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

[Flannel Jesus]

"Morality and free will are mutually exclusive." Nietzsche

Which work is that quote from?

You got me, I read Nietzsche a few eons ago. Google it!!

I did. That's why I asked.

[popeye1945]

Which work is that quote from?

You got me, I read Nietzsche a few eons ago. Google it!!

I did. That's why I asked.

Yeah, I tried too. I am sure it is in his works stated in more than one way. I me however it is obvious that if you're living by the rules of others, you are not exercising free will. Sorry if I mislead you, however! To be uncivilized would be one exercising free will.

[henry quirk]

You got me, I read Nietzsche a few eons ago. Google it!!

I did. That's why I asked.

Yeah, I tried too. I am sure it is in his works stated in more than one way. I me however it is obvious that if you're living by the rules of others, you are not exercising free will. Sorry if I mislead you, however! To be uncivilized would be one exercising free will.

I would comment on this, but...

Notice, I am an atheist, just so believers can avoid me-----lol!! Please do!!

...as a deist I am forbidden.

[popeye1945]

I did. That's why I asked.

Yeah, I tried too. I am sure it is in his works stated in more than one way. I me however it is obvious that if you're living by the rules of others, you are not exercising free will. Sorry if I mislead you, however! To be uncivilized would be one exercising free will.

I would comment on this, but...

Notice, I am an atheist, just so believers can avoid me-----lol!! Please do!!

...as a deist I am forbidden.

Yeah, I have some old friends who turned born-again Christians, now they are old friends that are pains in the ass.

[Belinda]

Yeah, I tried too. I am sure it is in his works stated in more than one way. I me however it is obvious that if you're living by the rules of others, you are not exercising free will. Sorry if I mislead you, however! To be uncivilized would be one exercising free will.

I would comment on this, but...

Notice, I am an atheist, just so believers can avoid me-----lol!! Please do!!

...as a deist I am forbidden.

Yeah, I have some old friends who turned born-again Christians, now they are old friends that are pains in the ass.

Are they pains in the ass because they are sanctimonious, or because they try to have eight hour conversations about their faith, or because they are bloody sure their ideas are true?

[popeye1945]

I would comment on this, but......as a deist I am forbidden.

Yeah, I have some old friends who turned born-again Christians, now they are old friends that are pains in the ass.

Are they pains in the ass because they are sanctimonious, or because they try to have eight-hour conversations about their faith, or because they are bloody sure their ideas are true?

Well, they believe what they believe and want to save me, and have been trying to for the past twenty-five years. I asked them to give it a rest, face it we are friends despite our differing worldviews. Try not to save me, and I'll not pester you about being rational.

[Wizard22]

All life is reactionary, as being part of something larger than itself in adapting to that larger something/earth. Unmotivated action would not be a reaction, of course, there is no such thing as an unmotivated action, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction.

There is "unmotivated action", but it is physical, it is physics. It is a waterfall. It is a gust of wind. It is a boulder rolling down a hill.

You linked your argument 'free-will' as belonging to unmotivated action. I asked you already, so you believe non-thinking, non-living objects, have free-will??

Instinct is nothing but a hardwired reaction, sexual selection is hardwired. I have heard it referred to as the will of the species, hardwired, it is not an intellectual choice to be attracted, it is not a choice at all. The physical world plays biology like an instrument, and the melody that it plays upon the organism is that of apparent reality. Think about it, if all life was not reactionary in its nature, would evolutionary adaptation be possible? Motivation is desire to affect change, and in order to react to that desire one must make the desire one's will, but it remains a reaction to a larger reality.

Just because Life is reactionary, does not mean that it is also not Actionary. It is both. Although you seem to rule one half out entirely. Why?

[Belinda]

Yeah, I have some old friends who turned born-again Christians, now they are old friends that are pains in the ass.

Are they pains in the ass because they are sanctimonious, or because they try to have eight-hour conversations about their faith, or because they are bloody sure their ideas are true?

Well, they believe what they believe and want to save me, and have been trying to for the past twenty-five years. I asked them to give it a rest, face it we are friends despite our differing worldviews. Try not to save me, and I'll not pester you about being rational.

I suppose in their case "saved" means saved from sin. 'Sin' depends on Free Will + God's diktat. If no Free Will then no sin.

Very few modern Christians believe non-human animals can sin. They'd claim that Popeye is human and therefore different from non-human animals. I guess Popeye would agree. However Popeye can claim the difference is a difference, not of kind , but of degree.

[popeye1945]

Are they pains in the ass because they are sanctimonious, or because they try to have eight-hour conversations about their faith, or because they are bloody sure their ideas are true?

Well, they believe what they believe and want to save me, and have been trying to for the past twenty-five years. I asked them to give it a rest, face it we are friends despite our differing worldviews. Try not to save me, and I'll not pester you about being rational.

I suppose in their case "saved" means saved from sin. 'Sin' depends on Free Will + God's diktat. If no Free Will then no sin.

Very few modern Christians believe non-human animals can sin. They'd claim that Popeye is human and therefore different from non-human animals. I guess Popeye would agree. However, Popeye can claim the difference is a difference, not of kind, but of degree.

Yes, sin is dependent upon free will, and the belief that it is conceivable to offend an imaginary supernatural entity. When people in this day age tell me that they believe in a literal devil, I am simply lost for words, from fear of being profoundly rude. I tend to just look at them in disbelief and avoid further dialogue.

[popeye1945]

All life is reactionary, as being part of something larger than itself in adapting to that larger something/earth. Unmotivated action would not be a reaction, of course, there is no such thing as an unmotivated action, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction.

There is "unmotivated action", but it is physical, it is physics. It is a waterfall. It is a gust of wind. It is a boulder rolling down a hill.

You linked your argument 'free-will' as belonging to unmotivated action. I asked you already, so you believe non-thinking, non-living objects, have free-will??

Instinct is nothing but a hardwired reaction, sexual selection is hardwired. I have heard it referred to as the will of the species, hardwired, it is not an intellectual choice to be attracted, it is not a choice at all. The physical world plays biology like an instrument, and the melody that it plays upon the organism is that of apparent reality. Think about it, if all life was not reactionary in its nature, would evolutionary adaptation be possible? Motivation is desire to affect change, and in order to react to that desire one must make the desire one's will, but it remains a reaction to a larger reality.

Just because Life is reactionary, does not mean that it is also not Actionary. It is both. Although you seem to rule one half out entirely. Why?

Give me an example of an unmotivated human action, if it was indeed an unmotivated action it could be called an act of free will, but there is no such creature. For even a decision not to react to any given stimulus is a reaction to one's environment. A rock is the physical world and as such something for reactive organisms to react to, for the physical world is cause to all reactionary organisms. Rocks react/change to the processes of the earth, as being of earth just as you are subject to the process of the earth and adapt to its ever so slowly changing nature, as it is influenced by the greater cosmos.

[Wizard22]

So a rock is an unmotivated reaction, not an action? Because it reacts to something larger? (Earth) And Earth reacts to the Cosmos?

Is the Cosmos then, an Unmotivated Action?

Or going back to the beginning of Time, would the beginning of Time be an Unmotivated Action?

Or are you saying that Unmotivated Action is simply, physically impossible? And exists nowhere and no time in existence?

[Flannel Jesus]

I think he's saying, more, that if an unmotivated action did exist, we'd have very good reason to not call it "free will"

[popeye1945]

So a rock is an unmotivated reaction, not an action? Because it reacts to something larger? (Earth) And Earth reacts to the Cosmos?

Is the Cosmos then, an Unmotivated Action?

Or going back to the beginning of Time, would the beginning of Time be an Unmotivated Action?

Or are you saying that Unmotivated Action is simply, physically impossible? And exist nowhere and no time in existence?

You're getting a little off track, the concern of the thread is, does the free will point of view affect morals and character. It is concerned with the human condition. From my point of view, the point of view of free will infers human action, when in fact, there is no such thing as human action. Human action and thus free will is a wrong-headed view of being of and in the world. This view of the human condition as free will is a disaster to human relations between individuals and nations. My point has been that all organisms including humanity are reactionary creatures. If an individual is displeased with another fellow's behaviors and he believes in free will, then it is a total mystery why that individual is behaving as he is. If you understand that the behaviors are reactions to something, then you have a chance of understanding one another. In other words, the belief in free will is a source of great ignorance and the seed of chaos. PS: The rock is the world and is that which reactionary creatures react to, you are in my outer world, which means I will react to you.

[Wizard22]

I think he's saying, more, that if an unmotivated action did exist, we'd have very good reason to not call it "free will"

He said that a human would need to have an "unmotivated action" in order to have free-will.

[Wizard22]

You're getting a little off track, the concern of the thread is, does the free will point of view affect morals and character. It is concerned with the human condition. From my point of view, the point of view of free will infers human action, when in fact, there is no such thing as human action. Human action and thus free will is a wrong-headed view of being of and in the world. This view of the human condition as free will is a disaster to human relations between individuals and nations.

I don't see how though. Choice is important because it implies there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to approach Life, and, Morality, interacting with other people. You can benefit others, or, you can harm them. Without choice, there is no responsibility, and hence no Real morality.

My point has been that all organisms including humanity are reactionary creatures.

I know, but you haven't clarified to What everything and everyone reacts to.

If an individual is displeased with another fellow's behaviors and he believes in free will, then it is a total mystery why that individual is behaving as he is. If you understand that the behaviors are reactions to something, then you have a chance of understanding one another. In other words, the belief in free will is a source of great ignorance and the seed of chaos. PS: The rock is the world and is that which reactionary creatures react to, you are in my outer world, which means I will react to you.

Yes, that's precisely the point, free-will represents 'chaos' between creatures, and the world. It seems to me you want to rule out that chaos by claiming that all is reactionary (to what?). It's like a "God of the gaps" fallacy where you're filling in every empty space with Reactivity—that there is always a 'largest' perspective, or beginning of time.

I see that as only half the equation. It's backward. You're looking at the past, not the future. There is Action. There is proactivity. There is a forward movement to life and existence, not just backward into the distant past.