won't recover. Therefore it is futile to consult a doctor.
It seems like the idea behind this argument is that if things are up to fate, there isn't anything we can do to change things. Thus all action is pointless. Hence, if we think we can change things, we need to consider our notions of fate. The argument attempts to show how absurd the concept of fate can be.The idea that it is futile to consult a doctor is clearly wrong. Therefore, something isn't correct.
One approach is to go ahead a refute the argument. For more information, see the wiki entry on the lazy argument (link).
Your thoughts?
If it is fated that you will recover from this illness, then, regardless of whether you consult a doctor or you do not consult [a doctor] you will recover. But also: if it is fated that you won't recover from this illness, then, regardless of whether you consult a doctor or you do not consult [a doctor] you won't recover. But either it is fated that you will recover from this illness or it is fated that you won't recover. Therefore it is futile to consult a doctor.
It seems like the idea behind this argument is that if things are up to fate, there isn't anything we can do to change things. Thus all action is pointless. Hence, if we think we can change things, we need to consider our notions of fate. The argument attempts to show how absurd the concept of fate can be.The idea that it is futile to consult a doctor is clearly wrong. Therefore, something isn't correct.
One approach is to go ahead a refute the argument. For more information, see the wiki entry on the lazy argument (link).
Your thoughts?
Comments (13)
Fate(god) already knows whether you will live or die in the pandemic, so come to church and pray instead of going to the hospital.
If it is fated that I will bear a child as a man, so it is fated.
If it is fated that nothing is what it seems, so it is fated.
Medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America.
If it is fated that the doctor errors in treating me, so it is fated.
A tossed coin could land heads or tails. By design of the coin and the toss, chance rather than determination rules the outcome. It is "fated" that whichever happens, the path to get there is properly treated as a matter of indifference.
Alternatively, if we are talking about deterministic causal processes, then the opposite applies. Now the path matters as two counterfactually opposed outcomes can’t be arrived at by the very same route. Fate is an active choice. Or at least our best attempt at placing constraints on a chance outcome.
Recovery from an illness is a mixed situation as there is both the "chance" factors we can't control and the "determined" factors that we can aspire to manage. There are elements of both that allow the lazy argument to get its traction.
So "fate" is a good enough causal explanation when you are saying leave it all in the lap of the Gods. Any by that, you mean you don't really have any idea whether natural outcomes are a matter of divine indifference or divine intent, or some whimsical combination of the two.
But once we come to prefer a world modelled in terms of chance causes and deterministic causes, then either the path to an outcome matters completely, or not at all. And from those two bounding extremes, we can formulate some more accurate balance that applies to actual mixed situations we might encounter, like recovery from illness. We can count up the chance factors and the deterministic factors, do a sum, decide overall how things lie and what we can expect from action vs inaction.
Short version: it's a stupid argument.
@Janus @apokrisis
Determinism has different connotations because it’s associated with Enlightenment philosophy i.e, that everything that occurs has determinable antecedents. Its clearest expression is the infamous ‘LaPlace’s Daemon’, which, however, got torpedoed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which shows an element of caprice at the most fundamental levels of reality (hence Einstein’s lament about ‘God playing dice’).
Both are radical oversimplifications of the complex interplay of cause, effect, intention and action at all levels of the universe. They are both ‘dogmatic viewpoints’ (what Buddhist philosophy would call d???i - a rather good wiki article on that here).
Note: Being a lazy arguer myself I failed to note the wiki link, and so failed to realize the Stoic provenance of the argument, so please disregard what I have said. (I still think it is an obviously stupid argument, so what @StreetlightX notes seems plausible).
Perhaps this is where you go wrong. To think "it is futile to consult a doctor is clearly wrong" is to deny the existence of fate and amounts to rejecting the central assumption - fate - of the lazy argument.
There are two options available:
1. Reject that fate is real, as you've done (without argument), but this isn't too much of an issue because the lazy argument isn't trying to prove the truth of fate but only exposes what belief in fate entails.
2. Retain fate but demonstrate our choices and what they involve alter our fate. Self-contradictory, no?
It's called "the lazy argument" not because the argument is lazy but because it advocates for ultimate laziness.
In using the term "fated" he is referring to "that which will occur in the future". It seems he is saying "whatever will be will be" so just accept it and take no action at all. His specific conclusion is 'don't see a doctor" but his general conclusion is "don't do anything".
Most people would consider anyone not making a sufficient effort to accomplish anything as "lazy".
My current understanding of the argument suggest that just because you might not succeed implies you should not try at all. Which is an excuse to not act at all. Is pure inaction without justification a philosophy I don't know about?
If that is not "Ultimate laziness" then I don't know what is.
1. "But either it is fated that you will recover from this illness or it is fated that you won't recover."
This is a false dichotomy. We might not be fated either way.
2. "Therefore it is futile to consult a doctor."
Even if the final outcome can't be changed it doesn't then follow that everything in between doesn't matter. Whether I recover or don't recover, consulting a doctor may quicken the recovery or extend my life, or be the difference between suffering in pain or having some degree of relief.
Of course you might then try the same argument to say that either I'm fated to suffer in pain for 6 months or I'm fated not to, but then to be consistent you'd have to accept that either I'm fated to consult a doctor or I'm not, and so framing this as a reason to choose not to consult a doctor is self-defeating.
Ha, a fellow lazy arguer! I did try to explain, though, but due to my laziness the explanation turned out to be inapt.