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

[BigMike]

People who believe in radical free will are usually more right wing. They show a complete lack of understanding for mitigating circumstances, and regard prison as a holding pen for willfully recidivistic criminals, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate and make corrections to behaviour for the benefit of society. THe implication of free will is that no matter the cause, not matter the experience a person has absolute free will to commit crimes by pure choice uninfluenced by deterrence, or necessity. SO prisons cannot be about reform, they can only be holding pens.
This is one reason why the US, a country obsessed with Free will, has the world's largest prison populations. and are more or less cages to incarcerate.

By contrast the Scandinavian model which is more about rehab, has some of the lowest repeat offenses

The term "radical free will" may help some Americans to understand. What I don't understand is that while the US has great universities and some of the most intelligent individuals, the US population as a whole is so ignorant about the "radical" nature of free will, and ordinary people lack insight into their own biases.
I have read one explanation of the historical cause that affects only Americans.

The bold or desperate people who colonised the American west did so after the east coast had become settled and developed. The new generation of colonists who moved west resented controls and debts owed to the people in the developed parts who had partly financed the colonists. The eastern states have remained more intellectually developed and traditional resentment towards intellectualism persists among mid US states.

This is logical. I wonder if being close to both the east and west coasts made people more open to new ideas that came in through international trade.

[popeye1945]

People who believe in radical free will are usually more right wing. They show a complete lack of understanding for mitigating circumstances, and regard prison as a holding pen for willfully recidivistic criminals, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate and make corrections to behaviour for the benefit of society. THe implication of free will is that no matter the cause, not matter the experience a person has absolute free will to commit crimes by pure choice uninfluenced by deterrence, or necessity. SO prisons cannot be about reform, they can only be holding pens.
This is one reason why the US, a country obsessed with Free will, has the world's largest prison populations. and are more or less cages to incarcerate.

By contrast the Scandinavian model which is more about rehab, has some of the lowest repeat offenses

The term "radical free will" may help some Americans to understand. What I don't understand is that while the US has great universities and some of the most intelligent individuals, the US population as a whole is so ignorant about the "radical" nature of free will, and ordinary people lack insight into their own biases.
I have read one explanation of the historical cause that affects only Americans.

The bold or desperate people who colonised the American west did so after the east coast had become settled and developed. The new generation of colonists who moved west resented controls and debts owed to the people in the developed parts who had partly financed the colonists. The eastern states have remained more intellectually developed and traditional resentment towards intellectualism persists among mid US states.

This is logical. I wonder if being close to both the east and west coasts made people more open to new ideas that came in through international trade.

Big Mike, Belinda,

Context does tend to define and tends to govern developments, context evokes various aspects of human potential. Before communications being what it is today, this would be seen as striking between someone who lived in the country and one who lived in the city. I've heard it stated that a certain amount of stress is good for one's mental development. The constant introduction of new ideas would be experienced as somewhat stressful in a positive way, but at the price however of one's serenity. Serenity, of course, is not known for building cognitive connections but is inclined to develop when one is adequate to one's context. People experiencing different realities/contexts might expectedly not be in complete harmony.

[henry quirk]

You speak as a compatibilist but claim to be a determinist. I think you're close to realizing you're a free will.

Do you believe evolution could ever occur if people had free will? Do you have any concept how catastrophic it would be for the evolution of species if free will could somehow thwart the natural selection-based process of evolution? If free will existed, you wouldn't be here.

Since man, as free will, does interfere with natural selection, we can look around and see for ourselves if there's been a catastrophe. the embedded question is loaded, intentionally: let's tussle!

[henry quirk]

You speak as a compatibilist but claim to be a determinist. I think you're close to realizing you're a free will.

Henry, excluding Free Will, can you look for all the reasons for why you made some specific decision ?

If I exclude myself, as a free will, then there's no deciding, so: no, I can't.

[henry quirk]

Can you accept the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures in that they do not ACT but only react?

I know, as fact: man, every man, any man, is a free will. He acts.

And you know it too.

Henry,
Then give me one example where behavior could not possibly be termed a reaction, two would be nice but I'll settle for one.---lol!!

Nice try, guy.

Pretty sure any example I give, no matter how I ground it, will be interpreted, by you, as reaction.

So: I'll pass. I'm willin' to tussle, but I've had my fill of dancin'. biggy, who is an expert at dancin' (interpreting) will accommodate you

[henry quirk]

People who believe in radical free will are usually more right wing. They show a complete lack of understanding for mitigating circumstances, and regard prison as a holding pen for willfully recidivistic criminals, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate and make corrections to behaviour for the benefit of society. THe implication of free will is that no matter the cause, not matter the experience a person has absolute free will to commit crimes by pure choice uninfluenced by deterrence, or necessity. SO prisons cannot be about reform, they can only be holding pens.
This is one reason why the US, a country obsessed with Free will, has the world's largest prison populations. and are more or less cages to incarcerate.

By contrast the Scandinavian model which is more about rehab, has some of the lowest repeat offenses

You're not completely wrong.

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.

[Belinda]

You speak as a compatibilist but claim to be a determinist. I think you're close to realizing you're a free will.

Henry, excluding Free Will, can you look for all the reasons for why you made some specific decision ?

If I exclude myself, as a free will, then there's no deciding, so: no, I can't.

I understand.

What if you and a friend choose to watch the same television programme at the same time in a room together. You each have your reasons for choosing that television programme. One of your reasons for your choice is you yourself are a free will . Then you discover your friend does not believe in free will. How then could you account for both of you making the same choice?

[Sculptor]

People who believe in radical free will are usually more right wing. They show a complete lack of understanding for mitigating circumstances, and regard prison as a holding pen for willfully recidivistic criminals, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate and make corrections to behaviour for the benefit of society. THe implication of free will is that no matter the cause, not matter the experience a person has absolute free will to commit crimes by pure choice uninfluenced by deterrence, or necessity. SO prisons cannot be about reform, they can only be holding pens.
This is one reason why the US, a country obsessed with Free will, has the world's largest prison populations. and are more or less cages to incarcerate.

By contrast the Scandinavian model which is more about rehab, has some of the lowest repeat offenses

You're not completely wrong.

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.

So do you think the rules of cause and effect are magically different for Americans, and that Scandinavians are more susceptible to the laws of necessity that Americans have somehow managed to escape?
Or is it the case the Universal Laws of Nature apply universally and the Scandinavians are just smarter than Americans?

[BigMike]

So do you think the rules of cause and effect are magically different for Americans, and that Scandinavians are more susceptible to the laws of necessity that Americans have somehow managed to escape?
Or is it the case the Universal Laws of Nature apply universally and the Scandinavians are just smarter than Americans?

Be Scandinavian my self, I would opt for the latter of course.

[henry quirk]

I understand.

Coulda fooled me.

What if you and a friend choose to watch the same television programme at the same time in a room together. You each have your reasons for choosing that television programme. One of your reasons for your choice is you yourself are a free will . Then you discover your friend does not believe in free will. How then could you account for both of you making the same choice?

In my 60 years I've never said to myself I'm gonna choose X becuz I'm a free will.

His belief has no bearing on what he is: a free will (it, however, may have bearin' on how he lives).

Becuz we both like crappy horror flicks and both have the time to waste on one.

[henry quirk]

People who believe in radical free will are usually more right wing. They show a complete lack of understanding for mitigating circumstances, and regard prison as a holding pen for willfully recidivistic criminals, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate and make corrections to behaviour for the benefit of society. THe implication of free will is that no matter the cause, not matter the experience a person has absolute free will to commit crimes by pure choice uninfluenced by deterrence, or necessity. SO prisons cannot be about reform, they can only be holding pens.
This is one reason why the US, a country obsessed with Free will, has the world's largest prison populations. and are more or less cages to incarcerate.

By contrast the Scandinavian model which is more about rehab, has some of the lowest repeat offenses

You're not completely wrong.

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.

So do you think the rules of cause and effect are magically different for Americans, and that Scandinavians are more susceptible to the laws of necessity that Americans have somehow managed to escape?
Or is it the case the Universal Laws of Nature apply universally and the Scandinavians are just smarter than Americans?

All I commented on was...

People who believe in radical free will are usually more right wing. They show a complete lack of understanding for mitigating circumstances, and regard prison as a holding pen for willfully recidivistic criminals, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate and make corrections to behaviour for the benefit of society. THe implication of free will is that no matter the cause, not matter the experience a person has absolute free will to commit crimes by pure choice uninfluenced by deterrence, or necessity.

...sayin' You're not completely wrong.

I even self-quoted...

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.

I said nuthin' at all about America or Scandinavia.

Next time I'll snip out your crap so I don't confuse you with my response.

[Sculptor]

You're not completely wrong.

So do you think the rules of cause and effect are magically different for Americans, and that Scandinavians are more susceptible to the laws of necessity that Americans have somehow managed to escape?
Or is it the case the Universal Laws of Nature apply universally and the Scandinavians are just smarter than Americans?

All I commented on was...

People who believe in radical free will are usually more right wing. They show a complete lack of understanding for mitigating circumstances, and regard prison as a holding pen for willfully recidivistic criminals, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate and make corrections to behaviour for the benefit of society. THe implication of free will is that no matter the cause, not matter the experience a person has absolute free will to commit crimes by pure choice uninfluenced by deterrence, or necessity.

...sayin' You're not completely wrong.

I even self-quoted...

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.

I said nuthin' at all about America or Scandinavia.

Next time I'll snip out your crap so I don't confuse you with my response.

You might want to take a chill pill bro!

[henry quirk]

You might want to take a chill pill bro!

You first, guy.

[Age]

I know, as fact: man, every man, any man, is a free will. He acts.

And you know it too.

Henry,
Then give me one example where behavior could not possibly be termed a reaction, two would be nice but I'll settle for one.---lol!!

Nice try, guy.

Pretty sure any example I give, no matter how I ground it, will be interpreted, by you, as reaction.

So: I'll pass. I'm willin' to tussle, but I've had my fill of dancin'. biggy, who is an expert at dancin' (interpreting) will accommodate you

So, here is ANOTHER example of one making a claim but when asked to back up and support that claim "henry quirk" very quickly runs away and cowers, ONCE AGAIN.

[popeye1945]

I know, as fact: man, every man, any man, is a free will. He acts.

And you know it too.

Henry,
Then give me one example where behavior could not possibly be termed a reaction, two would be nice but I'll settle for one.---lol!!

Nice try, guy.

Pretty sure any example I give, no matter how I ground it, will be interpreted, by you, as reaction.

So: I'll pass. I'm willin' to tussle, but I've had my fill of dancin'. biggy, who is an expert at dancin' (interpreting) will accommodate you

That is the safest thing to do when one has no solid ground to stand on.