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

[henry quirk]

There is more to determinism than simple causal chains !

Nope. Let's have none of this we can have our cake and eat it too compatibilist/soft determinist nonsense.

There are also causal circumstances such as a pandemic , or e.g. climate change, that cause a great many parallel events . There is also the law of death or entropy that is a self sufficient cause of just about everything we know of.

Mindless links in a chain, B. A leads to B leads to C etc.

Nature, when philosophers speak of nature, is not only wildernesses, coral reefs, and furry animals; it's the great system of what is the case. In this philosophical sense nature is what you say it is. It does however cause all that happens to happen because nature is dynamic system: change itself.

Talkin' pretty about a chain doesn't make the chain not-a-chain.

As such, nature is very similar to God. The difference for theists is that the theists' God can intervene in nature, and has even empowered man to intervene at will.

Nope. God is a person, the Person. Nature is a machine.

[Flannel Jesus]

There is more to determinism than simple causal chains !

Nope. Let's have none of this we can have our cake and eat it too compatibilist/soft determinist nonsense.

I'm always surprised at how casually people call nonsense the position that is held by most professional philosophers. I don't think most professional philosophers have to necessarily be right, but I do think they're necessarily not stupid (or at least probably not stupid).

I'm also not sure Belinda is a compatibilist anyway

[henry quirk]

I'm always surprised at how casually people call nonsense the position that is held by most professional philosophers.

I don't know that most professional philosophers are compatibilists. If they are, publicly, that may have more to do with towin' a line than actual conviction.

I don't think most professional philosophers have to necessarily be right, but I do think they're necessarily not stupid (or at least probably not stupid).

I never said anyone was stupid.

I'm also not sure Belinda is a compatibilist anyway

Based on what she posts, I think she is. If I'm wrong, she'll correct me.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm always surprised at how casually people call nonsense the position that is held by most professional philosophers.

I don't know that most professional philosophers are compatibilists. If they are, publicly, that may have more to do with towin' a line than actual conviction.

Interesting conspiracy there. Might have some teeth if there were any reason for it to be true. Right now it sounds like you came up with that conspiracy just to explain why most philosophers disagree with you, rather than because you have any good reason to think there's pressure to toe this particular line. Your first reaction to professionals disagreeing with you probably shouldn't be "it must be a conspiracy". That seems extremely intellectually unhealthy to me.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... s-believe/

7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

[henry quirk]

Your first reaction to professionals disagreeing with you probably shouldn't be "it must be a conspiracy". That seems extremely intellectually unhealthy to me.

No, Popeye, I'm not reacting, I'm responding. And I was responding to B, not the philosophical community (who, polls aside [really? a poll?], I'm not convinced is overwhelmingly compatibilist) And, unless, you have some magic power of diagnosis (do you?) you might wanna leave off on offerin' such assessments (as I think on it, I think you just pulled a rhetorical trick...might wanna check IWP's list and then self-chastise).

[Flannel Jesus]

Your first reaction to professionals disagreeing with you probably shouldn't be "it must be a conspiracy". That seems extremely intellectually unhealthy to me.

No, Popeye, I'm not reacting, I'm responding. And I was responding to B, not the philosophical community (who, polls aside [really? a poll?], I'm not convinced is overwhelmingly compatibilist) And, unless, you have some magic power of diagnosis (do you?) you might wanna leave off on offerin' such assessments (as I think on it, I think you just pulled a rhetorical trick...might wanna check IWP's list and then self-chastise).

Regardless of what sort of rhetorical trick you think it might be, it is genuinely the case that your first reaction upon hearing most experts disagree with you should absolutely NOT be to devise a conspiracy theory. That reeks of confirmation bias, and probably any number of other biases. If you do not see that, then perhaps you're not accustomed to looking for the signs of bias. THAT is precisely the sort of thing a bias looks like in practice - a knee jerk reaction to discredit anything contrary to yourself.

Introspect.

And if it's hard for you to see it in yourself, try this: imagine I had done this, and not you. Imagine you had shown me that the majority of some relevant portion of society believed in libertarian free will, and MY first reaction was to say "must be a conspiracy, maybe they're being forced to toe the line". Might you see my reaction as clearly a sign of bias?

And I don't believe it's just a universal negative rhetorical technique to point out clear signs of bias. Maybe if I just said "you're biased" with no justification for why I think so, that would be bad rhetoric. That's not what's happening here.

[popeye1945]

Your first reaction to professionals disagreeing with you probably shouldn't be "it must be a conspiracy". That seems extremely intellectually unhealthy to me.

No, Popeye, I'm not reacting, I'm responding. And I was responding to B, not the philosophical community (who, polls aside [really? a poll?], I'm not convinced is overwhelmingly compatibilist) And, unless, you have some magic power of diagnosis (do you?) you might wanna leave off on offerin' such assessments (as I think on it, I think you just pulled a rhetorical trick...might wanna check IWP's list and then self-chastise).

You think a little semantic twist will win the day for you? Responds is reaction. All reactionary creatures are responsive/reactive to other reactionary creatures, because they are part of your outside world, and reactive creatures a reactive to that larger manifestation the earth.

[henry quirk]

FJ,

it is genuinely the case that your first reaction upon hearing most experts disagree with you should absolutely NOT be to devise a conspiracy theory

As I say: I don't know that most professional philosophers are compatibilists. It hasn't been established, in this thread, they are.

As I say: If they are, publicly, that may have more to do with towin' a line than actual conviction. This is my opinion about a possibility. You may analyze it as you like, assess it as you will, but me: I'm done with this.

----+

Popeye,

Responds is reaction

As I say: I disagree. You may, as you like, disagree in return, I, however, am done with this also.

[popeye1945]

FJ,

it is genuinely the case that your first reaction upon hearing most experts disagree with you should absolutely NOT be to devise a conspiracy theory

As I say: I don't know that most professional philosophers are compatibilists. It hasn't been established, in this thread, they are.

As I say: If they are, publicly, that may have more to do with towin' a line than actual conviction. This is my opinion about a possibility. You may analyze it as you like, assess it as you will, but me: I'm done with this.

----+

Popeye,

Responds is reaction

As I say: I disagree. You may, as you like, disagree in return, I, however, am done with this also.

Farwell!

[Belinda]

I'm not a compatibilist. Absolute Free Will does not make sense. I wish it to be understood that people who support belief in absolute Free Will are those people who want to apportion blame in an effort to control sinning and crime.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not a compatibilist. Absolute Free Will does not make sense. I wish it to be understood that people who support belief in absolute Free Will are those people who want to apportion blame in an effort to control sinning and crime.

I think honestly it's a bit annoying when people treat the other side like they're a monolith who all think the same things for the same reasons.

We have you here saying this is why everyone who believes in free will does so. But... I just don't think that's the case. I don't think everyone who believes in free will does so for this reason.

And meanwhile we have Wizard and Henry treating everyone who doesn't accept libertarian free will as a monolith who all disagree with them for the same reasons too.

It's annoying and incorrect no matter who it comes from. It's a big reason why this conversation never goes anywhere interesting. You aren't talking to them, you're talking at them. And they're doing exactly the same thing.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not a compatibilist. Absolute Free Will does not make sense. I wish it to be understood that people who support belief in absolute Free Will are those people who want to apportion blame in an effort to control sinning and crime.

I think honestly it's a bit annoying when people treat the other side like they're a monolith who all think the same things for the same reasons.

We have you here saying this is why everyone who believes in free will does so. But... I just don't think that's the case. I don't think everyone who believes in free will does so for this reason.

And meanwhile we have Wizard and Henry treating everyone who doesn't accept libertarian free will as a monolith who all disagree with them for the same reasons too.

It's annoying and incorrect no matter who it comes from. It's a big reason why this conversation never goes anywhere interesting. You aren't talking to them, you're talking at them. And they're doing exactly the same thing.

It seems the topic brings out more ad hom arguments than other classic philosophy questions.
There's a bit of an odd irony in her stance. I am going to tell people that they are absolutely free as part of an effort to control sinning and crime.
Another bit of irony: blaming people like she does there is apportioning blame. I don't see the big difference between psychoanalyzing free willists and thinking in terms of sin. Calvinists, who believed in predestination, also believed in sin

[henry quirk]

...we have...Henry treating everyone(,) who doesn't accept libertarian free will(,) as a monolith who all disagree with (him) for the same reasons... .

Yes. From where I sit: you're all wrong and are so for pretty much the same reasons.

[Belinda]

I'm not a compatibilist. Absolute Free Will does not make sense. I wish it to be understood that people who support belief in absolute Free Will are those people who want to apportion blame in an effort to control sinning and crime.

I think honestly it's a bit annoying when people treat the other side like they're a monolith who all think the same things for the same reasons.

We have you here saying this is why everyone who believes in free will does so. But... I just don't think that's the case. I don't think everyone who believes in free will does so for this reason.

And meanwhile we have Wizard and Henry treating everyone who doesn't accept libertarian free will as a monolith who all disagree with them for the same reasons too.

It's annoying and incorrect no matter who it comes from. It's a big reason why this conversation never goes anywhere interesting. You aren't talking to them, you're talking at them. And they're doing exactly the same thing.

You are quite right . I better have said that if people who say they believe in Free Will think about it to its logical conclusion then they will see the corollary of absolute Free Will is that people can be absolutely blamed for wrongdoing.

When Free Will is not believed in people can say "He is not a bad man , he is a man who does wrong" . The latter is an example of mercy as we can try to make him behave better, and try to prevent others doing bad things.

[Flannel Jesus]

You are quite right . I better have said that if people who say they believe in Free Will think about it to its logical conclusion then they will see the corollary of absolute Free Will is that people can be absolutely blamed for wrongdoing.

When Free Will is not believed in people can say "He is not a bad man , he is a man who does wrong" . The latter is an example of mercy as we can try to make him behave better, and try to prevent others doing bad things.

I think there's a lot of value in this sort of approach to morality for sure.