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

[Flannel Jesus]

Still haven't quoted the thing you said.

[Wizard22]

You ought to say Free Will is randomness, because Free Will is randomness. Unless you want to learn I can teach you nothing.

Determinism , besides simplistic causal chains, is also permanent laws of nature or of science which affect events across the whole spectrum of time and place.

Wizard wrote:

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.

'Choice' is a noun that's abstracted from the verb 'to choose'. The more reason, skills, and knowledge you have at your disposal the more your freedom to choose among options.

Responsibility is most secure when it's not imposed from superiors but is autononous. So-called "Free Will" is anything but free , not autonymous, because it's not based on reason,skills, and knowledge.

Your judgement of right and wrong is most secure when it's based on the most possible reason, skills, and knowledge. The best of all ethics are based on reason, skills, and knowledge, and you can apply that dictum in all spheres of life , including those of Socrates and Jesus, throughout the human past.

The ethical corollary of the Free Will belief is people are free to have done otherwise than they did therefore it's right to punish them. Absolute Free Will takes no account of extenuating ('deterministic') circumstances.

I also think it's unlikely that men will ever dispense with legal systems that are founded on free will. Even a strong determinist such as me has to live as if free will is possible; I am not omniscient and so I have to guess plus try to evaluate as well as I can.

The reason I don't spend time on asking you exactly what you mean is that the connection between freedom and responsibility has been dealt with by better philosophers than you or I. RS Google 'freedom and responsibility'.

Determinism is a lot more than you describe in your first sentence.

Nobody, whether they endorse Free Will or whether they endorse determinism, knows what will happen next. The best choice we can make is the choice based on knowledge, reason, and sympathy, or sympathy, reason, and knowledge.
If you choose based on belief in Free Will your choice is based on the self as opposed to the choice of the determinist who prefers to be as objective as possible.

Determinism means that every event that was, is, and shall be necessarily was, is, and shall be. Determinism does not imply prediction. Free Will does not imply prediction.

[Wizard22]

See FJ,

This is why I told you to read the entire thread. Now you want to critique from a position of ignorance. Why should I continue doing YOUR HOMEWORK for you???

I can't take what you say seriously if you're going to half-ass your criticisms...

[Flannel Jesus]

You still haven't quoted the thing you said. You've said a whole bunch of other things though...

[Wizard22]

I want you to read this entire thread, before you criticize me about "what Determinists believe" or not, again.

[Flannel Jesus]

No

[Flannel Jesus]

I want you to quote the thing you said you would.

[Wizard22]

I'm going to simplify this for you FJ, and others, before you reading the entire thread to illuminate yourself.

On one hand, Belinda's Determinist position is NOT reliant on "chance", but rather that everything happens "must necessarily happen". She also claims that "neither determinism nor free-will" is "pedicative". She says "Free Will is not reliant on Choice".

In her recent quote, she DID relegate it to chance and "fortune".

Nobody entirely understands the choices they make. People who undergo psychotherapy increase their understanding of the choices they make. People who know a lot of facts increase their understanding of the choices they make. People who judge well and interpret facts well have an increased understanding of their choices. However nobody's choices are devoid of an element of fortune or chance.

Fortune or chance...relating to the Unknown...hence why Choice...therefore Free-Will are required.

Choice is only understood in context of the Unknown (Epistemology). Since the Unknown is *NOT* Pre-determined, there is Free-Will.

[Flannel Jesus]

You said you were going to find a quote where Belinda implied something like the following:

"Determinists believe that knowing more about Causality, means you are less free"

You've spent the last dozen or so posts quoting things that don't say that. Is that quote coming? I'm losing faith that you can quote it.

[Wizard22]

She, or some other Determinist, remarked about "ignorance is bliss". I couldn't find the quote in this thread, so it could have been in another. It might not have been her, since her claims on "more knowledge more choice" are pretty consistent in this thread. Regardless, her contradictions appear in how choices are made by way of "fortune and chance". She rejects free-will from that premise (Choice), meaning that more knowledge does NOT lead to more freedom.

She places Choice as a form of consequence of knowledge, rather than as a predicate of it.

Choices are made before awareness. That's something that she, and you, miss as a crucial point.

[henry quirk]

"Or anyone who thinks D and FW are compatible. Liebnitz, some forms of Hinduism, Pali Buddhism, I am sure there are others...."

I can't comment on this. I don't know the person or the traditions.

"But then on the other side many free will positions seem to be a self that is an agent - can intend and lead to effects - but it not affected by causes."

I know of no libertarian free willist who sez a free will isn't affected by 'causes' or 'effects'. I, myself, have never claimed such a thing. We're bombarded by 'influences', not bound by 'determiners'.

[Flannel Jesus]

She, or some other Determinist, remarked about "ignorance is bliss". I couldn't find the quote in this thread, so it could have been in another. It might not have been her, since her claims on "more knowledge more choice" are pretty consistent in this thread. Regardless, her contradictions appear in how choices are made by way of "fortune and chance". She rejects free-will from that premise (Choice), meaning that more knowledge does NOT lead to more freedom.

She places Choice as a form of consequence of knowledge, rather than as a predicate of it.

Choices are made before awareness. That's something that she, and you, miss as a crucial point.

You can't quote it. I didn't think so. Glad you've finally come to terms with that.

You can't quote it because determinists in general don't say stuff like that.

[Wizard22]

Yes they/you do, because you don't really believe that "more freedom" comes from "more knowledge".

Freedom to do what, exactly? CHOOSE. And then, Belinda made the case that Choice is NOT the measure of Free-Will.

[Wizard22]

Essentially Belinda, and your position, the position of most 'Determinists', is that "freedom" derived from knowledge, does not have anything to do with Free-Will.

This is false, according to Free-Will-ists.

Just the opposite, most Choices are made in spite of lack of knowledge. That's why they're CHOICES. Choice exists directly relative to the Unknown. The predicate of Determinism, is the Known, not the Unknown.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes they/you do

You can't quote it. You have a consistent pattern of misjudging what people believe and also overgeneralizing beliefs.

You don't understand what determinists think.