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

[henry quirk]

From up thread...

Anecdote: Last night I came down pretty hard on my kid for sumthin' he did that was annoying but certainly didn't warrant him gettin' yelled at. I could blame stress (I have my stressors same as anyone) or the cold I'm afflicted with, or a dozen other woes. Truth is: I made a bad choice. My reaction is wholly on me. I was the bad guy, full stop.

If he and I am determined, then the whole sequence -- from his infraction, to my comin' down on him, to my understanding I over-reacted, to my regret, to my apology to him -- all of it happened exactly and only as it could. At no point in the sequence could either of us have done (thought, said) other than what we did. Moreover, the entire sequence would be rooted soley and wholly in what came before. He and I are, accordin' to determinism, just involuntary participants in payin' it forward.

If he and I are free wills, then the both of us caused the sequence thru our intentioned interaction. He chose to be a butt and coulda chosen to do sumthin' else. I chose to be an even bugger butt and coulda chose to do do sumthin' else. Moreover, what we each chose to do was not necessarily rooted in what came before. At the very least: we took control of an existing causal and bent it. At the most: we started a causal chain from scratch.

And if you think the second scenario, the libertarian view, is fantastical, then you must conclude the compatibilist position, (which seems to be B's) is even more fantastical.

[henry quirk]

As a word in a sentence, its context defines, so to the conscious subject, taking into consideration not only today's context, but the whole history of the individual and his species. Free will means you are in control, when in fact you are, as in all species, a reactive organism.

Can a purely reactive organism know if it is being rational or not? Wouldn't the feeling of 'being rational', that quale, be determined also and perhaps coupled incorrectly with whatever they just said or wrote?

Yes, to be rational is to be aware of your environment relative to your well-being and others. Statements to that effect would be considered rational.

If that rationality is determined, then it's meaningless. It lacks intention. The rational person isn't doing anything. He's just a boulder rollin' downhill.

[popeye1945]

Can a purely reactive organism know if it is being rational or not? Wouldn't the feeling of 'being rational', that quale, be determined also and perhaps coupled incorrectly with whatever they just said or wrote?

Yes, to be rational is to be aware of your environment relative to your well-being and others. Statements to that effect would be considered rational.

If that rationality is determined, then it's meaningless. It lacks intention. The rational person isn't doing anything. He's just a boulder rollin' downhill.

His intention is to live, move and take care of his own well-being in a reactionary sense. I cannot say I understand your problem with that.

[henry quirk]

Yes, to be rational is to be aware of your environment relative to your well-being and others. Statements to that effect would be considered rational.

If that rationality is determined, then it's meaningless. It lacks intention. The rational person isn't doing anything. He's just a boulder rollin' downhill.

His intention is to live, move and take care of his own well-being in a reactionary sense. I cannot say I understand your problem with that.

As I see it, you're talkin' about instinct, not intention.

I'm hungry and want to eat: that's instinct.

I'm going out for a gutbuster pizza instead of stayin' home and havin' leftovers: that's intention.

"My God, The building is burning! I gotta get out!" That's instinct.

"My God, The building is burning! I gotta help Joe in his wheelchair get out!" That's intention.

Instinct is reaction. Intention is, well, intended.

[Flannel Jesus]

Some of them treat it as an "out", sure. Others treat it as an opportunity for self improvement.

How?

The determinist is stuck with it could not have happened any other way. He cannot direct himself, or change, or learn. He has only the illusion of these things.

The compatibilist is stuck with the same supposed woo as the libertarian, but worse. To support his claim he reconciles, without explanation, the irreconcilable. The libertarian, he sez, right up front: determinism (which appears to undergird the whole of the universe, save for man) cannot be reconciled with absolute free will (which it appears men are [have]). He sez if both are real and irreconcilable then something is wrong or undiscovered about one, the other, or both.

consider a gear that has self awareness, consciousness, and the ability to correct itself.

I would say such a thing is a free will (has libertarian free will).

Not everyone can jive with determinist approaches to morality, for whatever reason. I don't think there's any sequence of words I could say right now that would change your mind on that.

[bahman]

People are misled when they think there is a relationship between morality and free will. Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of a decision. Free will, is the ability to decide in a situation with at least two options unimpeded. Your decision is determined based on morality, taste, preference, etc. unless you make a free decision for no specific reason (well if there was a reason for your decision then it was determined).

[popeye1945]

If that rationality is determined, then it's meaningless. It lacks intention. The rational person isn't doing anything. He's just a boulder rollin' downhill.

His intention is to live, move and take care of his own well-being in a reactionary sense. I cannot say I understand your problem with that.

As I see it, you're talkin' about instinct, not intention.

I'm hungry and want to eat: that's instinct.

I'm going out for a gutbuster pizza instead of stayin' home and havin' leftovers: that's intention.

"My God, The building is burning! I gotta get out!" That's instinct.

"My God, The building is burning! I gotta help Joe in his wheelchair get out!" That's intention.

Instinct is reaction. Intention is, well, intended.

Instinct is just hardwired intention, hardwired reaction. I am hungry and want to eat, it is a need, and the need is to be found in your environment. I am going out for a Gut buster pizza instead of staying home and having leftovers. The argument is not against intention but getting hungry and deciding to seek fulfillment in your environment is a biological reaction. Getting out of a burning building is most certainly a biological reaction. Gotta help Joe is an unusual behavior, and has been explained as a metaphysical realization. A realization that you and the other are one, an extended concept of the self. This reaction is generally not an intellectual decision, but something that just grabs you, a reaction to the welfare of another self that even occurs between species. The physical world is cause to all reactionary, read all creatures. There is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. Motivation spell's reaction.

[henry quirk]

Not everyone can jive with determinist approaches to morality, for whatever reason.

A determinist approach to morality is incoherent. A compatibilist approach is incoherent. Morality, by definition, is about choice, the consequence of choice, and the responsibility of the chooser, Only a libertarian approach can tackle that.

[henry quirk]

Instinct is just hardwired intention, hardwired reaction.

No, choosing to go out for a gutbuster, choosing to delay gratification, instead of satisfying hunger now is not instinct, it's intention. Instinct and intention are not synonymous

getting hungry and deciding to seek fulfillment in your environment is a biological reaction

Getting hungry is a bio-function, yes. The desire to satisfy that hunger is instinctual, yes. Choosing to, as I say, delay gratification, choosing what you don't have and goin' out to get it, instead of eating what you have now (the leftovers), that is intention.

Getting out of a burning building is most certainly a biological reaction.

The fear of the uncontrolled fire, the fear it raises up, this makes you want to get the hell out of the building. You flee as instinct. Even here, though, intention plays a role: even the panicked fleer will choose his route out the building, if multiple routes exist.

Gotta help Joe is an unusual behavior, and has been explained as a metaphysical realization.

But this realization is not a biological one. There's no need to it. In fact it runs counter to need, to fear. It's utterly volitional, intentional. Instinct plays no part in it. It is a defiance of instinct.

A realization that you and the other are one, an extended concept of the self.

No, it's compassion, sumthin' else only accounted for in a libertarian account.

a reaction to the welfare of another self that even occurs between species.

If so, I'd say that indcates libertarian free will (and the personhood it's part & parcel of) isn't confined just to us.

[henry quirk]

People are misled when they think there is a relationship between morality and free will.

Without absolute free will there is no morality, but not every exercise of free will, not every choice, is a moral one.

Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of a decision.

Morality is about what is permissible/impermissible between and among men (persons).

Free will, is the ability to decide in a situation with at least two options unimpeded.

As I up thread: absolute or libertarian free will means one can have made different choices and that those choices aren't necessarily rooted in the past. More formally, it -- libertarian free will/agent causation -- means an individual is a cause, not an effect.

Your decision is determined based on morality, taste, preferencese of, etc.

Taste, preference, etc. influence only; biological and cultural predilections can be defied or set aside.

unless you make a free decision for no specific reason

A decision without intention isn't a decision: it's randomness, it's whimsy; it's givin' way to impulse...which is a choice...

If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

[popeye1945]

Instinct is just hardwired intention, hardwired reaction.

No, choosing to go out for a gutbuster, choosing to delay gratification, instead of satisfying hunger now is not instinct, it's intention. Instinct and intention are not synonymous

It just means that your priority of reactions has shifted. Motivation spell's reaction.

getting hungry and deciding to seek fulfillment in your environment is a biological reaction

Getting hungry is a bio-function, yes. The desire to satisfy that hunger is instinctual, yes. Choosing to, as I say, delay gratification, choosing what you don't have and goin' out to get it, instead of eating what you have now (the leftovers), that is intention.[/quote]

Desire, whatever the desire is, it is a motivation to reaction.

Getting out of a burning building is most certainly a biological reaction.

The fear of the uncontrolled fire, the fear it raises up, this makes you want to get the hell out of the building. You flee as instinct. Even here, though, intention plays a role: even the panicked fleer will choose his route out the building, if multiple routes exist.

Being in a burning building is a threat to life, a motivation to reaction.

Gotta help Joe is an unusual behavior, and has been explained as a metaphysical realization.

But this realization is not a biological one. There's no need to it. In fact it runs counter to need, to fear. It's utterly volitional, intentional. Instinct plays no part in it. It is a defiance of instinct.

There is no such thing as unmotivated movement, other than perhaps an epileptic seizure and even that is a reaction to a short electrical circuit.

A realization that you and the other are one, an extended concept of the self.

No, it's compassion, something else only accounted for in a libertarian account. [/quote]

The source of compassion is identifying with others where there is no identification, there is no compassion, compassion is motivation to reaction.

a reaction to the welfare of another self that even occurs between species.

If so, I'd say that indicates libertarian free will (and the personhood it's part & parcel of) isn't confined just to us.
[/quote]

I am not familiar with libertarian free will, but again, there is no movement without a motivational reaction. There is identification here. with the suffering of another self. Again, motivation spells reaction, not action.

[Iwannaplato]

As a word in a sentence, its context defines, so to the conscious subject, taking into consideration not only today's context, but the whole history of the individual and his species. Free will means you are in control, when in fact you are, as in all species, a reactive organism.

Can a purely reactive organism know if it is being rational or not? Wouldn't the feeling of 'being rational', that quale, be determined also and perhaps coupled incorrectly with whatever they just said or wrote?

Yes, to be rational is to be aware of your environment relative to your well-being and others. Statements to that effect would be considered rational.

Or, given that you are utterly determined, what you consider rational, you are compelled to consider rational, even if it is not.

[popeye1945]

Can a purely reactive organism know if it is being rational or not? Wouldn't the feeling of 'being rational', that quale, be determined also and perhaps coupled incorrectly with whatever they just said or wrote?

Yes, to be rational is to be aware of your environment relative to your well-being and others. Statements to that effect would be considered rational.

Or, given that you are utterly determined, what you consider rational, you are compelled to consider rational, even if it is not.

That I believe is considered being crazy---lol!!

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, to be rational is to be aware of your environment relative to your well-being and others. Statements to that effect would be considered rational.

Or, given that you are utterly determined, what you consider rational, you are compelled to consider rational, even if it is not.

That I believe is considered being crazy---lol!!

How so? Why are you so confident you can judge your own rationality if all your feelings and thoughts are utterly determined?
Simply labeling what I am saying isn't really demonstrating anything.

[popeye1945]

Or, given that you are utterly determined, what you consider rational, you are compelled to consider rational, even if it is not.

That I believe is considered being crazy---lol!!

How so? Why are you so confident you can judge your own rationality if all your feelings and thoughts are utterly determined?
Simply labeling what I am saying isn't really demonstrating anything.

Both perception and judgment are fallible, but it is the best we have to work with. Someone who behaves in direct contradiction to their own well-being consistently, is deemed crazy and stands a good chance of not being around for long. Our world plays us like an instrument, if the instrument is out of tune, the sound produced is not a pleasant melody. Our reactions to the world depend upon those fallible perceptions and judgments and natural selection takes out those consistently in error or out of tune. Determinism does not mean, I believe, that we have no choices regarding our reactions to the world; in fact, the one thing that is certain is that one cannot, not react to the world. This is even so if it is to be an irrational reaction. However, this is getting away from my point. that there is no such thing as human action, there is only human reaction, with a limited ability to choose our reactions to the world.