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

[henry quirk]

The free willist believes he is accountable for what he does. The buck stops with him (no matter his circumstance or his apparent lack of say-so in a circumstance). At his best he's just; at his worst he's compassionless.

The determinist believes he isn't accountable for what he does. The buck belongs to something or someone else (reachin' clear back to the Big Bang, or God). At his best he's compassionate; at his worst he's gullible.

The compatibilist believes that he's accountable for some of what he does. The buck is split (35 cents for him, 65 cents for someone or something else). For the life of me, I can't say what such a person is at his best or worst.

[popeye1945]

Determinism does not state that there are no choices to one's reactions.

I don't know what that sentence means.

One thing is certain one cannot, not react to the physical world, for all organisms are reactionary creatures and to reactionary creatures the physical world is cause. If the past attitudes towards nature were the cause of the violation of nature, then surely that which is being reflected back at humanity namely climate change, it would be reasonable to change one's attitude and thus one's reactions to nature. One can not always know what motivates a reaction, but you would be wise if in trying to understand your fellow man that you ask yourself, what is he reacting to?

And all this, one's being reasonable or not being reasonable one's theories about other minds (correct, mixed, incorrect), these would all have been determined in the Big Bang. I am not even sure, in the end, that a word like 'reasonable' has much meaning if my next 7,809 conclusions or even lines of thought were already determined in the Big Bang: It's like attributing reason to dominoes falling in a path made billions of years ago. Stuff happens.

It would seem we have no common ground here so I'll just wish you long life and prosperity.

[popeye1945]

Determinism does not state that there are no choices to one's reactions.

I don't know what that sentence means.

One thing is certain one cannot, not react to the physical world, for all organisms are reactionary creatures and to reactionary creatures the physical world is cause. If the past attitudes towards nature were the cause of the violation of nature, then surely that which is being reflected back at humanity namely climate change, it would be reasonable to change one's attitude and thus one's reactions to nature. One can not always know what motivates a reaction, but you would be wise if in trying to understand your fellow man that you ask yourself, what is he reacting to?

And all this, one's being reasonable or not being reasonable one's theories about other minds (correct, mixed, incorrect), these would all have been determined in the Big Bang. I am not even sure, in the end, that a word like 'reasonable' has much meaning if my next 7,809 conclusions or even lines of thought were already determined in the Big Bang: It's like attributing reason to dominoes falling in a path made billions of years ago. Stuff happens.

Iwannaplato,

If your definition of free will depends upon simply having a choice of possible reactions then you are quite right by that definition.

[popeye1945]

This topic opened by asking four questions. Here I will give my response to the second one:
2. Do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?

Determinists look at people's surroundings to determine why they act the way they do. Libertarians look at people's "character" to determine why they do what they do. Libertarians blame the person, while determinists place the blame on the environment. As I previously mentioned in my response to question #1, the two camps have ideas that are entirely opposed to one another.

Let me comment on a specific challenge related to the deterministic view that many people either fail to consider or deliberately fail to want to discuss. It's when someone does something wrong even though they know it's wrong and still decide to do it. Why shouldn't they be held responsible?

People act based on what they think is in their own best interests. People think about how likely they are to get caught and what their likely punishment will be if they are caught before they do something wrong. A determinist will probably look at the offender's external settings, especially how society reacts to crime, and think about whether or not it is necessary to make it more likely to catch criminals or make the punishments harsher. Or whether other corrective actions or procedures should be undertaken.

When a society's attitude toward law enforcement is overly permissive, and its punishments are too lenient, it frequently implicitly encourages criminal action by skewing the cost-benefit equation in favor of mischief.

Or, when a society's social welfare institutions aren't functioning properly, and people are starving and living on the streets, society itself is again complicit in indirectly incentivizing criminal behavior. Possibly, to improve the situation, new policies should be enacted.

In other instances, training in social skills and other educational programs may be explored. This is by no means an exhaustive list of possible responses; rather, the point is that the cause and, thus, the solution lay in the offender's environment, not in his character, which is a product of his environment.

Most people who believe in free will think that punishment is the answer to crime, even though it hasn't worked for hundreds of years. For instance, the United States Supreme Court has stated plainly that "a deterministic view of human conduct ... is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system." "Belief in freedom of the human will" is a "universal and persistent" part of our legal system, says the Supreme Court.

Big Mike,
Society I don't think could deal with determinism even if there was no doubt about it. Religions depend upon the concept of free will for the existence of sin, not unlike the criminal justice system which depends upon free will to execute punishment. Often with Crimmals, I have found if one looks at their suitability to make a living one can understand some of their criminal activities. There is also the mental health of a criminal who has done something monstrous, our judgements tend to be mediated if the subject has a brain tumor or it just a psychopath. These people certainly must be controlled so as never to be able to hurt anyone again, but much of it can be understood through psychological derangements in which case, like the psychopath on cannot hold someone responsible when their psychological condition does not allow for experiencing the compassion necessary to control certain behaviors. Certainly greater understanding and justice for conditions not under the subject's control really is not going to come about any time soon. It would mean the end of religion as we know it, as well as the Crimmel justice system as we know it. At present its a simplistic system of punishment, lacking often fundamental insights into the true causes of criminal behaviors. Barbaric really, but we are not advanced enough ourselves as a society to practice a more humane system. Book Suggestion ; Sam Harris--on free will!

[Age]

This topic opened by asking four questions. Here I will give my response to the first one:

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?

In philosophy and science, free will is that people can make decisions and act without being affected by what has happened in the past or how the universe is right now.

Here, ONCE AGAIN, we have an example of the absolute RIDICULOUSNESS and STUPIDITY of 'trying to' propose that the term 'free will' means or refers to a 'thing', which is NOT even A POSSIBILITY to exist, and then using their OWN definition to then CLAIM what they BELIEVE here is therefore true. And, they do this under the PRETENSE that their OWN, obviously absolutely STUPID definition, is somehow backed up and supported by 'philosophy' and 'science'.

Contrary to what "bigmike" BELIEVES, 'in philosophy and science' 'free will' is NOT agreed upon and accepted by what is CLAIMED here.

People who think this way say that their minds or inner selves make all their decisions. So, physical laws don't affect their decisions in their view.

But ABSOLUTELY NO one thinks 'this way', so the rest is moot.

A determinist believes that human behavior, including the human will, is entirely determined by physical laws. So, they think that since the will is also bound by physical laws, it can't be free.

False, and Wrong, ALSO.

But many determinists, if not most,

What is the ACTUAL difference between 'many' and 'most'?

agree that it seems like we have free will in everyday life, just as they agree that it looks like the earth is flat in everyday life.

But the earth does NOT look like it is flat, in so-called 'everyday life', to those who look OPENLY and Honestly. But, obviously, if to these so-called "determinists", 'in everyday life', the earth looks flat to them and that it seems like the choices they make are NOT affect by past events, then that SHOWS and PROVES just how SHALLOW and NARROWED they LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

Sam Harris, a strong opponent of free will, has said publicly that he sometimes has to remind himself that he is a determinist.

If one has to REMIND "their" OWN 'self' that 'they' are something DIFFERENT than what 'they' are currently thinking or believing, then this SHOWS just how UNSURE, LOST, and/or CONFUSED 'they' REALLY ARE.

Because of this cognitive dissonance, many determinists look beyond the immediate question of whether or not we have free will, which they consider solved. Instead, they try to figure out why we feel like we have free will and what we really have instead.

But ABSOLUTELY NO one 'feels' that they have 'free will', from the way 'you' define that term and phrase. If they do, then they MUST think or BELIEVE that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING effects 'them'. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, besides a very EGOCENTRIC view to have it is also a VERY FOOLISH thing to think or BELIEVE.

One thing they struggle with is how to decide what is right and wrong.

'you', "bigmike", speak and write here as though 'you' can speak for ALL of these people, which, obviously, 'you' can NOT.

If people don't have free will, they can't be morally responsible for what they do. Thus, determinists need to find a more insightful basis for moral conduct that is consistent with the laws of nature.

Talk about TWISTING and DISTORTING 'things' in such a way as to:

1. Look like "their side" is the MORE proper and morally correct one.

2. Override the STUPIDITY of what they have previously STATED and CLAIMED was true.

Also,

IF there was even such a thing as "a determinist", which there obviously is NOT, then "a determinist" is NOT able to, and thus can NOT, 'find' absolutely ANY thing. That is BECAUSE absolutely EVERY thing they SEE IS PRE-DETERMINED.

'you', "bigmike", speak and write here as though there is some 'inner self' that is ABLE to 'find' 'things'. It is like 'determinism' keep being FORGOTTEN, and that would be better REMEMBERED is that there is NO 'thing' ABLE TO CHOOSE, NOT ABLE TO LOOK FOR 'things', as, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY thing that happens was PRE-DESTINED and PRE-DETERMINED to happen, ANY and EVERY way.

We must be humble, bring our inflated egos down a notch, and tread carefully on the narrow path of honesty.

YES, GOOD IDEA. I suggest bringing that EGO down, and ALL THE WAY, and NOT down just a notch, and STOP 'trying to' FIGHT and ARGUE that, LAUGHABLY, these IMAGINED so-called "determinist" 'things' are ACTUALLY MORE morally superior.

'you', "bigmike", have started out from the MOST ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, IMPOSSIBLE, and RIDICULOUS DEFINITION and ASSUMPTION about what 'free will' is, have CONCLUDED that ONLY 'determinism' exists, and then TWISTED and DISTORTED this Truly NONSENSICAL CONCLUSION and BELIEF even further by then 'trying to' ARGUE that "your" kind of people are the MORE MORALLY SUPERIOR with the BETTER CHARACTER.

The ABSURDITY here just gets WORSE and WORSE.

We have at least two options, or guiding principles, for our moral conduct, which unavoidably entails human contact, known as social interactions. We can go it alone and be primarily responsible for ourselves, or we can surrender our independence and go as a group, watching out for one another. Or anything in between. This is ultimately a political decision.

This is just a Truly WEIRD and ABSURD conclusion.

But I think it is more than "just" a political decision; it is a decision we all intend to make in our best interest. But what we think is best for us depends on a lot of things, like whether we want immediate gratification or long-term gains and whether we trust each other or not. But determinists also believe something that people who believe in free will don't, and this belief probably significantly affects how they see the world.

They think that things outside themselves make them act the way they do. Those external things include all other people. They see themselves as part of an extensive social network where each person affects everyone else, like through six degrees of separation. Yet, none of them are the cause of their own actions. The transition from this to democratic sentiments appears to be a small step. I believe this drives determinists to be more accepting of social rules than believers in free will, on average.

[/quote]

I think 'you' are becoming MORE DISILLUSIONED here.

If 'you', people, are NOT the cause of 'your OWN actions/behaviors', then, LOGICALLY, NONE of 'you' could be held responsible NOR accountable for 'your actions/behaviors'.

Is this what 'you' BELIEVE is true? Or, is this just what 'you' would like?

[BigMike]

Big Mike,
Society I don't think could deal with determinism even if there was no doubt about it. Religions depend upon the concept of free will for the existence of sin, not unlike the criminal justice system which depends upon free will to execute punishment. Often with Crimmals, I have found if one looks at their suitability to make a living one can understand some of their criminal activities. There is also the mental health of a criminal who has done something monstrous, our judgements tend to be mediated if the subject has a brain tumor or it just a psychopath. These people certainly must be controlled so as never to be able to hurt anyone again, but much of it can be understood through psychological derangements in which case, like the psychopath on cannot hold someone responsible when their psychological condition does not allow for experiencing the compassion necessary to control certain behaviors. Certainly greater understanding and justice for conditions not under the subject's control really is not going to come about any time soon. It would mean the end of religion as we know it, as well as the Crimmel justice system as we know it. At present its a simplistic system of punishment, lacking often fundamental insights into the true causes of criminal behaviors. Barbaric really, but we are not advanced enough ourselves as a society to practice a more humane system. Book Suggestion ; Sam Harris--on free will!

As I read your post, I went "yes!", "yes!", "yes!". I agree with almost everything you say. But I refuse to submit to the idea that, over time, society can't deal with the truth. You are correct in that "it would mean the end of religion as we know it, as well as the Crimmel justice system as we know it," but I believe, to use a cliché, that the truth will set us free. I really do. Yes, it will take time, many generations perhaps. I fear that none of us will live to witness it. However, advancements in neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and science in general will shatter old fetters and neck irons, and a sane form of humanity will finally emerge from ignorance's dreadful, cold, and damp darkness.

[Age]

Just "following rules" is not a good thing in itself.

Breaking the rules is not a virtue in and of itself either.

Did ANY one here propose that breaking the rules IS a virtue in and of itself?

If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?

In a democratic society, not everyone can have their way. If everyone only lives by the rules they like, I believe society is doomed.

And, because 'you' BELIEVE that this is true, 'you' are NOT OPEN to SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth REALLY IS.

There has to be an evaluation of the merits of a rule.

Isn't this the purpose of democratic elections?

If people REALLY WANT to CONTINUE living in 'this world' that was partly created because of and through so-called 'democratic elections', then so be it.

BUT, there is a 'MUCH BETTER world' in which EVERY one can LIVE and can THRIVE WITH-IN.

[Belinda]

The free willist believes he is accountable for what he does. The buck stops with him (no matter his circumstance or his apparent lack of say-so in a circumstance). At his best he's just; at his worst he's compassionless.

The determinist believes he isn't accountable for what he does. The buck belongs to something or someone else (reachin' clear back to the Big Bang, or God). At his best he's compassionate; at his worst he's gullible.

The compatibilist believes that he's accountable for some of what he does. The buck is split (35 cents for him, 65 cents for someone or something else). For the life of me, I can't say what such a person is at his best or worst.

What the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

[Age]

They think that things outside themselves make them act the way they do. Those external things include all other people. They see themselves as part of an extensive social network where each person affects everyone else, like through six degrees of separation. Yet, none of them are the cause of their own actions. The transition from this to democratic sentiments appears to be a small step. I believe this drives determinists to be more accepting of social rules than believers in free will, on average.

It's possible. But I would hesitate to trust deduction on something this complicated. But first: your first sentence here is not something determinists should believe, or at least, they should believe it is incomplete. It is not just nature and experience that lead to our actions, thoughts, feelings, attitudes. We also have our natures.

As far as them following social rules more, we would 1) need to figure out a way to test this, and 2) as I mentioned in my first response, since most people think free will means being able to overcome external influences, not having to merely give in to them, and most people are not thinking or taking a real stand on a kind of causeless action, we don't really know who believes in free will as is meant as something contrasted with determinism. Determinists would certainly believe that a Nelson Mandela or whoever can overcome and resist outside influences and causes. 3) a person who believes in determinism might feel less motivated to do things. WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Before you tell me this does not make sense, a) I know that and b) we are talking about humans, and humans can be affected by things in non-logical ways. If people believe that what they do, think, feel are determined, they may feel like they are not responsible and also that since 'things' were already decided billions of years ago, they are more like witnesses than active participants AND this could lead to not giving a shit in the effects of their actions or a kind of malaise or not caring about rules.

That's the problem with hubris in deduction. At this level of complexity, and determined or free human minds are the most complex things we know of so far, we can deduce (in the air, in the abstract, without research) all sorts of things.

WHY do 'you', people, use 'your OWN definition/s' for terms like 'free will' and/or 'determinism', for example, then go on to CLAIM that 'that definition' IS the one "MOST people use"?

It is like 'you' can NOT even SEE and RECOGNIZE your OWN MADE UP IMAGININGS. This might be because 'you' have come to BELIEVE they are true, and so this WHY you CLAIM them as being true.

We will just have to wait, and SEE.

[Iwannaplato]

The free willist believes he is accountable for what he does. The buck stops with him (no matter his circumstance or his apparent lack of say-so in a circumstance). At his best he's just; at his worst he's compassionless.

The determinist believes he isn't accountable for what he does. The buck belongs to something or someone else (reachin' clear back to the Big Bang, or God). At his best he's compassionate; at his worst he's gullible.

The compatibilist believes that he's accountable for some of what he does. The buck is split (35 cents for him, 65 cents for someone or something else). For the life of me, I can't say what such a person is at his best or worst.

What the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

Well, if determinism is the case, they are both at the mercy of fate or 'the inevitable', no chance involved at all. Though I do get how it may seem like chance from their perspectives.

[Age]

'Determinism/deterministic only world' 'people' have the ability to make choices and they do make choices. They use their brains to think about the situation and then they select what they think is the best option.

It depends what we mean by 'make choices'. The had to choose the option they chose, whatever the process of utterly compelling chains of molecular pachinkoing in their neuronal systems. It is not like they could have chosen A or B, though it may feel like it. They were always going to choose or 'choose' A. They are chosing A in the same way a leaf chooses to land on a certain spot when it falls in Fall off a tree.

Now of course humans will be compelled to fall in a lot more places than a leaf will be. You throw a marble at a drum top it will make one sound more or less every time. You throw it at the inside of a piano more possible sounds will be 'chosen' by the piano.

I don't disagree with that.

I don't think that there is any sort of problem with what is happening.

This is the part that you're probably not going to like:

I compare what determinists are doing what free-willers are doing. And I conclude that free-willers must be using their brain in exactly the same way. They are also constrained by their neural systems. They will also choose exactly the same thing in the same situation. Why or how could they choose any differently? They think that their choice is the best choice.

Which is to say that if I had free-will, I would not be acting any differently than I did not have free-will.

Well this is, literally, a different view.

[Belinda]

The free willist believes he is accountable for what he does. The buck stops with him (no matter his circumstance or his apparent lack of say-so in a circumstance). At his best he's just; at his worst he's compassionless.

The determinist believes he isn't accountable for what he does. The buck belongs to something or someone else (reachin' clear back to the Big Bang, or God). At his best he's compassionate; at his worst he's gullible.

The compatibilist believes that he's accountable for some of what he does. The buck is split (35 cents for him, 65 cents for someone or something else). For the life of me, I can't say what such a person is at his best or worst.

What the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

Well, if determinism is the case, they are both at the mercy of fate or 'the inevitable', no chance involved at all. Though I do get how it may seem like chance from their perspectives.

But nobody ever has or ever can foresee the future, and hence chance is an inevitable experience for all. Whatever befalls a man is due to a combination of chance and choice. Some games such as chess are nearly all choice, and other games such as roulette are nearly all chance. The chess player has to trust causality while the gambler is a fatalist. Fatalism, like predestination, is a subsection of free will.

[Iwannaplato]

What the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

Well, if determinism is the case, they are both at the mercy of fate or 'the inevitable', no chance involved at all. Though I do get how it may seem like chance from their perspectives.
[/quote]

But nobody ever has or ever can foresee the future, and hence chance is an inevitable experience for all.

Which is why I said (it's right there in what you quoted)

Though I do get how it may seem like chance from their perspectives.

I will now stress that word seem.
My reaction was to you describing it as being at the mercy of chance. Not that they will experience it this way.
And here you do it again....

Whatever befalls a man is due to a combination of chance and choice.

In a deterministic universe whatever befalls a man is due to what must inevitable happen.

Some games such as chess are nearly all choice, and other games such as roulette are nearly all chance. The chess player has to trust causality while the gambler is a fatalist. Fatalism, like predestination, is a subsection of free will.

I don't understand that last sentence.

[Age]

What the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

Well, if determinism is the case, they are both at the mercy of fate or 'the inevitable', no chance involved at all. Though I do get how it may seem like chance from their perspectives.

But nobody ever has or ever can foresee the future, and hence chance is an inevitable experience for all.

The first part here is just Wrong AND False, so the rest is moot.

Whatever befalls a man is due to a combination of chance and choice. Some games such as chess are nearly all choice, and other games such as roulette are nearly all chance. The chess player has to trust causality while the gambler is a fatalist. Fatalism, like predestination, is a subsection of free will.

[henry quirk]

What the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

The difference being: the free willist is inclined to believe he has at least some say-so over outcomes while the determinist believes que sera sera.