The Compatibilism Clash: Does Redefining Free Will Tarnish Philosophy's Image?

A provocative "Ask HN" post sparked a lively debate: Is the philosophical concept of 'compatibilism' causing students to lose interest in philosophy? The original poster suggested that this idea, which posits that free will is compatible with determinism, gives philosophy a bad reputation.

The Core Controversy: Redefining Terms and 'Gaslighting'

The most vocal critic, commenter amichail, argued that compatibilism is 'nonsense' because it allegedly redefines 'free will' into something that isn't genuine free will, and similarly redefines 'moral responsibility' to fit a deterministic world. This, amichail claimed, is an attempt to 'gaslight the general public' into accepting that determinism and moral responsibility can coexist, and suggested that the popularity of such an idea reflects poorly on philosophy's peer review and overall utility.

Defending Philosophy and Its Methods

Several commenters pushed back against the idea that one controversial concept should discredit the entire field:

JohnFen likened rejecting all of philosophy due to compatibilism to 'rejecting all of literature because of a single book you didn't like.' He emphasized that philosophy is full of differing, sometimes competing, ideas.
techpineapple, while initially seeking to understand compatibilism, expressed that philosophy's goal is to engage with new ideas and have one's own positions challenged, suggesting this is a strength, not a weakness.
rifty acknowledged that reusing terms like 'free will' with new meanings can be 'annoying,' but argued that as long as meanings are 'clearly defined and used consistently within the context of a specific view,' it shouldn't be a deal-breaker. He doubted that most people would abandon philosophy entirely over such an issue.

Understanding Academic Philosophy

Commenter jfengel offered a crucial perspective on the nature of professional philosophy, arguing that its actual practice is 'wildly different' from public perception. Key points included:

Broad subjects like 'is free will real or what?' are often 'dorm-room banter'—easy, accessible introductory material that is 'quickly left behind for actual work.'
Students outside philosophy might mistakenly believe these introductory topics are what philosophers spend their lives on.
Philosophy is a 'mishmash of disciplines,' and subjects that become sufficiently well-defined often 'leave the philosophy department and become a department of their own' (e.g., economics, linguistics, cognitive science). What remains is often 'vague by definition.'
Most professional philosophers, according to jfengel, spend 'zero time' on the free will debate in its popular form.

The Intricacies of Free Will, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility

The discussion naturally delved into the substantive philosophical issues at stake:

amichail maintained that if 'genuine' free will doesn't exist (as in a deterministic universe), then traditional notions of punishment for wrongdoing don't make sense; alternatives like isolation and rehabilitation would be more appropriate, similar to how individuals found not liable due to mental illness are treated.
Ukv proposed a pragmatic view, suggesting that 'moral responsibility' is a useful social construct. Regardless of whether the universe is ultimately deterministic or not, if concepts like moral responsibility and practices like punishment serve to discourage behavior detrimental to society (e.g., through deterrence), they remain valid. The morality of punishment, in this view, could depend on the chosen ethical framework (e.g., maximizing well-being).
Jtsummers challenged the idea of deterrence in a deterministic universe without free will, arguing that 'deterrence requires the individual to make a choice,' which would be impossible under such conditions. He also pointed out that if criminals lack moral responsibility, then so do those who punish them.

Conclusion

The Hacker News discussion highlighted a significant tension between the common understanding of certain philosophical problems and their treatment within academic philosophy. While the charge that compatibilism is 'gaslighting' represents a strong critique of its redefinition of terms, other participants emphasized the importance of engaging with diverse philosophical arguments and understanding the nuanced, often specialized, nature of contemporary philosophical work. The debate underscores the ongoing challenge philosophers face in communicating their craft and its value, particularly when dealing with deeply ingrained concepts like free will and moral responsibility.