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

[henry quirk]

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.

Now hold on, B. Yes, a man is morally responsible for himself. If he does wrong: it's his wrong and the consequences are his to bear. That's not, however, sayin' he's a bad man. He may in fact be a bad man, but it's not a given.

You assign stuff to us libertarian free willists that just ain't so.

[popeye1945]

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.

No compassion no morality.

[Wizard22]

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.

Why shouldn't Free-Willists generalize when Determinists make pretty much the same points, counter-arguments, and beliefs in their rejection of free-will?

There is no Self-responsibility without Free-Will. In order for Choice to make any common sense, somebody must be held account for bad Choices which result in damage, ruin, and death.

Determinists, almost always, are hell-bent on removing 'blame' from the picture. Why? So that they remain innocent little victims, pure, pristine, blessed by god, untouchable, Baptized.


Is it that simple? I'm becoming convinced with each passing day, week, thread, that it is. (And I wish it weren't)

[Flannel Jesus]

Why shouldn't Free-Willists generalize when Determinists make pretty much the same points, counter-arguments, and beliefs in their rejection of free-will?

ANYONE who wants to convince another individual of something should talk to that specific individual as an individual, and not as a representative of a group who has to answer for everything any other member of that group said. It doesn't matter if you have a "they started it!" mentality, it's still not going to get you anywhere.

If some free willist said "God gave me free will so I can rape and murder", I'm not then going to go around saying "Free Willists just want free will so they can rape and murder." Right? One person saying that doesn't mean all people who have a surface level agreement with him on the existence of free will think about it in the same way for the same reason. So you'd think it would be pretty strange if I went around saying that.

But that's exactly what you sound like.

I somehow managed to have a whole conversation with Henry where I talked to him as an individual, asking him what he thinks, individually, about a scenario, I didn't make him answer for anything anybody else said, I didn't say "oh you believe in free will so you're this and you're that". I'm definitely disappointed to not see that courtesy returned to me by him, but if it was we might have had something to talk about.

[Wizard22]

If some free willist said "God gave me free will so I can rape and murder",

Is something given, truly free?

Notice how you just gave a Determinist argument about free-will while attempting to discredit the free-will position?

That's exactly what I'm talking about!


Determinists just don't seem to understand free-will. Until you can Steel Man my argument, I don't need to treat your positions 'as an individual'. This is a one-way street, a one-sided argument. In order to have a discourse, a Dia-logue (meaning two parties), you have to be open to my definitions about free-will in the same way I'm open to your definitions about determinism. Because this is not the case, then yes, the conversation reduces to generalities. Could it be a better conversation? Hypothetically, yes. Practically, no.

People prefer to learn without risk of being wrong. You can't have it both ways.

[Flannel Jesus]

If some free willist said "God gave me free will so I can rape and murder",

Is something given, truly free?

Notice how you just gave a Determinist argument about free-will while attempting to discredit the free-will position?

That's exactly what I'm talking about!

I... wasn't attempting to discredit the free will position. Did you even read what I wrote? Did you understand, contextually, what I was talking about? If you think I said that because I wanted to discredit the free will position, you're just incredibly off base.

[Wizard22]

I... wasn't attempting to discredit the free will position. Did you even read what I wrote? Did you understand, contextually, what I was talking about? If you think I said that because I wanted to discredit the free will position, you're just incredibly off base.

If some free willist said "God gave me free will so I can rape and murder"

Am I off base though? You said it, own up to it. That was/is your interpretation of a free-willist argument. You could have made it stronger, but you didn't. What does that say about you?

Look, if you don't believe in free-will, then so be it. But you're going to have to do a lot better than that, if you want to convey understanding of your opposition, which I've yet to see you do.

It seems obvious to me, now, that Determinists cannot imagine a 'free-will' position. Isn't this the case? It's easy to 'imagine' being constrained by Cause and Effect, to obey Physics and Science. But it not easy to do the opposite. It is not easy to show how an action, a decision, a choice, is not 'caused' by anything humanity knows of. Because then it demands the impossible, literally. It implies that all human action, behavior, decision, is 'knowable'.

So why don't we know it already???

[Flannel Jesus]

You have no idea how to read a conversation

[henry quirk]

I somehow managed to have a whole conversation with Henry where I talked to him as an individual, asking him what he thinks, individually, about a scenario, I didn't make him answer for anything anybody else said, I didn't say "oh you believe in free will so you're this and you're that". I'm definitely disappointed to not see that courtesy returned to me by him, but if it was we might have had something to talk about.

The objections to libertarian free will can be summed up as it's not possible in a cause & effect universe. Am I mistaken? Is this not your objection?

[Wizard22]

Free-Willists don't seem to have the problem Determinists do though. How is this misunderstanding the conversation?

I can repeat your, and other Determinists' beliefs. But you and they, cannot repeat mine.

Why not???


It seems one side understands the other, but not vice-versa. Why is that?

[Wizard22]

Yes, they claim, in order for there to be LFW, there needs to be Uncaused-causes, and/or Uneffected-effects.

There needs to be a breach in Physics, the space-time continuum, in order for there to be Libertarian Free Will....

The Determinists seem unable to get over this hurdle, despite every attempt to lift and push them over it.

[Flannel Jesus]

I somehow managed to have a whole conversation with Henry where I talked to him as an individual, asking him what he thinks, individually, about a scenario, I didn't make him answer for anything anybody else said, I didn't say "oh you believe in free will so you're this and you're that". I'm definitely disappointed to not see that courtesy returned to me by him, but if it was we might have had something to talk about.

The objections to libertarian free will can be summed up as it's not possible in a cause & effect universe. Am I mistaken? Is this not your objection?

No

[Flannel Jesus]

Free-Willists don't seem to have the problem Determinists do though. How is this misunderstanding the conversation?

What problem?

You're misunderstanding the conversation if you think even a single word in my post was trying discredit anything about free will. That post wasn't about whether free will is true or not true. It's commentary on how you're engaging in this conversation

[henry quirk]

I somehow managed to have a whole conversation with Henry where I talked to him as an individual, asking him what he thinks, individually, about a scenario, I didn't make him answer for anything anybody else said, I didn't say "oh you believe in free will so you're this and you're that". I'm definitely disappointed to not see that courtesy returned to me by him, but if it was we might have had something to talk about.

The objections to libertarian free will can be summed up as it's not possible in a cause & effect universe. Am I mistaken? Is this not your objection?

No

Okay, I'm wrong, then. What is your objection to libertarian free will?

[Wizard22]

I know you weren't "trying to"...but ya did.

By God's Grace, mankind receives Free-Will?

And any nutjob can vindicate himself by it?


Dragged through the mud much? What do Free-Willists actually believe though? What are the arguments, already made and written?