Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:57 pm Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

The following applies if man is a free will...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:29 am The free willist believes he is accountable for what he does. The buck stops with him (no matter his circumstance or his apparent lack of say-so in a circumstance). At his best he's just; at his worst he's compassionless.

The determinist believes he isn't accountable for what he does. The buck belongs to something or someone else (reachin' clear back to the Big Bang, or God). At his best he's compassionate; at his worst he's gullible.

The compatibilist believes that he's accountable for some of what he does. The buck is split (35 cents for him, 65 cents for someone or something else). For the life of me, I can't say what such a person is at his best or worst.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:13 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:07 amWhat the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

The difference being: the free willist is inclined to believe he has at least some say-so over outcomes while the determinist believes que sera sera.

If man is not a free will, if he's just a meat machine, then all bets are off, the question is meaningless.

So, the real question is: *Is man a free will?
best answer, for or against, gets a No Prize and a Gold Star (and mebbe a cookie)




*or, Does man possess free will?
personally, I find this to be an inferior, inaccurate, question

Man is a "meat machine" that has feelings and reason. Other "meat machines" have feelings but not the reasoning ability that men have.

For an illustration, Jesus Christ is part man/ part God. The man part of JC reasons, and the God part of JC is free of causes for His actions.

You and I , Henry, (unlike JC) are not part God and we do nothing that is not caused.

So one would have to do something that is "not caused" according to Belinda, in order to have Free-Will?

Any other Determinists want to join her stance? Iwannaplato? Flannel_Jesus? Is that the distinction?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:20 am So one would have to do something that is "not caused" according to Belinda, in order to have Free-Will?

Any other Determinists want to join her stance? Iwannaplato? Flannel_Jesus? Is that the distinction?

There are many different kinds of free will. That definitely seems to be a strong implication of non compatibilist forms of free will though. That at least some aspect of it has to be uncaused.

Very loosely speaking

So what's not caused?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 11:21 am So what's not caused?

Well, that would be up to a particular believer in libertarian free will to tell you, and I suspect many of them might disagree with that framing, but in general it seems that to believe in libertarian free will, you must think that SOME aspect of the decision making process has to be uncaused.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/inco ... -theories/

One question that divides them concerns which type of indeterminism—uncaused events, nondeterministically caused events, or agent caused events—is required. Another concerns where in the processes leading to action indeterminism must be located in order for an action to be free. Different answers to these questions yield different incompatibilist theories of free will.

Do you believe in libertarian free will? If so, it's not up to me to answer what's not caused, that's for you and other libertarians to answer.

Determinists claim to be the Arbiters of Causality, not Free-Willists.

The onus is upon you. If you don't know what Causes what, or if things are Uncaused, then how do you square yourself as a Determinist?

How can you possibly deny Free-Will? Either way, your position is on shaky grounds. You should at least demonstrate some of this Causality.

If Determinists don't know what Causes what, then how can you claim one way or the other anything about Free-Will?

You can't.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 11:34 am Determinists claim to be the Arbiters of Causality, not Free-Willists.

Do they? I've never heard one say that.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 11:34 am The onus is upon you.

If the onus is on me to tell people who believe in free will what they think... that's a pretty strange scenario.

This must mean something, oui?

It's just the way it is, I wouldn't put too much into it!

I would! Is there any sense to ... I mean how many leaves does a eucalyptus tree growing in Canberra have?

How would I know?! That's a silly question!

Belinda just hung Free-Will on 'Uncaused' physicality.

Determinists agree with her—and I'm guessing you and Iwannaplato also agree.

So if you rule-out Free-Will based on your understanding of Causality, then you are obliged to demonstrate your understanding of Causality.

For the record, I don't rule out free will altogether, I'm partial to compatibilist free will.

And I don't disbelieve in libertarian free will simply because I believe in causality. I don't believe in libertarian free will because even if there wasn't casualty there, that wouldn't be a meaningful source of "freedom" to me, it wouldn't correspond to what people mean when they say they feel like they have free will. They don't tend to mean "I'm doing stuff with no apparent casual source" in my opinion.

There's lots of people who believe Free-Will is a 'yes' or 'no' condition, rather than gradient.

Why wouldn't anybody judge and acknowledge Free-Will from its highest examples? From actions, and thoughts, which are rarest among humanity or life and existence as anybody know it? You mention denial of Libertine/Libertarian Free-Will...but consider how common religion is.

Would 'God' constitute a Freely-Willed Being? How many people believe in God? If yes, then yes? How common is that belief? Is Free-Will contained to religious/mystical/supernatural belief? You already acknowledged the limitations of human understanding of causality...all of this doesn't add up to a good account for Determinists.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about with any of that.

It means that if you're opposed to Free-Will from the premise, then there is little I or anybody else can do, to convince, persuade, or prove to you that Free-Will exists.

It's like an Atheist staunchly opposed to God—or a Theist staunchly opposed to No God. Your mindset comes across to me this way. You have your conclusion (NO free-will) set in stone.

So there's not much I can do except probe you for a weak spot.

You're a prisoner in a jail cell.

I can unlock your door.

I can open your door.

I can tell you that you're free.

I can pull on you to get you off your butt.


But I can't walk out the door for you. At some point, you have to want to become free.