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

[Wizard22]

I'm sure he'll be reacting to my previous reaction.

[popeye1945]

No, everything is a reaction, if you fear something more than death, then death is an alternative, the fear of that something else is the cause of one's reaction.

No, people putting their lives on the line sometimes can mean they have identified with another self, which gives rise to compassion. It is what Schopenhauer called, a metaphysical realization, that you and the other are one. As I have stated before there is no such thing as an unmotivated movement, and motivation spells reaction, not action. Programming and peer pressure can also feed into people behaving against the first principle of life, that of survival. Again, there is no such thing as an unmotivated movement, unless one is considering an epileptic movement, and then even that is a reaction to a short circuit in the brain. Suicide is always a desperate measure of avoidance of a greater fear---a reaction.

So somebody driven to risk their life, is reacting to fear of death??? That doesn't make any sense. They're not "reacting" to anything. When people put their lives on the line for something, an ideal, a goal, that is pro-active, not re-active.

You are miss reading me. Someone risking their lives for others is reacting to something else. I have already stated the possibilities above. You are answering your own question when stating that they are reacting to an ideal, a goal, again, there is no movement that is not motivated and motivation spells reaction not action. You need to read more closely, take your time and ponder it a bit, then respond/react.

[Wizard22]

You are miss reading me. Someone risking their lives for others is reacting to something else. I have already stated the possibilities above. You are answering your own question when stating that they are reacting to an ideal, a goal, again, there is no movement that is not motivated and motivation spells reaction not action. You need to read more closely, take your time and ponder it a bit, then respond/react.

No, popeye, you are misreading ME. They are risking their life NOT by reaction. They are literally not REACTING to anything inside this universe.

[Wizard22]

Ideals are not reactions.

Ideals do not exist in the Past.

Ideals only exist in the Future.

Ideals are only about the Future.

[Flannel Jesus]

I mean that people who, with every intention of being good and benefitting others, sometimes get a bad idea.
For instance people such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Nazis, fascists, political imperialists, who think tribally not universally are possessed of the bad idea that they are entitled to be right and powerful. These are not bad people, they are people who are enchanted by a bad idea.

Similarly absolute Free Will is a bad idea because it can and does stop people seeking the causes of bad behaviour. The causes of bad behaviour should be discovered if we are to sort it. Free will is simplistic as the causes of bad behaviour are more complex than individual choice. People who believe in absolute Free Will are not bad people; they are people who are enchanted with a bad idea.

See FJ, I told you so.

"Free-Will is bad because people will do Evil".

And you keep telling me "Not all Determininsts are alike!"

Then why do all Determinists reason the same way, when it comes to Free-Will? Why only look at the bad and evil outcomes of Free-Will? Why not look at the Good?

How does one person saying one thing mean all people think alike? I don't care that belinda thinks free will is bad because whatever whatever. One person is one person. Belinda thinks what Belinda thinks. If you have a problem with what Belinda thinks, talk to Belinda about it.

[popeye1945]

Reaction implies that your mind is pointed firmly in "The Past". Not the Present. Not the Future.

Reactive = Past
Active = Present
Proactive = Future

Popeye's mind is firmly entranced by The Past. Why? I don't know, but he's an interesting case study... Popeye, care to explain?

You are off on a tangent, keep to the subject at hand, is there any such thing as human action or is it all reaction? My position is that there is no such thing as human action.

[Wizard22]

You are off on a tangent, keep to the subject at hand, is there any such thing as human action or is it all reaction? My position is that there is no such thing as human action.

I know your position. I just had to prove it wrong, sorry.

I mean, you will admit now, that there are obviously actions and proactions, correct?

[popeye1945]

You are off on a tangent, keep to the subject at hand, is there any such thing as human action or is it all reaction? My position is that there is no such thing as human action.

I know your position. I just had to prove it wrong, sorry.

I mean, you will admit now, that there are obviously actions and proactions, correct?

I simply do not know how you come to your conclusions. I don't know what to suggest other than maybe try to focus on what the other party is saying. Give yourself time to ponder the materials before you reply.

[Wizard22]

I simply do not know how you come to your conclusions. I don't know what to suggest other than maybe try to focus on what the other party is saying. Give yourself time to ponder the materials before you reply.

...weird, popeye. I was going to tell you the exact same thing?

[popeye1945]

I simply do not know how you come to your conclusions. I don't know what to suggest other than maybe try to focus on what the other party is saying. Give yourself time to ponder the materials before you reply.

...weird, popeye. I was going to tell you the exact same thing?

OK!!

[Belinda]

The logical conclusion of Free-Will is Good, not Evil.

How so?

The logical conclusion of a decision based entirely on chance is 50-50.

[popeye1945]

The logical conclusion of Free-Will is Good, not Evil.

How so?

The logical conclusion of a decision based entirely on chance is 50-50.

A logical conclusion is not based on chance but is too complex to consider the historical foundations of choice.

[Wizard22]

The logical conclusion of a decision based entirely on chance is 50-50.

Chance is not 50-50.

A main aspect of Free-Will is changing & dominating the environment to skew "chance" and probability to the individual's favor.

What you see as "Evil inherent within Free-Will" is your own, personal, subjective bias. It is your own fear talking. It is why you fear Free-Will, and cling to the false security offered by Determinism and its religious adherent, Determinists.

This goes to all Determinists.

[Belinda]

The logical conclusion of a decision based entirely on chance is 50-50.

Chance is not 50-50.

A main aspect of Free-Will is changing & dominating the environment to skew "chance" and probability to the individual's favor.

What you see as "Evil inherent within Free-Will" is your own, personal, subjective bias. It is your own fear talking. It is why you fear Free-Will, and cling to the false security offered by Determinism and its religious adherent, Determinists.

This goes to all Determinists.

I confess I'm not good at statistics but I am sure random chance is 50: 50. I leave it to a statistician here to correct if need be.

If the odds are weighted then it's not a 50:50 chance. However where absolute Free Will is what we are discussing there are no odds because Free Will is free from odds i.e is to say free from causes and effects.

[Flannel Jesus]

I confess I'm not good at statistics but I am sure random chance is 50: 50. I leave it to a statistician here to correct if need be.

Not all random chances are 50/50.