Does morality really require free will?

[TimeSeeker]

No, it's more about folks usin' language in a sloppy way (me included).

But...meh...whatever floats your boat, ts.

Is that an 'ought' claim about how language should be used ?

[henry quirk]

Nope, just an observation.

[TimeSeeker]

Nope, just an observation.

Yeah but the word 'sloppy' is non-sensical without a polar opposite. Which makes your use of the word 'sloppy' a value judgment. Which is ought

Otherwise you would've simply said 'Folks usin' language' without the adjective 'sloppy'

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

None of this resolves anything.

Well, that depends on the problem that you have identified. Is it really a problem or are you mistaken? What if your pre-suppositions are wrong?

No matter how we define morality, including requiring free will, the possibility that things ought to be another way remains.

Does an 'ought' require agency or can an 'ought' be systemic?
There ought not to be a sunset tomorrow. But it is highly probable that there WILL be.

Suppose that neuroscience proves that free will is an illusion. Somebody could then say that that ought not be the case and then try to engineer humans to have free will. Ought transcends free will.

It can't do that. WILL to raise your hand and you WILL do it. WILL to respond to this comment and you WILL do it. WILL to stand up or sit down - and you WILL do it.

Observe the ambiguous use of the word WILL. Lets disambiguate this by renaming "free will" to desire.

What evidence could possibly convince you that you don't have any desires? What you don't have is absolute power (control). You can't desire to have telekinesis.

It would be impossible for humans to be engineered to have free will? Somebody could say that it may be possible in the future and that it OUGHT to be pursued. Ought transcends free will.

Non-sequitor given the faulty premise.
There is what WILL be and there is what we desire to be.

A case could be made that ANYTHING ought or ought not to be the way things are. Anthropocentrically conflating the way things ought to be with humans having free will makes no sense.

Yes it does. I ought to have a cup of coffee (goes to coffee machine).
I ought to be in the Bahamas this weekend (books a flight).
I ought to own my private island...... You must construct aditional Pylons.

Suppose one goes against the determinist trend and insists that humans do have free will. Somebody else could say that humans ought not have free will. Ought transcends free will.

Absolute determinism requires perfect knowledge - omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. That's THREE absolutes. Shame
I desire to breathe! And I will. I desire to not breathe! And I will stop! I know how and I can. For as long as I am able to. Until I pass out or run out of desire and my autonomous system takes over my breathing.

I am defining morality the broadest way it has been understood: the way things ought to be. Notice that it does not say anything like "what beings with free will ought to choose". Nothing about choice. Nothing about free will. Just the way things ought to be, period.

But you are ignoring the way things WILL be. Separate from DESIRE.

Which brings us back to the other questions on square one: why can't the way things ought to be be realized without free will?

What WILL be WILL be realized without desire. What OUGHT to be MAY be realized BY desire.

Human vs universe.

David vs Goliath

In other words, there is no such thing as the way things ought to be, but one ought not think that there is such a thing as the way things ought to be.

[TimeSeeker]

None of this resolves anything.

Well, that depends on the problem that you have identified. Is it really a problem or are you mistaken? What if your pre-suppositions are wrong?

No matter how we define morality, including requiring free will, the possibility that things ought to be another way remains.

Does an 'ought' require agency or can an 'ought' be systemic?
There ought not to be a sunset tomorrow. But it is highly probable that there WILL be.

Suppose that neuroscience proves that free will is an illusion. Somebody could then say that that ought not be the case and then try to engineer humans to have free will. Ought transcends free will.

It can't do that. WILL to raise your hand and you WILL do it. WILL to respond to this comment and you WILL do it. WILL to stand up or sit down - and you WILL do it.

Observe the ambiguous use of the word WILL. Lets disambiguate this by renaming "free will" to desire.

What evidence could possibly convince you that you don't have any desires? What you don't have is absolute power (control). You can't desire to have telekinesis.

It would be impossible for humans to be engineered to have free will? Somebody could say that it may be possible in the future and that it OUGHT to be pursued. Ought transcends free will.

Non-sequitor given the faulty premise.
There is what WILL be and there is what we desire to be.

A case could be made that ANYTHING ought or ought not to be the way things are. Anthropocentrically conflating the way things ought to be with humans having free will makes no sense.

Yes it does. I ought to have a cup of coffee (goes to coffee machine).
I ought to be in the Bahamas this weekend (books a flight).
I ought to own my private island...... You must construct aditional Pylons.

Suppose one goes against the determinist trend and insists that humans do have free will. Somebody else could say that humans ought not have free will. Ought transcends free will.

Absolute determinism requires perfect knowledge - omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. That's THREE absolutes. Shame
I desire to breathe! And I will. I desire to not breathe! And I will stop! I know how and I can. For as long as I am able to. Until I pass out or run out of desire and my autonomous system takes over my breathing.

I am defining morality the broadest way it has been understood: the way things ought to be. Notice that it does not say anything like "what beings with free will ought to choose". Nothing about choice. Nothing about free will. Just the way things ought to be, period.

But you are ignoring the way things WILL be. Separate from DESIRE.

Which brings us back to the other questions on square one: why can't the way things ought to be be realized without free will?

What WILL be WILL be realized without desire. What OUGHT to be MAY be realized BY desire.

Human vs universe.

David vs Goliath

In other words, there is no such thing as the way things ought to be, but one ought not think that there is such a thing as the way things ought to be.

EXACTLY the opposite conclusion!

I think I ought to have a banana. And I got one and I am eating it and it is delicious.

We think we ought to have language/logic because it is useful for communicate. And we invented a bunch! And they were useful indeed.

The ought has become an is. Human needs and desires are the source of ought.

Humans are (the plural of IS). Humans think and have desires.

Therefore any one human ought to think there is such a thing as “ought” - it is the aggregate of all human desire.

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

EXACTLY the opposite conclusion!

I think I ought to have a banana. And I got one and I am eating it and it is delicious.

We think we ought to have language/logic because it is useful for communicate. And we invented a bunch! And they were useful indeed.

The ought has become an is. Human needs and desires are the source of ought.

Humans are (the plural of IS). Humans think and have desires.

Therefore any one human ought to think there is such a thing as “ought” - it is the aggregate of all human desire.

Just because one thinks that he/she ought to do something does not mean that he/she ought to do it.

The statement "Human needs and desires are the source of ought" is the most extreme anthropocentrism I have ever seen. It says that all change in space and time is to be evaluated according to the needs and desires of humans.

Finally, even if what you say is true, the possibilility that things ought to be another way remains.

[TimeSeeker]

EXACTLY the opposite conclusion!

I think I ought to have a banana. And I got one and I am eating it and it is delicious.

We think we ought to have language/logic because it is useful for communicate. And we invented a bunch! And they were useful indeed.

The ought has become an is. Human needs and desires are the source of ought.

Humans are (the plural of IS). Humans think and have desires.

Therefore any one human ought to think there is such a thing as “ought” - it is the aggregate of all human desire.

Just because one thinks that he/she ought to do something does not mean that he/she ought to do it.

The statement "Human needs and desires are the source of ought" is the most extreme anthropocentrism I have ever seen. It says that all change in space and time is to be evaluated according to the needs and desires of humans.

Finally, even if what you say is true, the possibilility that things ought to be another way remains.

Anthropocentrism? Yeah! I have never met any non-existing philosophers. Have you?

To argue against “anthropocentrism” (I quite like that actually - going to borrow it!) is to be guilty of a performative contradiction (best case) or theism (worst case).

From WHOSE ‘objective’ reference frame are you asserting my “extreme anthropocentrism ”? Have you discovered God’s Ivory watch tower?

It seems to me your conceptual model of reality is missing an ‘observer’ in it. You!

Because one thinks they ought to do something means they have free will! They get to CHOOSE to do it. Or they get to CHOOSE not to choose.

The probability that things will be another way is a statistical certainty! Most things in the universe change outside of our control so choosing not to adapt is a losing long-term strategy for all “anthropocentrists”. Which is a really fancy word for “all living species”.

Natural selection is how things are! We get to decide how they ought to be.

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

Because one thinks they ought to do something means they have free will! They get to CHOOSE to do it. Or they get to CHOOSE not to choose.

The probability that things will be another way is a statistical certainty! Most things in the universe change outside of our control so choosing not to adapt is a losing long-term strategy for all “anthropocentrists”. Which is a really fancy word for “all living species”.

Natural selection is how things are! We get to decide how they ought to be.

Again, we are not talking about the way that people think things ought to be. We are talking about the way things ought to be, period.

[TimeSeeker]

Again, we are not talking about the way that people think things ought to be. We are talking about the way things ought to be, period.

That is not a grammatically correct claim.

The word 'ought' implies 'correctness' (and its contraposition 'incorrectness'). It implies a VALUE judgment

used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions

There is the way things WILL be, period. Objective claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deat ... e_universe

And so it is non-sensical to speak of "the way things OUGHT to be, period" without being explicit about who the subject is. Whose 'ought'?
Is it a deity? An alien from another galaxy? An earth worm? A human being? Which human being?

Many oughts! Or as you say: anthropocentrism

In the language of philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

Again, we are not talking about the way that people think things ought to be. We are talking about the way things ought to be, period.

That is not a grammatically correct claim.

The word 'ought' implies 'correctness' (and its contraposition 'incorrectness'). It implies a VALUE judgment

used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions

There is the way things WILL be, period. Objective claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deat ... e_universe

And so it is non-sensical to speak of "the way things OUGHT to be, period" without being explicit about who the subject is. Whose 'ought'?
Is it a deity? An alien from another galaxy? An earth worm? A human being? Which human being?

Many oughts! Or as you say: anthropocentrism

In the language of philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism

In other words, we have the sentence "Stop!" in which it is understood that the subject is "you" even though the word "you" does not appear, and we have the phrase "The way things ought to be" meaning "The way something THINKS things ought to be" even though the word "thinks" does not appear. Whoever originated the idea that morality is the way things ought to be was economical with words!

Therefore, when thinking ends morality ceases to exist.

Yes, we get that. Ad nauseam, we get that.

But at least one person--me--believes that it might be false.

Just because someone "thinks" that things ought to be a certain way does not mean that they ought to be that way.

Furthermore, even if it is true that morality ceases to exist when thinking ends, there is the question of whether or not things ought to be that way. Maybe the way things ought to be is that morality is independent of the act of thinking.

Then there is the possibility that the way things ought to be is like 2 + 2 = 4. Is 2 + 2 = 4 the case only when there is a subject to think that it is so? Does 2 + 2 = 4 cease to exist when thinking subjects cease to think or cease to exist?

What is 2 + 2 = 4's free will? Without free will morality ceases to exist; without _____ 2 + 2 = 4 ceases to exist. Fill in the blank.

Meanwhile, the question of the way things ought to be being realized continues to be ignored. I have no reason to believe that without thinking subjects with free will there is no such a thing as the way things ought to be or any way to realize the way things ought to be.

This is what happens when people privilege a particular understanding of phenomena. That's why I pointed out very early in the discussion that a lot depends on how morality is defined. As far as I can tell, the only reason to dogmatically insist on a narrow, conventional understanding of morality is to protect the status of paradigms like free will versus determinism.

In other words, we are all supposed to believe that there are two--and only two--possibilities: either humans have free will or there is only the way things are. So way back when there was no free will vs. determinism paradigm the only way the world was thought if was the way things are?

A lot of assumptions, almost no evidence.

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

That's "thought of", not "thought if".

[TimeSeeker]

Just because someone "thinks" that things ought to be a certain way does not mean that they ought to be that way.

You use the phrase "it does not mean". Does this ''mean'' you believe in objective meaning?
Same question as before: from whose mind/perspective/reference frame are you interpreting meaning?

I say: 'I want a cup of tea'.
From MY reference frame/perspective (e.g the mind that SAID it) it means 'I want a cup of tea'.
From my reference frame it means 'I ought to have a cup of tea'.

Because that is what "I want" means. It expresses a desire about the FUTURE. And that is what an "ought" is. A prescriptive statement about the future. And so I make myself a cup of tea!

To think any other way is to fail to recognize you are interpreting My meaning from YOUR reference frame.

To say that "Just because you think you ought to have a cup of tea does not mean you ought to have a cup of tea" is some authoritarian bullshit! Even if you believe that - how are you going to stop me from having a cup of tea?

As far as I can tell, the only reason to dogmatically insist on a narrow, conventional understanding of morality is to protect the status of paradigms like free will versus determinism.

In other words, we are all supposed to believe that there are two--and only two--possibilities: either humans have free will or there is only the way things are. So way back when there was no free will vs. determinism paradigm the only way the world was thought if was the way things are?

They are not incompatible paradigms. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a fool who only knows how to think in black-and-white.

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

Just because someone "thinks" that things ought to be a certain way does not mean that they ought to be that way.

You use the phrase "it does not mean". Does this ''mean'' you believe in objective meaning?
Same question as before: from whose mind/perspective/reference frame are you interpreting meaning?

I say: 'I want a cup of tea'.
From MY reference frame/perspective (e.g the mind that SAID it) it means 'I want a cup of tea'.
From my reference frame it means 'I ought to have a cup of tea'.

Because that is what "I want" means. It expresses a desire about the FUTURE. And that is what an "ought" is. A prescriptive statement about the future. And so I make myself a cup of tea!

To think any other way is to fail to recognize you are interpreting My meaning from YOUR reference frame.

To say that "Just because you think you ought to have a cup of tea does not mean you ought to have a cup of tea" is some authoritarian bullshit! Even if you believe that - how are you going to stop me from having a cup of tea?

As far as I can tell, the only reason to dogmatically insist on a narrow, conventional understanding of morality is to protect the status of paradigms like free will versus determinism.

In other words, we are all supposed to believe that there are two--and only two--possibilities: either humans have free will or there is only the way things are. So way back when there was no free will vs. determinism paradigm the only way the world was thought if was the way things are?

They are not incompatible paradigms. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a fool who only knows how to think in black-and-white.

Isn't it funny how someone can get all bent out of shape, regurgitate the same nitpicking and hair splitting ad nauseam, accuse you of all kinds of logical fallacies, accuse you of all kinds of sins against the described use of words according to dictionaries, and leave you with no idea if he/she agrees or disagrees with you?

The elimination of free will from human beings is not a radical change. Do you agree or disagree? Please, no more nitpicking or hair splitting over "ought", "agent", "perspective", etc.

Eliminate free will from humans and we are not left with nothing more than the way things are. Do you agree or disagree?

Morality could just be a concept that is obsolete in the context of new knowledge. But what that concept served to try to grasp is not necessarily eliminated.

I would say that it does not get anymore basic than this: there is tension between the way things are and other possible states. That tension can be reduced or eradicated. Eliminating free will from humans changes nothing about the latter or former. At the most, it forces us to change how we see ourselves, what we are capable of, how the world works, and our role in the world. It does not necessarily leave us as nothing more than automatons powerlessly stuck in a linear chain of causes and effects.

[TimeSeeker]

I already stated my position in this post:

(ETC...)

And now I shall address your concerns directly.

The elimination of free will from human beings is not a radical change. Do you agree or disagree? Please, no more nitpicking or hair splitting over "ought", "agent", "perspective", etc.

Ontologically, I don't know what free will is, therefore I don't know how to 'eliminate it'.

I use the phrase 'free will' to describe my apparent, observed ability to turn my desires into actions e.g make CHOICES. I am not making any causal/ontological claims about free will.

I want coffee - I make coffee.
I want to scratch my nose - I scratch my nose.
I want to make lasagne for dinner - I don't know how to cook lasagne.

There is another distinction that needs to be drawn - power. Ability to manifest one's desires into being.

In 200BC you could have said "We ought to cure leprosy". Great idea! How? And so your desires are left sterile because you cannot manifest them into practice.
In 2018 we have antibiotics. And so we have the POWER to turn such a desire into reality (ought into an is).

Does this mean in 2000 years we developed free will or that through the development of tools we have become more powerful so that we can manifest our free will ?

And so, I don't think you get to speak of free will without also addressing desire AND ability. e.g power.

Eliminate free will from humans and we are not left with nothing more than the way things are. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. There is the way things will be. We can still predict what is coming based on the observations of the past. That is how science works

Or I can choose not to choose. By closing my eyelids and refusing to observe or make predictions.

Is choosing not to choose free will?

Do animals have free will? Is the will to survive ‘free will’?

[-1-]

Our status as moral agents, along with all of the thought we have developed over many millennia to correctly act on that status, collapses if free will is taken away, we are told.

Products of science, such as evolutionary psychology, and products of philosophy, such as physicalism, make it impossible now for any rational person to believe that we have free will and to see it as anything more than an illusion that has been useful for our survival.

Therefore, morality is toast.

But doesn't all of that depend on how morality is defined?

It seems to me that the most widely understood and accepted definition of morality is "The way things ought to be". It is compared and contrasted with "The way things are".

It is not the way anybody wants things to be. It is not the way anybody thinks things ought to be. It is the way things ought to be, period.

If, say, the way things ought to be includes every member of society being treated the same, that could, in theory, become the way things are through, say, many millennia of the impersonal mechanism of evolution by natural selection, right?

If the way things ought to be includes all members of ecosystems living within the systems' means, that could become the way things are through natural causes and effects, couldn't it?

Or is morality not really "The way things ought to be"?

Or has it been established through metaphysics and science that the way things ought to be can only become the way things are via free will?

Or is there no such thing as the way things ought to be, and really consists of nothing more than the way things are?

If there is nothing more than the way things are, why do we continue to think and talk about morality?

I wish you'd make your claims in nominative sentences, stating stuff, instead of asking questions. If and when you ask questions, you are A. not making a claim, and B. you sound ambivalent as to whether your question is inquisitive, or rhetorical.

This is too late to join the conversation, but please, please, please, state claims, and do not ask questions in lieu of making claims in nominative sentences.

BIG THANKS from me if you do.