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

[Belinda]

I believe popular 'free will' is a case where intuition is better than focused analysis and fact finding.Without popular 'free will' in the Sartrean sense all life forms would be impossible.

Philosophy ,as we know it ,does analyse and seek theories of existence. Popular 'free will' in the Sartrean sense does not benefit philosophy although Sartre's insights do benefit philosophy. We need reasoned focus and fact finding when we do philosophy and any other activity that calls for explicit language and explicit ideas. Demolishing the idea of absolute FreeWill calls for the latter, not intuition.

Horses for courses.

I do agree that mentalist and physicalist explanations are not mutually exclusive but are complementary.

Perhaps complementary in that they are "not mutually exclusive". But I think the physicalist explanation is both necessary and sufficient to show that "free will" is not true. And if I understand what you said, you also think this: "When we do philosophy or anything else that requires clear language and ideas, we need to think things through and find facts. This, not intuition, is what is needed to destroy the idea of absolute free will."



Because of this, I don't think the "complementary" explanations of mentalists are necessary or sufficient; they are superfluous. They may contribute to a broader perspective, however.

Mentalists' explanations are superfluous for physicalists.

Absolute idealists'(immaterialism) explanation overarches and surrounds both these monisms, because it's inclusive of the physical.

Neutral or Spinozan double aspect monism includes physicalism and mentalism pari passu.

[popeye1945]

Morality and free will are mutually exclusive.

[BigMike]

Morality and free will are mutually exclusive.

Do you mean to imply that having a "free will" point of view precludes having a moral point of view? Or vice versa? Or something entirely different?

[popeye1945]

Morality and free will are mutually exclusive.

Do you mean to imply that having a "free will" point of view precludes having a moral point of view? Or vice versa? Or something entirely different?

If you have free will you are not governed by any system of behavior, morality is a social construct; to regulate the behavior of its citizens. To have freewill one rolls from the Centre of one's being, that's a bit of Nietzsche.

[BigMike]

Morality and free will are mutually exclusive.

Do you mean to imply that having a "free will" point of view precludes having a moral point of view? Or vice versa? Or something entirely different?

If you have free will you are not governed by any system of behavior, morality is a social construct; to regulate the behavior of its citizens. To have freewill one rolls from the Centre of one's being, that's a bit of Nietzsche.

Naturally, I don't believe in free will. Even so, I fail to understand how, hypothetically, people with free will couldn't lead moral lives, even if it was a social construct.

[popeye1945]

Do you mean to imply that having a "free will" point of view precludes having a moral point of view? Or vice versa? Or something entirely different?

If you have free will you are not governed by any system of behavior, morality is a social construct; to regulate the behavior of its citizens. To have freewill one rolls from the Centre of one's being, that's a bit of Nietzsche.

Naturally, I don't believe in free will. Even so, I fail to understand how, hypothetically, people with free will couldn't lead moral lives, even if it was a social construct.

I couldn't agree more. The individual would be morally a rogue accountable to no one. They would be like a lone beast not even belonging to an animal pack or group, for all animal groups have standards that look very much like the morality of the pack.

[Flannel Jesus]

If you have free will you are not governed by any system of behavior, morality is a social construct; to regulate the behavior of its citizens. To have freewill one rolls from the Centre of one's being, that's a bit of Nietzsche.

Naturally, I don't believe in free will. Even so, I fail to understand how, hypothetically, people with free will couldn't lead moral lives, even if it was a social construct.

I couldn't agree more. The individual would be morally a rogue accountable to no one. They would be like a lone beast not even belonging to an animal pack or group, for all animal groups have standards that look very much like the morality of the pack.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, you said "I couldn't agree more" and then said the exact opposite of the thing you're agreeing with.

[popeye1945]

Naturally, I don't believe in free will. Even so, I fail to understand how, hypothetically, people with free will couldn't lead moral lives, even if it was a social construct.

I couldn't agree more. The individual would be morally a rogue accountable to no one. They would be like a lone beast not even belonging to an animal pack or group, for all animal groups have standards that look very much like the morality of the pack.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, you said "I couldn't agree more" and then said the exact opposite of the thing you're agreeing with.

I do not understand your difficulty, you said someone exercising free will would not lead a moral life; I simply give an example of what that would look like. That morality and free will are mutually exclusive is impossible to deny.

[Flannel Jesus]

I do not understand your difficulty, you said someone exercising free will would not lead a moral life; I simply give an example of what that would look like. That morality and free will are mutually exclusive is impossible to deny.

I think there's multiple difficulties here

First is that I did not say that at all, I'm not the original person you were replying to.

The second is that the original person you were replying to absolutely did not say "someone exercising free will would not lead a moral life"

[popeye1945]

I do not understand your difficulty, you said someone exercising free will would not lead a moral life; I simply give an example of what that would look like. That morality and free will are mutually exclusive is impossible to deny.

I think there's multiple difficulties here

First is that I did not say that at all, I'm not the original person you were replying to.

The second is that the original person you were replying to absolutely did not say "someone exercising free will would not lead a moral life"

" Naturally, I don't believe in free will. Even so, I fail to understand how, hypothetically, people with free will couldn't lead moral lives, even if it was a social construct."
That sounds to me like he doesn't believe someone exercising free will could lead moral lives, and I agree, for the subject would be unrestrained by any system of morality. Sorry, you're right, I even re-read it and misinterpreted it again, so he is simply wrong, free will means rolling from your center unrestricted by moral norms. Again, morality and free will are mutually exclusive, one necessarily nullifies the other.

[Flannel Jesus]

I do not understand your difficulty, you said someone exercising free will would not lead a moral life; I simply give an example of what that would look like. That morality and free will are mutually exclusive is impossible to deny.

I think there's multiple difficulties here

First is that I did not say that at all, I'm not the original person you were replying to.

The second is that the original person you were replying to absolutely did not say "someone exercising free will would not lead a moral life"

" Naturally, I don't believe in free will. Even so, I fail to understand how, hypothetically, people with free will couldn't lead moral lives, even if it was a social construct."
That sounds to me like he doesn't believe someone exercising free will could lead moral lives

You are reading it incorrectly.

There's a double negative there. In English, double negatives cancel out.

Even so, I FAIL to understand how, hypothetically, people with free will COULDN'T lead moral lives.

He fails to see why they couldn't. That means, in his view, as far as he can tell, they could.

Sorry, you're right, I even re-read it and misinterpreted it again, so he is simply wrong

I made the above post before reading this. Looks like we've arrived already.

[Flannel Jesus]

It should be known that, to the extent that this has already been experimented on, the experimental results are the opposite of what you think. When you prime subjects of an experiment to reject free will, they are, at the very least, less charitable.

https://theconversation.com/the-psychol ... will-97193

In the lab, using deterministic arguments to undermine people’s belief in free will has led to a number of negative outcomes including increased cheating and aggression. It has also been linked to a reduction in helping behaviours and lowered feelings of gratitude.

However, here's a link with a moderately opposite result: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00020/full

[Belinda]

The ethical corollary of the Free Will belief is people are free to have done otherwise than they did therefore it's right to punish them. Absolute Free Will takes no account of extenuating ('deterministic') circumstances.

[popeye1945]

The ethical corollary of the Free Will belief is people are free to have done otherwise than they did therefore it's right to punish them. Absolute Free Will takes no account of extenuating ('deterministic') circumstances.

Extenuating circumstances would include a morality placed upon the individual's behaviors, which places a framework around the possibilities of one's behaviors. Again, morality and free will are mutually exclusive, one negating the other. Free will has no limitations upon its choices of reactions to any given circumstance.

[BigMike]

The ethical corollary of the Free Will belief is people are free to have done otherwise than they did therefore it's right to punish them. Absolute Free Will takes no account of extenuating ('deterministic') circumstances.

Extenuating circumstances would include a morality placed upon the individual's behaviors, which places a framework around the possibilities of one's behaviors. Again, morality and free will are mutually exclusive, one negating the other. Free will has no limitations upon its choices of reactions to any given circumstance.

Given that morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," I do not see how believing in free will logically implies that one can't distinguish "between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." I do not see how the two are mutually exclusive. That said, I totally reject the concept of free will. I also reject moral responsibility, which is different from morality.