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

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

Not any more incoherent than libertarian free will

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Sure, but people believing in free will and people believing in determinism, at least most of them, manage to take care of themselves with food and shelter and relationships and go to work. And even those who consider that determinism might entail that we cannot really know if we are being rational or not also manage this. And note: I am not saying that determinism rules out rationality. What I am saying is that it ought to, I think, make one doubt one's own ability to self-assess or even know which assessments from others to trust and not just a little but rather a lot. Why? Because the feeling 'what I just wrote makes sense and is rational' is a quale and it would be utterly determined. Perhaps it's being determined by good assessment, perhaps not. But my sense of how well I assessed it is utterly determined, so I can't know which it is.

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.

Right, but we could be quite ok, overall, with our reasoning over getting food and doing our jobs, and an out of tune instrument when it comes to philosophical reasoning. They are very, very different skill sets and further the feedback from reality is completely different. You fart regularly in front of your boss cause you think this is ok social behavior, you lose your job. You drive on the wrong side of the road people honk, later if you resist this feedback, you die or kill. Practical reasoning, but also conditioning. We get conditioned to do many things that work with others and in society. We pay rent because we are told to and bad effects come in fast.

So, someone could be very competent there, because of all this constant conditioning and feedback, but terrible when it comes to, for example, philosophical reasong. Oh, what I just said about free will makes perfect sense. On that assessment we have not been trained by feedback and consequence in ANYTHING like the way we are trained for everyday life.

I find it ironic that determinists will assert determinism and then wax philosophical about free will and all sorts of topics (where being wrong has no effect on getting food on the table) and for some reason assume that their utterly determined self-assessment that they are being rational is a good assessment.

All they know is after and while writing or speaking they have this feeling (an utterly determined feeling) that they are making sense.

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.

Determinism entails that we do not choose between reactions. We react. And after we write some philosophical thinking, we may think it was rational, but if determinism is the case, we have no idea what is leading to that assessment, could merely be ego or distraction from fear.

With day to day living we can see that, well, for ten years I've held down jobs, fed myself, had friends. That's clear feedback that it's working. Perhaps some of the beliefs you have that lead to your behavior around this are quite wrong. But as long as they lead to behavior that keeps life going ok, that doesn't really matter.

Philosophical beliefs are a whole nothing kettle of fish.

We write something. Seems so rational. The other person is wrong. I am more rational on this topic.

Here the utterly determined quale might be correct, might not be. Once we admit that that quale 'I was more rational than him in that exchange' is utterly determined, how could we be remotely certain it's right. It might be right. But I can't see how we could be at all certain. Not just potentially fallible, that we all agree on. But even think we can assess this at all, to any degree.

[popeye1945]

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.

Sure, but people believing in free will and people believing in determinism, at least most of them, manage to take care of themselves with food and shelter and relationships and go to work. And even those who consider that determinism might entail that we cannot really know if we are being rational or not also manage this. And note: I am not saying that determinism rules out rationality. What I am saying is that it ought to, I think, make one doubt one's own ability to self-assess or even know which assessments from others to trust and not just a little but rather a lot. Why? Because the feeling 'what I just wrote makes sense and is rational' is a quale and it would be utterly determined. Perhaps it's being determined by good assessment, perhaps not. But my sense of how well I assessed it is utterly determined, so I can't know which it is.

What one believes or disbelieves does not affect the way the world works, it certainly may affect how well these subjects do in the world. As I understand determinism. It does not rule out choices, it rules out the possibility of not reacting to the physical world; and there are only so many choices in any given situation. It is true that whatever way we choose to react, we could never know its full consequences; but generally, we are only concerned with its immediate consequences for our well-being. Natural selection takes care of those who make consistent irrational choices. Free will and determinism I think play in the same playground of chaos, where order is the result of what chaos leaves. to adapt to what chaos leaves is considered order, but still chaotic, where control is limited if existent at all in the here and now. If free will means to control, it is an absurd thought.

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.

Right, but we could be quite ok, overall, with our reasoning over getting food and doing our jobs, and an out-of-tune instrument when it comes to philosophical reasoning. They are very, very different skill sets and further the feedback from reality is completely different. You fart regularly in front of your boss cause you think this is ok social behavior, you lose your job. You drive on the wrong side of the road people honk, later if you resist this feedback, you die or kill. Practical reasoning, but also conditioning. We get conditioned to do many things that work with others and in society. We pay rent because we are told to and bad effects come in fast. [/quote]

Yes, the tree of knowledge is not of life. Continued existence depends upon the basic necessities to the maintenance of our health.

So, someone could be very competent there, because of all this constant conditioning and feedback, but terrible when it comes to, for example, philosophical reasoning. Oh, what I just said about free will makes perfect sense. On that assessment we have not been trained by feedback and consequence in ANYTHING like the way we are trained for everyday life.
I find it ironic that determinists will assert determinism and then wax philosophical about free will and all sorts of topics (where being wrong has no effect on getting food on the table) and for some reason assume that their utterly determined self-assessment that they are being rational is a good assessment. All they know is after and while writing or speaking they have this feeling (an utterly determined feeling) that they are making sense.

Yes, there are degrees of irrationality.

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.

Determinism means that we do not choose between reactions. We react. And after we write some philosophical thinking, we may think it was rational, but if determinism is the case, we have no idea what is leading to that assessment, could merely be ego or distraction from fear. [/quote]

We have obviously been conditioned to survive through biological adaptation to the physical world, and that adaptation enables us to hum the tune the world plays upon us. We are reactionary creatures which adaptation underlines, that is what makes free will absurd.

With day-to-day living we can see that, well, for ten years I've held down jobs, fed myself, had friends. That's clear feedback that it's working. Perhaps some of the beliefs you have that lead to your behavior around this are quite wrong. But as long as they lead to behavior that keeps life going ok, that doesn't really matter. Philosophical beliefs are a whole nothing kettle of fish. We write something. Seems so rational. The other person is wrong. I am more rational on this topic. Here the utterly determined quale might be correct, might not be. Once we admit that that quale 'I was more rational than him in that exchange' is utterly determined, how could we be remotely certain it's right. It might be right. But I can't see how we could be at all certain. Not just potentially fallible, that we all agree on. But even think we can assess this at all, to any degree.
[/quote]

Certainty is not afforded us, that is what makes life a struggle.

[Iwannaplato]

What one believes or disbelieves does not affect the way the world works

I agree and I don't think I've said anything that even implies otherwise.

it certainly may affect how well these subjects do in the world. As I understand determinism. It does not rule out choices, it rules out the possibility of not reacting to the physical world;

It rules out a real choice. A person may mull and weight and consider, but their 'choice' was already set back in the Big Bang. So, it's not an act of choose in the common sense.

and there are only so many choices in any given situation. It is true that whatever way we choose to react, we could never know its full consequences; but generally, we are only concerned with its immediate consequences for our well-being. Natural selection takes care of those who make consistent irrational choices.

Yes, and I went into this in relation to self-care, social skills, driving choices.

Free will and determinism I think play in the same playground of chaos, where order is the result of what chaos leaves. to adapt to what chaos leaves is considered order, but still chaotic, where control is limited if existent at all in the here and now. If free will means to control, it is an absurd thought.

I am not arguing that free will entails anything. I am focused on determinism. If I say something that is or seems to be entailed by determinism, saying free will is not different or free will isn't X, has nothing to do with the issue.

Yes, the tree of knowledge is not of life. Continued existence depends upon the basic necessities to the maintenance of our health.

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.

And we cannot not react in the precise way we did and will. It is not like we could react in way A or way B. We will react in only one way the way that was determined long ago, like dominos falling.

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.

If anything this only supports what I am saying. I am presuming determinism. Your way of describing this in terms of reaction is assumed by me here and in my previous posts.

We have obviously been conditioned to survive through biological adaptation to the physical world, and that adaptation enables us to hum the tune the world plays upon us. We are reactionary creatures which adaptation underlines, that is what makes free will absurd.

Again, this has nothing to do with what might be entailed by determinism.

If someone criticizes the democrates, it is no defense of them to say that the republicans are absurd.
If someone criticizes physicalism, saying there is a problem with idealism is not a defense.
If someone says free will entails X, saying determinism entails Y is not a counterargument.
It's an attempt to make the situation out as Team A vs. Team B, who can score points. Perhaps both ideas are incorrect. Perhaps there is a third position. Even that doesn't matter. Free will may be absurd while at the same time and not contradicting this in any way determinism entails that any confidence at all in one's rationality is undermined by determinism.

Certainty is not afforded us, that is what makes life a struggle.

Sure, but that's not really a response. I am not saying that determinism entails that we can't be certain of things. I am saying that if you are compelled to feel what you feel and compelled to think what you think and you know this, it's strange that you would also think you can evaluate your own rationality. Or better put, it's not logical. Of course you would be compelled to think you could, but it's not logical.

I'm gonna leave this here. I don't think you're really responding to my point. Could be a failure on my part to make it clear. Could be something else.

[Flannel Jesus]

It rules out a real choice. A person may mull and weight and consider, but their 'choice' was already set back in the Big Bang. So, it's not an act of choose in the common sense.

I don't agree that it makes choices less real. I don't think adding randomness to the universe adds anything meaningful towards our ability to choose, and in fact probably only takes away from that

[Iwannaplato]

It rules out a real choice. A person may mull and weight and consider, but their 'choice' was already set back in the Big Bang. So, it's not an act of choose in the common sense.

I don't agree that it makes choices less real. I don't think adding randomness to the universe adds anything meaningful towards our ability to choose, and in fact probably only takes away from that

Who said anything about randomness?
Please, everyone. It's not a fight between two boxers: boxer determinism and boxer free will. If I point out something that determinism entails and it seems negative, this doesn't mean 1) that I believe in free will nor does it mean 2) that pointing out a problem with free will is relevant.

I wasn't comparing anything. I was pointing out what I think determinism entails. Free will has its own problems which can be taken up in that discussion. Scoring points against one boxer does not mean that the other boxer didn't just take a left hook to the chin.

A: There is a lot of corruption in the repbulican party.
B: Oh, yeah, well, the democrates have no real values.
A: Um,I'm a republican pointing out a problem with my party.

or
A: I'm an independent.
or
and there are other possible ors.

[Flannel Jesus]

It rules out a real choice. A person may mull and weight and consider, but their 'choice' was already set back in the Big Bang. So, it's not an act of choose in the common sense.

I don't agree that it makes choices less real. I don't think adding randomness to the universe adds anything meaningful towards our ability to choose, and in fact probably only takes away from that

Who said anything about randomness?
Please, everyone. It's not a fight between two boxers: boxer determinism and boxer free will. If I point out something that determinism entails and it seems negative, this doesn't mean 1) that I believe in free will nor does it mean 2) that pointing out a problem with free will is relevant.

The phrase "real choice" implies that there some alternate way things could have been where choices could be real, at least that's how I'm reading it. And if choices can't be real in determinism, it would seem to be the only way they could be real is with indeterminism. Perhaps I'm misreading.

What does a real choice look like to you?

[Iwannaplato]

The phrase "real choice" implies that there some alternate way things could have been where choices could be real,

Not necessarily. Perhaps some people could mean that. But I don't. And certainly indeterminism offers no real choice either. But I'm not thinking about indeterminism right now. IOW perhaps if we look at all the options, that we know of so far or can conceive of so far, we will find that the common sense idea of choice is illusory. But that's not what I'm doing here. Primarily in the posts above I am questioning how a determinist could be confident they can evaluate their own rationality about philosophical issues with ANY confidence. I did respond to popeye bringing up choices and I questioned whether this idea fits determinism.
Look what I wrote in what you quoted....

It rules out a real choice. A person may mull and weight and consider, but their 'choice' was already set back in the Big Bang. So, it's not an act of choose [sic] in the common sense.

I specifically bring up the Big Bang because I think our common sense sense of choosing is that it might go one way or the other. But no, I don't think that's the case. Now he could come back and say, I agree it was all set in inevitable motion during the Big Bang and only one reaction/choice will happen, but I would still call that a choice because....

and we could further discuss whether that word fits. I don't think it does.

It doesn't matter if there is no real choice in free will for this point. IOW I think people have an official position, here determinism, but the idea hasn't really trickled down into all that entails. So, I am pressing on that point or really points. First related to self-evaluations of rationality, especially when there is little real life negative consequences to that irrationality. See my posts a couple back to popeye. They he brought up choice, which isn't actually relevant, but I couldn't help (lol) pressing on that point also.

Perhaps he defines choice in a way that fits with determinism. HOwever that should be made really clear, i think, in a philosophy forum because that use will be idiosyncatic.

I think that is part of what happens in philosophy we realize that our or another's philosophical position undermines a folk common sense idea and its attendant vocabularly.

I don't agree that it makes choices less real. I don't think adding randomness to the universe adds anything meaningful towards our ability to choose, and in fact probably only takes away from that

never really at least that's how I'm reading it. And if choices can't be real in determinism, it would seem to be the only way they could be real is with indeterminism. Perhaps I'm misreading.

See my answers related to republicans and democrats one post back. And note not all free willers are indeterminists or at least they don't think they are. I haven't see a good explanation for other options, but I can't rule them out.
IOW I think we should treat arguments or deductions about position A to mean that position B is immune to this or some other similar criticism. I also don't think we should assume that only two positions exist. But even if we are correct that there are only 2 positions, it's a distraction to jump to criticizing the other option. That's about teams winning.

I do understand how 'real choice' made you think there must be a real choice somewhere else. But that is an assumption. If we focus on determinism we can decide that, hm, there is no real choosing there. Or, we might decide there is. Then we could, if we wanted, look at free will or indeterminism and see if it does have real choice. But the two things are not contingent on each other.

The republicans and the democrats can both be owned by corporations.
If I am arguing that the republicans are controlled by corporations, this does not entail that I think democrats are not. And even if the democrats are, this doesn't protect the republicans from the criticism at all, regardless of what I think.
or as I put it above..

A: There is a lot of corruption in the repbulican party.
B: Oh, yeah, well, the democrates have no real values.
A: Um,I'm a republican pointing out a problem with my party.

or
A: I'm an independent.
or
and there are other possible ors..

What does a real choice look like to you?

I have no idea. It might be an illusion embedded in our conception.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think choice, like most things in determinism, has to be understood in an emergent manner. There's different layers of abstraction at play. The concept of choice happens on one layer of abstraction (the one where we're talking about human minds and human experience), and not on another layer (the layer where we talk about, say, the chemical events happening in the brain).

It's in the mixing of layers of abstraction that the confusion happens.

[Flannel Jesus]

Just for example, in programming this concept is equally applicable.

I write software. I have reasons for writing a function a certain way, and in some sense the software seems to behave according to the "reasons" I've encoded in it.

So I have a function that throws an error in a certain circumstance, and I ask the question "why did it throw an error?" , and I look at my code and I notice that I wrote it to throw an error when the input string is longer than 20 characters. And I notice that the input string in this case was 22 characters, so I leave feeling satisfied that "the reason it errored was because the input string was 20 characters".

But, you might say, that's not how computers work. Computers are just a bunch of 1s and 0s and logic gates. There's no REASONS in 1s and 0s and logic gates, they don't know that your REASON for erroring is because of the length of a string, the electricity is just flowing through the system the way the electricity has to flow.

So we have this sort of reductive view, where reasons disappear and all you have is electricity flowing in the only way it could possibly flow, but then you have a different view where you can see your source code and see the reason why you things happen, you can diagnose why it happened, you can apply reasoning. And despite there being truth in the reductive view, I still know that my code behaves according to my reasons incredibly consistently. So maybe there's still truth to the idea that the reason it errored is because the input string was too long, even if "reasons" don't actually apply when you're looking at the electrical currents flowing through the wires.

And the same is happening here, with choices in determinism. Just like a reductive view says there's no REASONS in the hardware of a computer, it's just electric currents flowing in the only way they could, you might also say there's no CHOICE in the brain, it's just the chemical matter in the brain behaving in the only way it could.

And I feel like, at some intuitively level, if you understand why it makes sense to talk about the reason your code is behaving a certain way, despite the reductive view of computers, you can understand that it also makes sense in the same sort of way to talk about choices of humans, despite the reductive view of brains.

It's not an either/or situation. It's not "either it's true that the code is behaving according to these reasons, OR it's just electrical currents flowing", it's BOTH. They're both simultaneously true.

And the same for human choices. It's simultaneously true that it's all matter behaving in the only way matter can behave, AND that there's real human choices happening. They're different descriptions of the same events.

[Sculptor]

Sadly the people who convince themselves that we are wholly willful beings and not caused by circumstance are more likely to promote the death penalty, and laws against abortion and gun control.

Conversely people who know that there are mitigating and causative factors when crimes are committed, know that rehabilitation and reform is possible and desirable.

That is why the penal systems in modern enlightened countries such as we find in Scandinavia are far more effective and have massively smaller rates of recidivism.

[bahman]

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.

Everybody can follow morality without exercising free will. Even a robot.

Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of a decision.

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

You are saying the same thing I said. What is right is permissible and what is wrong is not permissible.

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.

My definition is more exhaustive.

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.

Sure, you can even resist morality since you are free. That is what I am saying that there is no relation between morality and free will.

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 have a reason for your decision then it is not free. I think it is very obvious.

[Iwannaplato]

I think choice, like most things in determinism, has to be understood in an emergent manner. There's different layers of abstraction at play. The concept of choice happens on one layer of abstraction (the one where we're talking about human minds and human experience), and not on another layer (the layer where we talk about, say, the chemical events happening in the brain).

It's in the mixing of layers of abstraction that the confusion happens.

i think I understand what you mean though I had trouble with your next post, me being programming illiterate.

Here's what I was reacting to popeye's......

Determinism does not mean, I believe, that we have no choices regarding our reactions to the world

I mean sure, no one is going to say we have only one reaction to the world, given the world is a welter of different stimuli and things are happening internally that change our reactions. But in any given instance we will have one reaction and no other and no other is possible. Even if we 'mull over our options' this is a totallly determined reaction. We don't have to go down to the chemical level, though yes it's true there also. At any given moment just one reaction must be the one that happens.

To me the word choice and the word happens should be significantly different, given common usage. But in determinism they are not.


He also said....

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.

Here he talks about a limited ability to choose out reactions. Again to me this sounds like X happens and we can choose amongst our reactions. But the truth is that we will react one way. We don't go, hm which of my reactions will I have??Or better put, if that is our utterly determined reaction, we had no choice in the matter. We had to react that way and we had to then think about some options, and every single step in that process, each step reaction to he previous one is not chose, but a mere reaction, utterly determined.

And I think his focus on 'reaction' is a good one for my argument. I don't think that word has any metaphysical baggage that fits poorly with determinism. And it's not the same as choice.

I wouldn't want anyone to change their everyday speech and take out choose, choice chose, etc. But in a philosophical context I think it's misleading. Reaction, effect, behavior, link in a causal chain.....ok.

So, if I go up to your point above it seems like you are saying that we experience something where choice is an ok term. Agreed. On a subjective level, we choose. But objectively, we merely react as we must. WE have a quale of choosing, subjectively.

And to be clear I'm agnostic on the issue. Determinism makes more sense to me, but I am not fully convinced. I haven't heard a good explanation of free will and I came up with a creative one myself, but I don't think it holds either. I agree that indeterminism doesn't offer real choice. I read an interesting book that argued that we were free, more or less, to stifle our reactions. So, we had a kind of non-causal no. I am not sure that holds either. Further while interesting, it's not particularly appealing.

[Wizard22]

I'm only on page 10 of reading this thread. So far I agree with Henry Quirk, and SADLY to ADMIT that AGE is MAKING the STRONGEST case FOR free WILL. (Yes this is as painful to write as it seems)

Determinists have the habit of shooting themselves in the foot from the premise, such as setting up the question "are we determined?" versus "do we have free will?" it will produce vastly and qualitatively different results. Essentially people are working backward from their conclusions. Age notices this, points it out consistently, but gets ignored due to his very annoying writing style and off-putting personality. I don't know why he acts this way. If you'd just stop CAPS LOCKING every other word in your responses, I bet everybody would be much more responsive and open to what you're proposing. This is neither here-nor-there though.

I'd pose this question for openers to everybody in the thread, especially BigMike: do you want Free-Will, or not??

I think that's the better or best way to setup the thread and dialogue. Otherwise, as Age argues, we're all working backward from conclusions rather than forward from unknown premises. Maybe we can't know about either, free-will or determinism. So let's figure out what we can know, and work from there. For example, what would a "free-will" act, or choice, look like? If determinists cannot answer this, then there is little reason or cause to believe what they say about free-will. Right?

[phyllo]

do you want Free-Will, or not??

It really makes no difference because people will act the same way whether they have free-will or not.

They will respond to a situation to the best of their ability.