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

[Iwannaplato]

It's not that you, or the greatest scientists in history, "know for certain" what Physical Reality is... but we go by the best understanding humanity has.

This is generally my position. I think arguments in favor of determinism make more sense than the ones I've seen so far for free will. But I don't consider it case closed.

But what's your argument for free will?

When you decide to do something what leads to your actions that is not compelled by your desires, goals, values and then external factors and the situation?

We have moment A and then moment B.

When you choose at moment B something leads to you choosing that was not there in the precise instant before that. Your state and the state of things around you. What is that?

And wouldn't you want to do what your desires and knowledge would lead you to do?

[Agent Smith]

It amazes me that we, the two of us, never, you know, spent time with each other!

I'm busy!

Yeah, but ...

No ifs, ands, and buts! Gotta run now, adios!

Stay a while and listen.

[Belinda]

Superstition is genuine belief only it lacks sufficient knowledge of what is probably the case. If you comprehended that Free Will is random choice with bells on , then you would not be superstitious about it.

First you say free-will is superstition, and now secondly, it's "random"? When did I say it was random?

This is the second time you've attributed mischaracterizations to my positions. What else can you teach me about my position?

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

[Flannel Jesus]

Superstition is genuine belief only it lacks sufficient knowledge of what is probably the case. If you comprehended that Free Will is random choice with bells on , then you would not be superstitious about it.

First you say free-will is superstition, and now secondly, it's "random"? When did I say it was random?

This is the second time you've attributed mischaracterizations to my positions. What else can you teach me about my position?

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

His position, as well as other libertarian free willies in this thread, is that there's some ineffable third option from "it happened because it was caused to happen" and "it happened randomly". That third option is where they think free will resides.

I unfortunately can't tell you any more than that, but that's why he's calling your words a mischaracterizations

[Belinda]

First you say free-will is superstition, and now secondly, it's "random"? When did I say it was random?

This is the second time you've attributed mischaracterizations to my positions. What else can you teach me about my position?

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

His position, as well as other libertarian free willies in this thread, is that there's some ineffable third option from "it happened because it was caused to happen" and "it happened randomly". That third option is where they think free will resides.

I unfortunately can't tell you any more than that, but that's why he's calling your words a mischaracterizations

I understand the mystery third option is that Free Will is a special gift from God that, of all living beings, only humans have. This , of course ,is a religious strategy for social control. Guilt!

[Flannel Jesus]

I understand the mystery third option is that Free Will is a special gift from God that, of all living beings, only humans have. This , of course ,is a religious strategy for social control. Guilt!

I've assumed up to this point that wizard is not religious. Perhaps he is though. Plenty of atheists believe in libertarian free will.

[henry quirk]

His position, as well as other libertarian free willies in this thread, is that there's some ineffable third option from "it happened because it was caused to happen" and "it happened randomly". That third option is where they think free will resides.

The third option is: I made it happen.

[henry quirk]

I understand the mystery third option is that Free Will is a special gift from God that, of all living beings, only humans have.

Not as I understand it, no. The gift is not free will. The gift is personhood.

This , of course ,is a religious strategy for social control. Guilt!

Yeah, for all us deists and natural rights folks, takin' over the world is at the top of the list.

[henry quirk]

When you decide to do something what leads to your actions that is not compelled by your desires, goals, values and then external factors and the situation?

And wouldn't you want to do what your desires and knowledge would lead you to do?

I'm hungry. I...

...raid the fridge for leftovers.

...go out for a po-boy.

...stay put and keep working.

...take a walk.

...[option of your choice]

Appetites influence, not determine.

Libertarian free will (agent causation) theory doesn't say one is free of influencers, only determiners.

[henry quirk]

NOTE: The fact that all organisms are reactionary creatures rules out free will.

I don't think anyone, in-thread, sez man is not a reactionary creature. What we're sayin' is man is not only a reactionary creature. He's also a responsive creature, and an initiating creature. He's a cause, an agent, not an effect or and event.

[Flannel Jesus]

I understand the mystery third option is that Free Will is a special gift from God that, of all living beings, only humans have. This , of course ,is a religious strategy for social control. Guilt!

His position, as well as other libertarian free willies in this thread, is that there's some ineffable third option from "it happened because it was caused to happen" and "it happened randomly". That third option is where they think free will resides.

The third option is: I made it happen.

Well, the you have it

[Iwannaplato]

When you decide to do something what leads to your actions that is not compelled by your desires, goals, values and then external factors and the situation?

And wouldn't you want to do what your desires and knowledge would lead you to do?

I'm hungry. I...

...raid the fridge for leftovers.

...go out for a po-boy.

...stay put and keep working.

...take a walk.

...[option of your choice]

Appetites influence, not determine.

Libertarian free will (agent causation) theory doesn't say one is free of influencers, only determiners.

Sure, but those options all fit some just prior states than others. If you're really hungry it's definitely pushing towards the eating options and probably the first. But if you hate leftovers, perhaps number two. If you have a desire to stay on a diet and/or wait for dinner with girlfriend...and so on.

It would be weird if all the priorities you have would play out one way, and then if you could run it again they would play out another way.

I mean, why go for the option that fits your needs/desires/priorities less?

[Iwannaplato]

The fact that all organisms are reactionary creatures rules out free will.

Perhaps one must react, but can choose between 2 or more options.
So, feel angry when finding out that X cheated on us. We must react. We choose to scream, rather than leave the room and slam the door. It certainly seems that we could have done one or the other. So, how do you know we couldn't have reacted in more than one way?

[henry quirk]

I understand the mystery third option is that Free Will is a special gift from God that, of all living beings, only humans have. This , of course ,is a religious strategy for social control. Guilt!

His position, as well as other libertarian free willies in this thread, is that there's some ineffable third option from "it happened because it was caused to happen" and "it happened randomly". That third option is where they think free will resides.

The third option is: I made it happen.

Well, the you have it

Yep. How it sits with you depends on how you view or define that being I placeholds for.

[henry quirk]

I mean, why go for the option that fits your needs/desires/priorities less?

I'm missin' your point. If I'm hungry, I can choose to eat or I can choose to, for example, keep workin'. But that just means your desire to work was stronger than your hunger. Yes, the work I'm doin' now is more important than fillin' my belly. I weighed the options -- eat or work -- and I chose one. Both press on me so I have to decide which is the priority.

I choose. I decide. A person -- an agent -- deliberates (de-liberates himself) and picks his course. The hunger didn't do that. The hungry man did that. The work, or its importance, didn't do that. The working man did that.

All these desires, needs, wants, appetites, priorities are part of the person. It's not I have desires, needs, wants, and priorities; it's I desire, I need, I want, I prioritize. I do these, they aren't done to me.