Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[popeye1945]

I believe free will was a religious concept/creation in that the existence of sin depends upon it, and it so simplifies things in such a perplexing world. Certainly, believers, if they really are believers, are threatened by all the violence religion has in store for them after they die if they don't follow the righteously proscribed path. Try to keep in mind however that religions are biological extensions of or creations of man, so humanity has created something to self-monitor itself in the context of their times. It is true we have not changed much biologically, but we have changed massively in our understandings of ourselves and the world, so the old formulas don't quite make sense in modern times.

Compassion is the seed of morality and identification of one's self with the self of other creatures brings into manifestation compassion thus morality. This is more powerful in creating a moral system than any cosmological beliefs one might entertain free will or determinism. This identifying with other-selves is where care, compassion, and morality truly come from out of one's human nature. A striking example of this fact is the existence of the psychopath, they know today that the centers of the brain responsible for this identification are non-functional in the psychopath, no identification, no compassion and not restricted by any moral code. I think it matters little if one believes in free will or determinism if you identify with the self in another and thus the suffering of another you will have compassion and a sense of morality independent of any institutions that claims to know what they indeed cannot know.

[BigMike]

Are you saying that if you are part of an endless chain of events that leads to something, you are responsible for that thing?

Are you saying that since you are a determinist you wouldn't treat someone who pushed your kid to the ground as if they were responsible for pushing your kid to the ground? That if you found out they had a habit of pushing kids around you wouldn't want society to treat them as if they, and not others, were responsible for those acts? Would it be wrong somehow to treat that person as the immediate cause of your kid hitting the ground and also as the kind of person who does such things?

No. Where did I even hint that I meant something like that?

I am not denying that certain kinds of moral judgment and blame might be reduced in some people, and perhaps rightly so. But still, person X did Y. And if we want to inhibit Y then we hold that person responsible (or answerable, the orgininal meaning of that word) for their action(s).

That seems like a possible stance to take if you are always looking for someone to blame. So, why not blame the last person for everything? You can also take a different stance, of course. I do. I tend to look at the world through the "six-degrees-of-separation" lens, where everyone is connected through their words and actions. This also opens my eyes to the possibility that I may be close to the "crime scene", in terms of causing it, without even knowing. I might be part of the chain of events that led to the wrongdoing, and if I had responded better, the bad might not have happened. The next time, I should remember this, which would perhaps make me a better person and potentially prevent something bad from happening. I could have spoken up earlier, of course, or I could do it now, after the damage is already done. This is exactly why I want to take part in this debate.

It makes practical sense to do this. Further we would also then understand our feelings of distaste, rage, fear relating to this person, given that these are not things we are not the original first cause of either.

I suppose since I am not a moral realist, I may view this differently from others. I don't think there is some objective moral good or bad/evil. However I certainly hold people responsible for their actions - with all sorts of provisos for cirumstances and background. And would regardless of free will or determinist ontologies.

I don't think there is a morally objective good or bad. Nature can be "brutal" at times, and we are all made by nature. In evolution, every man was on his own. Each person did what they thought was best for them. Hobbes referred to this as the "state of nature," which was characterized by the absence of laws and, hence, crimes. But he thought that in such a world, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He therefore proposed that people agree to a social contract, as this would be in everyone's best interest. By the social contract, people should agree, either explicitly or implicitly, to give up some of their "natural" freedoms and submit to the authority in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or keeping the social order.
When it's important, dangerous people who want to cause trouble should be stopped. This could be done by putting them in jail or by doing something else, like giving them a thorough education in democratic values and civics.

[BigMike]

I believe free will was a religious concept/creation in that the existence of sin depends upon it, and it so simplifies things in such a perplexing world. Certainly, believers, if they really are believers, are threatened by all the violence religion has in store for them after they die if they don't follow the righteously proscribed path. Try to keep in mind however that religions are biological extensions of or creations of man, so humanity has created something to self-monitor itself in the context of their times. It is true we have not changed much biologically, but we have changed massively in our understandings of ourselves and the world, so the old formulas don't quite make sense in modern times.

Compassion is the seed of morality and identification of one's self with the self of other creatures brings into manifestation compassion thus morality. This is more powerful in creating a moral system than any cosmological beliefs one might entertain free will or determinism. This identifying with other-selves is where care, compassion, and morality truly come from out of one's human nature. A striking example of this fact is the existence of the psychopath, they know today that the centers of the brain responsible for this identification are non-functional in the psychopath, no identification, no compassion and not restricted by any moral code. I think it matters little if one believes in free will or determinism if you identify with the self in another and thus the suffering of another you will have compassion and a sense of morality independent of any institutions that claims to know what they indeed cannot know.

This excellent post is worth repeating in its entirety. Regarding your last sentence, though, I find it hard to see how believing in free will is consistent with anything more than a surface level of compassion for others, especially repeat offenders.

[Walker]

Are you saying that if you are part of an endless chain of events that leads to something, you are responsible for that thing?

How this question pertains to "my saying," is ...

The body's doing is the responsibility of the doer.

As Sri Ramana Maharshi reminds us: "You are the body also, but not this body exclusively. If you remain as your pure Self, the body and its movements need not affect you."

[Walker]

"Free to irresponsibly ponder as they must"? What do you mean when you say "free"?

I means ... free from any obstruction other than delusion.

[Walker]

Are you saying that the "contents of awareness" happen by chance and are caused in the same sentence? I'm trying to get your point of view.

The contents of awareness are sensory perception and thoughts. Both are activated by situations. As everyone knows situations change and the ultimate cause of any particular change could likely be traced to the beginning of time if one but had the tenacity. Suffice it to say that contents of awareness change as situations change, and in fact, changing contents of consciousness are demarcation points for a new situation.

[popeye1945]

I believe free will was a religious concept/creation in that the existence of sin depends upon it, and it so simplifies things in such a perplexing world. Certainly, believers, if they really are believers, are threatened by all the violence religion has in store for them after they die if they don't follow the righteously proscribed path. Try to keep in mind however that religions are biological extensions of or creations of man, so humanity has created something to self-monitor itself in the context of their times. It is true we have not changed much biologically, but we have changed massively in our understandings of ourselves and the world, so the old formulas don't quite make sense in modern times.

Compassion is the seed of morality and identification of one's self with the self of other creatures brings into manifestation compassion thus morality. This is more powerful in creating a moral system than any cosmological beliefs one might entertain free will or determinism. This identifying with other-selves is where care, compassion, and morality truly come from out of one's human nature. A striking example of this fact is the existence of the psychopath, they know today that the centers of the brain responsible for this identification are non-functional in the psychopath, no identification, no compassion and not restricted by any moral code. I think it matters little if one believes in free will or determinism if you identify with the self in another and thus the suffering of another you will have compassion and a sense of morality independent of any institutions that claims to know what they indeed cannot know.

This excellent post is worth repeating in its entirety. Regarding your last sentence, though, I find it hard to see how believing in free will is consistent with anything more than a surface level of compassion for others, especially repeat offenders.

Big Mike,

It was not my intention to infer that believing in free will or determinism mattered when it came to identifying with another self and coming to compassion for a fellow creature. For me, it is extended to other life forms without any effort on my part. Thanks for the compliment by the way!!

[BigMike]

Are you saying that the "contents of awareness" happen by chance and are caused in the same sentence? I'm trying to get your point of view.

The contents of awareness are sensory perception and thoughts. Both are activated by situations. As everyone knows situations change and the ultimate cause of any particular change could likely be traced to the beginning of time if one but had the tenacity. Suffice it to say that contents of awareness change as situations change, and in fact, changing contents of consciousness are demarcation points for a new situation.

So, if "free will" is a thought in the "contents of awareness" that changes "as situations change," it, too, is "activated by situations" and is not "free." So, there is no such thing as free will; it is an illusion.

[Iwannaplato]

No. Where did I even hint that I meant something like that?

You asked a question that could imply you believed what I said. So, I asked you some questions to see it if was the cae.
I am not denying that certain kinds of moral judgment and blame might be reduced in some people, and perhaps rightly so. But still, person X did Y. And if we want to inhibit Y then we hold that person responsible (or answerable, the orgininal meaning of that word) for their action(s).
[/quote]

That seems like a possible stance to take if you are always looking for someone to blame. So, why not blame the last person for everything? You can also take a different stance, of course. I do. I tend to look at the world through the "six-degrees-of-separation" lens, where everyone is connected through their words and actions. This also opens my eyes to the possibility that I may be close to the "crime scene", in terms of causing it, without even knowing. I might be part of the chain of events that led to the wrongdoing, and if I had responded better, the bad might not have happened. The next time, I should remember this, which would perhaps make me a better person and potentially prevent something bad from happening. I could have spoken up earlier, of course, or I could do it now, after the damage is already done. This is exactly why I want to take part in this debate.

Of course. I am not ruling out multiple people being responsible and I certainly look at my own actions and lack of to see my role in things. Why not always blame the last person? I wouldn't say I do that. It's more like 'what kind of entity am I dealing with?' To take an obvious extreme example, if some guy robs my store and I find out his family was held hostage at gunpoint and he was told to get ten thousand dollars in an hour or they get shot, I wouldn't think of him as a problematic entity. So, it's not so much the person who is the last cause, but is this a person who is likely to be dangerous in future situations given his attitude and tendency toward actions.

I don't think there is a morally objective good or bad. Nature can be "brutal" at times, and we are all made by nature. In evolution, every man was on his own. Each person did what they thought was best for them. Hobbes referred to this as the "state of nature," which was characterized by the absence of laws and, hence, crimes. But he thought that in such a world, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He therefore proposed that people agree to a social contract, as this would be in everyone's best interest.

Many animals did this and do this, social mammals can be quite tribal.

By the social contract, people should agree, either explicitly or implicitly, to give up some of their "natural" freedoms and submit to the authority in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or keeping the social order.
When it's important, dangerous people who want to cause trouble should be stopped. This could be done by putting them in jail or by doing something else, like giving them a thorough education in democratic values and civics.

It depends what you mean by the second, but I am skeptical that this would be particularly effective. I do think some of the confronted by the victims can be effective with some criminals. And I am sure there are other possible solutions. (I also think we should eliminate many, even most of the drug laws. Then we'd have all sorts of money available for rehabilitative options - The Portrugese the laws against it being criminal to use narcotics and they saw no increase in overdoses and much less deaths and violence due to all sorts of other facets of the drug culture. Even most of the hardened anti-narc people amongst the police have come round to this being vastly better for all concerned. Of course that's off topic.

[BigMike]

By the social contract, people should agree, either explicitly or implicitly, to give up some of their "natural" freedoms and submit to the authority in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or keeping the social order.
When it's important, dangerous people who want to cause trouble should be stopped. This could be done by putting them in jail or by doing something else, like giving them a thorough education in democratic values and civics.

It depends what you mean by the second, but I am skeptical that this would be particularly effective. I do think some of the confronted by the victims can be effective with some criminals. And I am sure there are other possible solutions. (I also think we should eliminate many, even most of the drug laws. Then we'd have all sorts of money available for rehabilitative options - The Portrugese the laws against it being criminal to use narcotics and they saw no increase in overdoses and much less deaths and violence due to all sorts of other facets of the drug culture. Even most of the hardened anti-narc people amongst the police have come round to this being vastly better for all concerned. Of course that's off topic.

I think there are a lot of ways we could change the way we punish criminals and the rationale for doing so. But I'm certainly not an expert in that field at all. From a neurological point of view, though, I think the ultimate goal must be to stop crimes from happening again, not just lock people up and hope for miracles to change them.

[promethean75]

"But I'm certainly not an expert in that field at all."

I know an expert in that field coughpromcough. He says nothing more can be done that isn't already being done through criminal rehabilitation efforts and social services (tho inefficiently) unless there are structural changes to society.

[BigMike]

"But I'm certainly not an expert in that field at all."

I know an expert in that field coughpromcough. He says nothing more can be done that isn't already being done through criminal rehabilitation efforts and social services (tho inefficiently) unless there are structural changes to society.

In fact, I agree with the idea that society needs to change now that we know that free will is a myth. My train of thought tends to head in the direction of honoring the primary objective, which is to safeguard life and property and provide for those who have no property to protect.

[promethean75]

the problem is we can't do much more in the way of treatment that we aren't already doing. u either re-educate/reform criminals or you dope em up on meds.

the clue is that if you change the environment you indirectly change the animal. and most crime originates in environments and circumstances that would make anyone in them, criminal. more than not the problem isn't genetic and has less to do with intelligence. i mean to say the dimwits that become the criminals in those environments wouldn't have become criminals if you put them somewhere else and gave them something constructive to do and be a part of.

ya can't really see it through this lense tho unless you're a determinist (a better term: causalist) cuz you're predisposed to attribute unfortunate circumstances that produce criminals to the criminals themselves and their 'choices' rather than the criminal's environment, history, family life, education, employment opportunity, etc.

[Dimebag]

I believe free will was a religious concept/creation in that the existence of sin depends upon it, and it so simplifies things in such a perplexing world. Certainly, believers, if they really are believers, are threatened by all the violence religion has in store for them after they die if they don't follow the righteously proscribed path. Try to keep in mind however that religions are biological extensions of or creations of man, so humanity has created something to self-monitor itself in the context of their times. It is true we have not changed much biologically, but we have changed massively in our understandings of ourselves and the world, so the old formulas don't quite make sense in modern times.

Compassion is the seed of morality and identification of one's self with the self of other creatures brings into manifestation compassion thus morality. This is more powerful in creating a moral system than any cosmological beliefs one might entertain free will or determinism. This identifying with other-selves is where care, compassion, and morality truly come from out of one's human nature. A striking example of this fact is the existence of the psychopath, they know today that the centers of the brain responsible for this identification are non-functional in the psychopath, no identification, no compassion and not restricted by any moral code. I think it matters little if one believes in free will or determinism if you identify with the self in another and thus the suffering of another you will have compassion and a sense of morality independent of any institutions that claims to know what they indeed cannot know.

I personally think it goes deeper than our learned religious beliefs, metaphysics and customs.

The human mind has the ability to attribute the existence of other minds, where no actual direct perceptual ability is capable. That is, we infer other minds, and we do this implicitly through the observation of behaviour which appears directed, goal oriented and intentional. We infer an “agent” which is the source of and author of all actions produced by a particular body.

Especially where the attribution of behaviours isn’t directly perceptible, I.e. the reason behind the behaviour, we attribute those behaviours as being “created” out of nothing. The truth is, we are simply ignorant to the causes of the behaviour, we see behaviours occurring, and inferring the source of those behaviours to a projected agent, residing somewhere inside the organism.

Because we also feel ourselves to be this same kind of agent, existing separate from the projected world it inhabits, yet able to enact and cause change through the body we inhabit, we also project this same implicit understanding upon all inferred agents.

The truth of what the agent is, is hidden from us, seemingly. It is hidden only through a misunderstanding of the truth, and a projecting of a pragmatic construction of freely produced and uncaused action (action with a source in a subject with no causes) which attributes our actions and those of other projected agents to them as the source.

The reason this misunderstanding can persist is through misdirection of the mind, and the hiding of truth in plain sight. Nature assumes that, the agent existing (sic) in the mind will not investigate its own origins, and its own fundamental existence, it will not try to understand what it is. It knows that the agent is very distracted by objects, because those objects are viewed as providing pleasure and pain which the agent perceives to be either attained or avoided, and thus, as long as novelty exists within the world of objects, the truth of the subject or agent remains safely hidden.

[Age]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do.

And then there is the "others".

So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society. For example,

1. do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?
2. do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
3. is it true that compatibilists tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
4. Is it true that compatibilists usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Note that I'm not asking what you think about free will. I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general.

Why did you propose your questions in this way and NOT, for example, in this way:
Do people with a free will view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with other views?
Do so-called "free willists" care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
Is it true that "determinists" tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
Is it true that "determinists" usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Your questioning here "bigmike" EXPOSES and REVEALS your TIGHTLY HELD ONTO BELIEFS, which are STOPPING and PREVENTING you from SEEING what is ACTUALLY True here, while at the same time DISTORTING your OWN VIEW and also in regards to how you LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

You make a good point which I believe will go over most peoples heads here. But the problem is you never actually specify what it is you actually mean, and so leave it entirely vague to the person in question.

I am VERY HAPPY that you noticed this as well.

I PURPOSELY VERY, VERY RARELY actually specify what 'it' is that I ACTUALLY mean, for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

In the context of leading someone to their own truth that is useful and maybe necessary, but in the context of a debate or the attempt to find some shared truth it is not very productive.

Just about ALL writers have a TARGETED or INTENDED 'audience'. My TARGETED or INTENDED 'audience' MIGHT just NOT be who you are IMAGINING or ASSUMING 'them' to be.

I also do NOT do 'debate', for REASONS ALREADY PROVIDED.

And, leading one to their OWN 'truth', comes in handy and helpful LATER, WHEN REVEALING what thee SHARED Truth IS, EXACTLY.

So I was wondering if you could be more specific about what you think the OP is overlooking in relation to free will vs determinism belief and its impact upon one’s views of responsibility, blame, the following of rules etc?

I am more than HAPPY to, especially considering you SPECIFIED, EXACTLY, what 'it' IS that 'you' WANTED from 'me'.

1. 'free will' VERSES 'determinism' is the ABSOLUTE Wrong way to even BEGIN LOOKING AT 'this'. There is absolutely NOTHING in the WHOLE of the Universe that STATES that this HAS TO BE 'one' OR 'the other'.

2. ANY 'belief' WILL PREVENT and STOP a person LOOKING AT ALL-THERE-IS. BELIEFS MAKE people only LOOK FOR, and thus also only SEE, very particular 'things', and thus the REST of Picture is MISSED, or is at least DISTORTED, FOGGIED, or FUZZY.

3. What is BEING OVERLOOKED therefore is there is NOT necessarily a 'one' VERSES 'the other' NOR a 'one' OR 'the other' discussion to be had here, and, if one comes to ANY discussion with ANY BELIEF, or DISBELIEVE about ANY thing within the discussion, then 'things' WILL and DO just get OVERLOOKED, naturally.

4. Now for the opening post specifically;

The first thing being overlooked in the opening post here is that there is NO definition supplied for the term and phrase 'free will'. So, talking about there being some people who BELIEVE in 'free will' and some who do NOT BELIEVE in 'free will' besides, itself being an irrational and nonsensical way to describe things here, there is also absolutely NO indication AT ALL of what these, supposed and alleged, BELIEVING and NON BELIEVING people are actually BELIEVING or NOT BELIEVING 'in' EXACTLY.

A second thing being overlooked here is that the one who began this thread BELIEVES WHOLEHEARTEDLY that there is absolutely NO 'free will' AT ALL (and remembering most people do NOT YET even KNOW what the term 'free will' even means to the one who started this thread).

Another thing being overlooked in the opening post is that the one who wrote it is just TROLLING for people with OPPOSING BELIEFS so that that one can just FIGHT or ARGUE with the "others" in the HOPE of 'winning' some 'argument'. (And REMEMBER that the word 'argument', itself, has TWO completely OPPOSING DEFINITIONS.)

As for what is being overlooked in people's OWN BELIEFS of whether there is EITHER 'free will' OR 'determinism' ONLY is that it is THE BELIEF, ITSELF, which is WHAT IS STOPPING and PREVENTING them from SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, here.

And, it is ALSO people's OWN BELIEFS, which impact upon one’s views of responsibility, blame, the following of rules etc?

But, if ANY one is interested in what my views ARE, in relation to:

'Responsibility', itself, then ALL human beings start out NOT responsible for ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, that is; UNTIL they reach the 'age of responsibility', and then they BECOME 'responsible' for ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'behavior' or 'misbehavior' that they do.

'Blame', itself, once one LEARNS and UNDERSTANDS FULLY HOW and WHY EVERY human being does, what they do, then 'blame' does NOT exist for 'us' ANYMORE.

As for;
'The following of rules', once one GAINS True and FULLY 'understanding' of 'Life' and 'living', then there is only One 'rule' in Life to follow, or better worded only One 'lore' by which to live by. Which is JUST (for ALL) and that is; Just do not abuse ANY 'thing'. When what EVERY 'things' PURPOSE IS ALSO becomes KNOWN by 'you', "others", then, and ONLY THEN, KNOWING how to TREAT and thus USE, ALL 'things', including 'you', adult AND children human beings, properly AND correctly, also BECOMES FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

WHEN all of this is FULLY UNDERSTOOD, by 'you' as well, then there is NO 'blame', NO 'punishing', NO 'ridiculing/humiliating', and NO 'judging' AT ALL. There is, instead, just the doing of what IS Right in Life, which is; JUST the teaching, guiding, and helping of ALL "others" to JUST DO what IS Right, and Good, in Life, AS WELL.

Continually helping and supporting EACH and EVERY one of 'us' to ALWAYS do better, with absolutely NO 'discipling/punishing' of ANY one, is done with absolutely VOLUNTARY enthusiasm, which in turn leads to the CREATION of a Truly loving, peaceful AND harmonious 'world' for ALL of 'us', as One, and thus for EVERY one AND Everyone.

But, do NOT FORGET, that these are just my views, which have come from what this body has observed/experienced, and which obviously could False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, in part or in its entirety.

What else is overlooked in that opening post, again from my perspective, is some of the words used in those four point forms, like, for example, "determinists" and "compatabilits" are NOT even ACTUAL 'things', but which are just labels that get placed on SOME 'human beings', and which could NEVER stand up to scrutiny anyway. AND, what the BELIEFS are about, which those labels ultimately refer to anyway are ALSO NOT even 'things' that could ACTUALLY exist EITHER. So, what is overlooked is that the questions themselves are MOOT. So, there are NO proper and correct answers for them anyway.

What is overlooked with those four point forms is that there are BELIEFS BEHIND that questioning, which the one who wrote them is DESPERATELY WANTING to FIGHT and ARGUE over and FOR. And, WHY that one DESPERATELY WANTS to FIGHT FOR those BELIEFS will BECOME VERY OBVIOUS and CLEAR, soon enough.

Now as for the very last sentence in the opening post here, which is; "I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general." My view is, OBVIOUSLY a person's 'position' affects the way one views 'things', in general. For example, for the one who BELIEVES that there IS 'free will' then they will LOOK FOR and "FIND" 'that', which backs up and supports 'their position'. That is 'their' 'position', and the reason WHY they HAVE 'that (or ANY) position' is BECAUSE they like or WANT to HAVE 'that position', and this also explains WHY they MAINTAIN such 'positions'. By the way, for those who BELIEVE that there IS NO 'free will' do the EXACT SAME 'things' for the EXACT SAME reasons.

What can ALSO be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED here ALL people on BOTH "sides", in the REALLY continual spectrum here, that is; those who BELIEVE 'free will' exists AND those who BELIEVE only 'determinism' exists ALL also have views/beliefs about what is 'morally right and wrong' and what is a 'good and bad character' and ALL people will 'TRY TO' use the "side" of 'free will' OR 'determinism' to "show" how it is "their side" of 'things' which produces the best outcome or the 'morally good and right', and which, EXTREMELY LAUGHABLY, the "good and right character" would follow and/or be led by.