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

[Wizard22]

Determinism is ontologically false.

I agree with Henry, everybody has a Free-Will by default, although a majority of humanity gives up on it (person A, low willpower) early on in life.

This leads to a lesser version of Morality, a "morality when convenient" approach. Moral when it's Good for you, absolve yourself when it's Evil for you.


Morality by path of least resistance. (Which is actually...immoral)

[Wizard22]

Everything you described above looks very much like a compatibilist form of free will. I also believe in a sort of compatibilist free will. Perhaps we disagree less than you think.

Possibly...the devil is in the details.

[Wizard22]

Mass Religion, and therefore mass beliefs of humanity, has a core problem when it comes to Morality.

Moral Leaders (Priests, Rabbis, Imams, Politicians, Etc) all want the masses to be good unthinking followers.

The problem is, Morality requires a Free-Will...to be moral! This is why Christianity, specifically, shoe-horns Free-Will in after you've already given your will over to another (ie. God). That way you can be both: Slave, and Master, after-the-fact. I disagree with this contradiction. You can't serve two Lords (God and Yourself) at the same time.

You have to Choose. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.


This is why Morality is...difficult. It's supposed to be. It's not supposed to be easy. Whether you lead or are independent, or whether you unthinkingly follow the herd, neither choice absolves you from responsibility and consequences. Ignorance is not an excuse.

[Flannel Jesus]

Determinism is ontologically false.

How did you get to that conclusion?

[Wizard22]

Because Determinists need some type of rationale or logical system, Ethics, to justify a morality.

They can't explain anything about it though, where it comes from, why it is, how to proceed within it, etc.

This is why Determinists tend to be, or only are, followers of a system. They cannot justify Determinism "outside" of such systems.

[Flannel Jesus]

That doesn't show me how you got to the conclusion that determinism is ontologically false. That statement is entirely disconnected from whatever motivations you think determinists have for their ideas of morality.

[Wizard22]

I'll pose that another way.

Since 'freedom' is ontologically true. And since 'will(power)' is ontologically true. Then Free-Will is a default starting position. Determinists who wish to rule free-will out, need to justify how there is "no freedom" or "no willpower" in somebody. Or at the very least, it has to be some small and insignificant type of free-will. For example, a Determinist may state that..."an insect has no free-will" or "a tree has no free-will", and most would agree.

Not because the free-will is absolutely gone, but because it is so small and insignificant by comparison of some unspoken (human) standard.

In other words, the human measures the world by 'human' freedom, not by bird freedom, not by fish freedom, not by insect freedom, not by tree freedom.

[Flannel Jesus]

As I said before, the sort of freedom you've talked about, that you say is "ontologically true", looks very much like a compatibilist form of freedom. Nothing in your description of freedom contradicts determinism. Therefore, the existence or truthfulness of that freedom isn't a case against determinism. A determinist could accept your freedom, and determinism, at the same time.

[phyllo]

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.

To me that's similar to claiming "people will act the same way whether they believe in God or not", which is simply not true.

Those who believe in God (or Free-Will) act in vastly and distinctly different ways than those who do not.

Notice that I said nothing about 'beliefs'.

Your question was : "do you want Free-Will, or not??"

What I want does not alter what is or is not the reality. My wanting free-will alters nothing.

It seems that your question is really more like : "Do you want to believe in free-will?"

My answer to that would be ... I don't see any advantage to such a belief.

To use your God analogy ... Do you want God or not? Wanting God doesn't change anything. Either there is God now or there is not.

And ... Do you want to believe in God? I want to know what is real and true. I don't want to adopt a false belief (if it is false).

[Wizard22]

I believe there are many senses of freedom that Determinists cannot accept.

It's admitted throughout this thread: free-will as contingent on Natural Laws or Physics for that matter. So Determinists explicitly admit the limitations of freedom...as their knowledge of Law or Physics go. That is a direct admission to ignorance of 'outside' causal forces. Is it not?

[Wizard22]

Notice that I said nothing about 'beliefs'.

Your question was : "do you want Free-Will, or not??"

What I want does not alter what is or is not the reality. My wanting free-will alters nothing.

It seems that your question is really more like : "Do you want to believe in free-will?"

My answer to that would be ... I don't see any advantage to such a belief.

To use your God analogy ... Do you want God or not? Wanting God doesn't change anything. Either there is God now or there is not.

And ... Do you want to believe in God? I want to know what is real and true. I don't want to adopt a false belief (if it is false).

I don't get it.

If you want milk, or soda, or cereal, or cheese. Your want DOES affect reality. Because you make choices upon your Want.

It is a direct causation.

[Wizard22]

To FJ,

Basically Determinists explicitly admit that Determinism is limited by Physical knowledge or Natural Law. Therefore they are not 'free' to consider possibilities outside what is physically possible.

Libertarian Free-Will might not hold such exceptions, a "wait until we know more" approach to the Universe.

[Flannel Jesus]

You haven't shown anything so far that demonstrates how you came to the conclusion that determinism must be false. You've only discussed the apparent existence of compatibilist freedom. That can exist with determinism.

[phyllo]

Notice that I said nothing about 'beliefs'.

Your question was : "do you want Free-Will, or not??"

What I want does not alter what is or is not the reality. My wanting free-will alters nothing.

It seems that your question is really more like : "Do you want to believe in free-will?"

My answer to that would be ... I don't see any advantage to such a belief.

To use your God analogy ... Do you want God or not? Wanting God doesn't change anything. Either there is God now or there is not.

And ... Do you want to believe in God? I want to know what is real and true. I don't want to adopt a false belief (if it is false).

I don't get it.

If you want milk, or soda, or cereal, or cheese. Your want DOES affect reality. Because you make choices upon your Want.

It is a direct causation.

If you want milk,then you can go to the store and get some. (Assuming you are able to go someplace that has milk and assuming you can then make some sort of transaction to take possession of it. )

If you want free-will or God, then you can't go and get it.

[Wizard22]

You haven't shown anything so far that demonstrates how you came to the conclusion that determinism must be false. You've only discussed the apparent existence of compatibilist freedom. That can exist with determinism.

Why are you so attached to Compatibility?