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

[popeye1945]

The members of a society are protected by that society as long as they live by the social contract. In agreeing to live by a social contract one forfeits one's independence, one's free will.

It seems to me you are conflating the choices you consider going against free will with the ontological ability to make choices not dependent on the past. For example, if someone generally goes along with the laws - freely chooses to do so - but does breaks some laws - as nearly everyone does, just different ones - makes choices in their personal and professional lives not based on the past, they are gaming a system and free. Note, I am not saying that there is free will. It's just you are arguing against free will based on what choices people make, which is not an argument against ontological will. You can't point to choices made and say that they rule out free will, unless we define free will in a non-ontological way.

An analysis of what choices are made: non-ontological issues
An analysis of how choices are made or what did or did not lead to the choices made: ontological issues.

Interesting!! Truth is though, most people born into a society just mindlessly accept what is in place and are governed by their given society. To think of it as a willful game one that one consciously embarks upon to further his/her self-interests is something to consider, though it would be an extremely rare case if there were one to find at all. Playing society like a video game? Though this is the best argument I have come across. From a different perspective, all organisms are reactive organisms, there is no such thing as an agent of free actions/that would be free will; for there is but human reactions. The statement can be affirmed by the fact that one needs to be motivated to move, which spells reaction. It is due to this reactionary nature of organisms that evolutionary adaptation is possible, it is the way biology plays its part as a functional element of the world. The physical world is cause to all organisms, and their reactions to the physical world are the cause of change/reactions in the chemistry of the world. This, if one accepts its reality, negates the concept of free will, it is more than semantics, it is functionality. I do hope I have understood your position, it is not one I've heard before. What one does today is determined by what one has done in the past, from the gasp of one's first breath.

[popeye1945]

I agree with Iwannaplato's post above.

The idea that individuals forfeit their free will by living in a society under a social contract is incorrect. The concept of free will itself is flawed as it presumes that individuals have control over their actions and choices, when in reality, their actions and choices are determined by a multitude of factors including genetics, environment, and social conditioning. So, even if free will exists, it wouldn't be something that individuals could choose to give up or keep.

The social contract provides individuals with benefits such as protection and security, but it also imposes rules and restrictions on their behavior. However, this doesn't mean that individuals are sacrificing their free will, as they are not making a conscious choice. They are simply behaving in a way that is conditioned by the society they live in.

It is difficult to provide an example of a public figure who could be considered an agent of free will, as this goes against the premise that free will doesn't exist. All individuals, including public figures, are products of their genetics, environment, and social conditioning, and their actions and choices are determined by these factors, not by their own free will.

If free will were desirable, morality would not be necessary nor would it be desirable. That one's reactions to the world are determined by a mind blowing complexity of determinants I think is obvious, yet not shared by all. If there was free will, I would be Emperor!!

[Iwannaplato]

Interesting!! Truth is though, most people born into a society just mindlessly accept what is in place and are governed by their given society.

Yes. Or I might say, they accept the rules of the subgroup they are in. Generally this includes following most laws, most of the time. But from there it can lead to very different lives, when comparing between groups and even individuals in groups. I am not saying they are really evaulating rules and norms to see how they actually feel about them (or think about them).

To think of it as a willful game one that one consciously embarks upon to further his/her self-interests is something to consider, though it would be an extremely rare case if there were one to find at all.
I didn't mean that most people are consciously gaming the system. But I do think many have self-interested goals when they comply with laws. Yes, people can have morals that guide them, but I think generally speaking if people knew they could get away with things, they'd be all over the place. Sort of like The Invisible Man series. And I think most know this to some degree. I think it is hard for most people to notice that they are mainly avoiding punishment, but on smaller things, I think most people realize they are protecting themselves or presenting a social face to some degree.

Playing society like a video game? Though this is the best argument I have come across. From a different perspective, all organisms are reactive organisms, there is no such thing as an agent of free actions/that would be free will; for there is but human reactions.

I am not arguing that there is ontological free will.

The statement can be affirmed by the fact that one needs to be motivated to move, which spells reaction. It is due to this reactionary nature of organisms that evolutionary adaptation is possible, it is the way biology plays its part as a functional element of the world. The physical world is cause to all organisms, and their reactions to the physical world are the cause of change/reactions in the chemistry of the world. This, if one accepts its reality, negates the concept of free will, it is more than semantics, it is functionality. I do hope I have understood your position, it is not one I've heard before. What one does today is determined by what one has done in the past, from the gasp of one's first breath.

I think there could be ontological free will and we would not be able to discount it by looking at the choices. Like batch B of choices shows unfree people. Batch Z, however, those people are free or more free. I don't think that works. One can make as you do physicalist arguments against free will, which is a different category of challenge.

Probably the best challenge to free will, I think, is simply to ask for an explanation of a choice the other person made that was not dependent on internal or external causes.

It would be strange. I chose to ask her out, not be cause I was attracted, or wanted to spend time with her. IOW not because of feelings and anticipation I had in the moments (weeks, months) before I asked her out. No, I asked her out because of nothing that went before.

Then follow up questions: why didn't you ask out someone else? Why her? Why that day?

IOW I think the free will person (who thinks they can present a rational case for free will and how it works) is left with saying - I just do random stuff having nothing to do with my desires and experiences. They can certainly say that, but I think it will be an ego-dystonic explanation for nearly everyone.

This doesn't disprove free will, but I think it is the most effective approach. I am sure Henry Quirk was faced with this approach in some form and I am sure he never said: Oh, I see, but still I think it's the top approach.

I'm actually agnostic. Or perhaps fickle. I notice I view things in contraditory ways. I have problems to solve and so far that hasn't struck me as one. IOW I have no motivation, at this moment, to competely convince myself one way or the other on free will and determinism. On other issues I am more unified (not all, but many).

I am actually not sure how I would act or view my days, other people, or myself differently.

(and as I've said to others here: I don't think when most people talk about free will they are talking about ontological free will. I think they mean that if someone pointed a gun at them, they might not shoot a child. Or there is abuse from government or pressures socially or advertising BS or employer mistreatment that they will resist AND/OR hold themselves responsible if they don't.

They aren't saying that their own motivations and desires and values are not causal. And if you listen to them, when they talk about free will, they will generally talk precisely about their values, desires, preferences, rights, moral nature and so on.

They mean free will in relation to outside causes, and generally not complete freedom there.

Now, yes, if you tried to explain that referring to internal motivations still fits with determinism they may balk. But my contention is that they are not thinking about free will, the ontological version, like philosophers do.

And just to be clear, I do not consider myself a philosopher. But I do understand how philosophers categorize some things. I have some knowledge of philosopher, but am an utter amateur and not in the sense of the amateurs of the 1800s, say, (or in some cases even now) who including even the leading lights of their fields.

My point is that when people say free will, they generally have a different lay meaning for that phrase.

[promethean75]

Harris, Sam & Co. go in on Freewill, feat. some neurologist dude and Dennett. Sexy smart Alexa type female narrator too so it's easy on the ears.

https://youtu.be/Tagtx3tFylY

[promethean75]

Dennett is like the gandalf of compatibalism and obfuscation and it's so exhausting to listen to him ramble on and overcomplicate everything. u know Harris, Sam is like omg will this dude ever.

[popeye1945]

The concept of free will is a vehicle of judgment, without which one is unaccountable, free of sin, and free of blame. It may affect behaviors in the form of intimidation and feelings of guilt.

[Belinda]

The concept of free will is a vehicle of judgment, without which one is unaccountable, free of sin, and free of blame. It may affect behaviors in the form of intimidation and feelings of guilt.

I agree. The concept of Free Will is for sitting in judgement and allocating punishments.

[Iwannaplato]

The concept of free will is a vehicle of judgment, without which one is unaccountable, free of sin, and free of blame. It may affect behaviors in the form of intimidation and feelings of guilt.

I agree. The concept of Free Will is for sitting in judgement and allocating punishments.

That's what it's for?
Wouldn't it be more charitable to say that it seems like we have free will? That it's more or less the default assumption we have given our experience of seeming to have been able to decide to go or not go to the party, etc.? (note: I am not saying we have free will, just questioning the idea that people believe in it so they can sit in judgement and punish) And isn't this idea that that's why people believe in free will a
sitting in judgment
of people who believe in free will?

[Belinda]

The concept of free will is a vehicle of judgment, without which one is unaccountable, free of sin, and free of blame. It may affect behaviors in the form of intimidation and feelings of guilt.

I agree. The concept of Free Will is for sitting in judgement and allocating punishments.

That's what it's for?
Wouldn't it be more charitable to say that it seems like we have free will? That it's more or less the default assumption we have given our experience of seeming to have been able to decide to go or not go to the party, etc.? (note: I am not saying we have free will, just questioning the idea that people believe in it so they can sit in judgement and punish) And isn't this idea that that's why people believe in free will a
sitting in judgment
of people who believe in free will?

I hope you understand absolute Free Will. Absolute Free Will is about social control not reason.
On the other hand relative free will is obtainable , an individual's power of choice is augmented by several means, the most civilised of which is knowledge and reasoned judgement.

[Iwannaplato]

I hope you understand absolute Free Will. Absolute Free Will is about social control not reason.

Could you explain how this plays out? I mean, who are the people who believe in aboslute free will - and how do they use this belief to gain social control.

On the other hand relative free will is obtainable , an individual's power of choice is augmented by several means, the most civilised of which is knowledge and reasoned judgement.

No matter how much education and reasoned judgment you have, in determinism either you were going to the party or you weren't, however much it SEEMED like you might choose either way. So, I don't know what this relative free will is you are talking about. Your knowledge and reasoning would just be more factors in an inevitable process determining your action. And your education and reasoned judgment were caused by things caused like dominoes back in the Big Bang.

There's unfolding and the illusion of possible futures.

[popeye1945]

People who believe in free will believe it absolutely, it is presumed it you like, in that we all seem to ourselves to be the center of our own universe. The reality is however that we are all reactionary creatures, we can only gain a modicum of control in certain contexts but we don't generally control the context at large. We learn to work it through our reactions to it. The concept of free will might even be considered a necessary illusion, for without it there would be no sin or legal liability for our behaviors. We could do without sin, but a functioning society is dependent upon holding people responsible for their actions/behaviors. If one questions the fact that we are all reactionary creatures, I welcome anyone to present an example of human action, which could not be understood as a reaction, there is no such creature!

[henry quirk]

who are the people who believe in aboslute free will - and how do they use this belief to gain social control.

I'm one of those people. I wasn't aware, as a free will, I was supposed to strive for, or exercise, social control. Mebbe my copy of Free Will: A User's Manual was missin' a chapter.

[Iwannaplato]

who are the people who believe in aboslute free will - and how do they use this belief to gain social control.

I'm one of those people. I wasn't aware, as a free will, I was supposed to strive for, or exercise, social control. Mebbe my copy of Free Will: A User's Manual was missin' a chapter.

I just looked it up and see that it merely means one can have made different choices. It sounded like a free will where one could do anything, perhaps fly or create a universe. That settled, yes, I don't see why belief in this would mean one wants to control others. It's a strange and I think utterly uncharitable conclusion to draw about that group, a group that is enormoun. It is how it feels/seems. It certainly seems like we could have decided to go to the store or to instead keep reading. This is the default experience we have and most people will grow up believing they have this free will. We can set aside the issue of whether it is the correct belief or not for a moment and look at this conclusion. It would mean that most children want to control others and sit in judgment over them. Further, given that Belinda is someone who does not believe in absolute free will, she seems to be managing to sit in judgment over those who do.

[Agent Smith]

"Hi Paul!" Tom was fond of Paul. "Er ... huh? ... I'm not Paul, I'm Roger," Roger was quite offended. Further down the road, "Hi Susan!" Tom was a congenial fellow. "Excuse me! I'm not Susan, I'm Henrietta," the woman was slightly more insulted than Roger. "Hey Tom, are you trying to show off?!" Dick asked. "Show off what?" Tom prodded. "Well, your superpower memory of course!" said Harry, the three were going to watch a movie, Liberty in Tibet. Tom had been reading a book on how to improve one's memory for the past week, he'd told them that he had now mastered the art of memorization. He'd paid special attention to remembering faces and this morning's ... fiasco was supposed to be a demo.

[Belinda]

I hope you understand absolute Free Will. Absolute Free Will is about social control not reason.

Could you explain how this plays out? I mean, who are the people who believe in aboslute free will - and how do they use this belief to gain social control.

On the other hand relative free will is obtainable , an individual's power of choice is augmented by several means, the most civilised of which is knowledge and reasoned judgement.

No matter how much education and reasoned judgment you have, in determinism either you were going to the party or you weren't, however much it SEEMED like you might choose either way. So, I don't know what this relative free will is you are talking about. Your knowledge and reasoning would just be more factors in an inevitable process determining your action. And your education and reasoned judgment were caused by things caused like dominoes back in the Big Bang.

There's unfolding and the illusion of possible futures.

Absolute Free Will allows you to be blamed. There was no excuse for your crime or your sin because you were free to do otherwise than you did. Because the fault is not your circumstances but your free self it's right that you are punished for your wrongdoing. You may even believe you are guilty and deserve to be punished.

When people talk about "free will" they sometimes refer to the feeling of empowerment to chose, and don't philosophise about their feeling. The power to chose is augmented by knowledge and critical judgement.