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

[Immanuel Can]

Absolute Free Will takes no account of extenuating ('deterministic') circumstances.

If that's how you want to define "free," B.then there's probably nobody alive who ever believed in "free will." Everybody believes that having "free will" means you have a power to choose...it does not even remotely imply you choose with no reasons and in the midst of no given circumstances. No sane person would even suppose that. And it also doesn't preclude extenuation, and all.

In fact, the opposite is true: if you had no freedom to choose, then you can't have done anything that needs "extenuation," because you can't have done anything wrong, because YOU (as a conscious individual) never chose to do it at all.

...morality and free will are mutually exclusive, one negating the other.

Sorry, but this is really dead wrong.

Morals can only be invoked if a person's will can be identified as culpable or responsible. If their will did nothing, then they aren't morally praisable or blameable for anything.

A person in a trance, or drugged against his/her knowledge, or insane, or severely mentally limited may kill somebody...but such a killer is not responsible, not culpable, and can't be charged with a crime...he/she had no power to decide what he/she did. So there is no morality involved...his/her actions were entirely predetermined by forces beyond his/her control.

Determinism presupposes every single person on the entire face of the planet is equally incapable of making a conscious choice as all of the severely impaired are. So there is no grounds for praise for good actions, blame for bad ones, or any moral judgment at all. Period.

Free will has no limitations upon its choices of reactions to any given circumstance.

Again, not true. Free will takes place within a limited field of possible actions within a given circumstance. I can choose to steal a car if there's one around; but I cannot choose to steal one if there's not.

[Belinda]

Absolute Free Will takes no account of extenuating ('deterministic') circumstances.

If that's how you want to define "free," B.then there's probably nobody alive who ever believed in "free will." Everybody believes that having "free will" means you have a power to choose...it does not even remotely imply you choose with no reasons and in the midst of no given circumstances. No sane person would even suppose that. And it also doesn't preclude extenuation, and all.

In fact, the opposite is true: if you had no freedom to choose, then you can't have done anything that needs "extenuation," because you can't have done anything wrong, because YOU (as a conscious individual) never chose to do it at all.

...morality and free will are mutually exclusive, one negating the other.

Sorry, but this is really dead wrong.

Morals can only be invoked if a person's will can be identified as culpable or responsible. If their will did nothing, then they aren't morally praisable or blameable for anything.

A person in a trance, or drugged against his/her knowledge, or insane, or severely mentally limited may kill somebody...but such a killer is not responsible, not culpable, and can't be charged with a crime...he/she had no power to decide what he/she did. So there is no morality involved...his/her actions were entirely predetermined by forces beyond his/her control.

Determinism presupposes every single person on the entire face of the planet is equally incapable of making a conscious choice as all of the severely impaired are. So there is no grounds for praise for good actions, blame for bad ones, or any moral judgment at all. Period.

Free will has no limitations upon its choices of reactions to any given circumstance.

Again, not true. Free will takes place within a limited field of possible actions within a given circumstance. I can choose to steal a car if there's one around; but I cannot choose to steal one if there's not.

Every man who believes Free Will can override circumstances must also believe that those who have Free Will are to blame for bad choices, and as originators of those bad choices may be punished.

There is no little bit of Free Will, or occasionally active Free Will. If you have it you have it, a tiny smidgeon of it pervades the whole choice. Choosing is natural and accords with nature's laws : Free Will is supernatural as it makes a man an originator who can override nature's laws.

[Immanuel Can]

Every man who believes Free Will can override circumstances

"Override"? What the heck could that possibly mean?

No, free will doesn't "override" or eliminate circumstances; it chooses a path among whatever set of present circumstances and what future possibilities are available.

...those who have Free Will are to blame for bad choices, and as originators of those bad choices may be punished.

Well, it depends on what kind of a "bad choice" you mean. Picking the tuna-peanut butter casserole at the buffet is certainly a bad choice, but it doesn't get anyone punished.

But making the "bad choice" to kill, maim or rape somebody? Sure that deserves punishment. But if Determinism were true, it wouldn't. Nobody would have made a choice, nobody could be responsible, and the action couldn't be objectively wrong. It would just be whatever was fated to happen. Nothing more.

[popeye1945]

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.

Extenuating circumstances would include a morality placed upon the individual's behaviors, which places a framework around the possibilities of one's behaviors. Again, morality and free will are mutually exclusive, one negating the other. Free will has no limitations upon its choices of reactions to any given circumstance.

Given that morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," I do not see how believing in free will logically implies that one can't distinguish " between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. " I do not see how the two are mutually exclusive. That said, I totally reject the concept of free will. I also reject moral responsibility, which is different from morality.

Morality is a societal construct, it allows society itself to be, it only works if its citizens live by the societal dictates of its morality. It is quite impossible to live in the protection of said society or societies by means of keeping your moral contract with it; and call yourself an agent of free will. Free will and morality again, are mutually exclusive. If you believe the term free will can maintain its integrity while confined by a given context, then we are obviously speaking of different things.

[BigMike]

Extenuating circumstances would include a morality placed upon the individual's behaviors, which places a framework around the possibilities of one's behaviors. Again, morality and free will are mutually exclusive, one negating the other. Free will has no limitations upon its choices of reactions to any given circumstance.

Given that morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," I do not see how believing in free will logically implies that one can't distinguish " between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. " I do not see how the two are mutually exclusive. That said, I totally reject the concept of free will. I also reject moral responsibility, which is different from morality.

Morality is a societal construct, it allows society itself to be, it only works if its citizens live by the societal dictates of its morality. It is quite impossible to live in the protection of said society or societies by means of keeping your moral contract with it; and call yourself an agent of free will.

As stated previously, I utterly reject the concept of free will. However, I do not believe morality logically precludes free will; I reject it for other reasons.

Your statement seems to assert that living by the moral dictates of a society precludes the ability to act with free will. This is a false dichotomy. One can both live by the moral standards of a society and still, hypothetically, possess free will.

Free will and societal norms are not mutually exclusive concepts. Society's moral norms and values can provide a framework for individuals to make choices, but ultimately individuals can have the agency to choose whether or not to abide by those norms and make their own decisions.

Moreover, the idea that morality is solely a societal construct is an oversimplification. While social and cultural factors certainly play a role in shaping individual and collective moral views, the existence of moral reasoning and ethical considerations is a well-documented phenomenon across societies and cultures, suggesting that there are fundamental, universal elements to morality that go beyond mere social convention.

[Belinda]

Given that morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," I do not see how believing in free will logically implies that one can't distinguish " between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. " I do not see how the two are mutually exclusive. That said, I totally reject the concept of free will. I also reject moral responsibility, which is different from morality.

Morality is a societal construct, it allows society itself to be, it only works if its citizens live by the societal dictates of its morality. It is quite impossible to live in the protection of said society or societies by means of keeping your moral contract with it; and call yourself an agent of free will.

As stated previously, I utterly reject the concept of free will. However, I do not believe morality logically precludes free will; I reject it for other reasons.

Your statement seems to assert that living by the moral dictates of a society precludes the ability to act with free will. This is a false dichotomy. One can both live by the moral standards of a society and still, hypothetically, possess free will.

Free will and societal norms are not mutually exclusive concepts. Society's moral norms and values can provide a framework for individuals to make choices, but ultimately individuals can have the agency to choose whether or not to abide by those norms and make their own decisions.

Moreover, the idea that morality is solely a societal construct is an oversimplification. While social and cultural factors certainly play a role in shaping individual and collective moral views, the existence of moral reasoning and ethical considerations is a well-documented phenomenon across societies and cultures, suggesting that there are fundamental, universal elements to morality that go beyond mere social convention.

You can possess freedom by being aware of the dictates of society and awarely contravening them. Political rebels and dissidents do this often motivated by injustice in the society, or occupation by a foreign power. But freedom is not Free Will. Freedom fighters and political rebels have learned their motivation from some family ,or 'village' ,or academic culture. Free Will is not subject to learning from cultural backgrounds. No man is ever at any point in his life a blank slate.

[promethean75]

"But making the "bad choice" to kill, maim or rape somebody? Sure that deserves punishment. But if Determinism were true, it wouldn't. Nobody would have made a choice, nobody could be responsible, and the action couldn't be objectively wrong."

IC again you're comin at the whole thing the wrong way haus. people neither deserve nor don't deserve punishment, and punishment is just a function of retributive justice (revenge) or for the purpose of detering/discouraging similar behaviors in others in the future.

now what you've done is set out looking for something that would justify punishment (make it 'deserved') with the intention of rejecting anything that couldn't justify it (like determinism). so, sccording to u, one more reason there must be freewill is becuz punishment has to be justified, etc. or put differently, determinism is clearly false becuz if it were true, nobody should be punished.

none of that follows bro and it's no argument against determinism. you're argument there basically amounts to u not liking the circumstances - that blame cannot be placed in a deterministic universe and therefore punishment isn't justified - and tryna trick everybody. the white lie thing. noble intentions but nonsense nonetheless.

I'm sayin u don't need none of this to justify punishment, as it too is just another natural function, another power relation. if u get a democratic majority of a group agreeing that punishment x should be distributed for action y, that's all u need to 'justify' it and, incidentally, the only thing that does justify it.

also consider this. if determinism were true, it wouldn't be objectively wrong to punish anyone either. remember, you're the one here tryna find justification for punishment and pushing this wonky freewill idea to make it plausible.

[popeye1945]

Given that morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," I do not see how believing in free will logically implies that one can't distinguish " between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. " I do not see how the two are mutually exclusive. That said, I totally reject the concept of free will. I also reject moral responsibility, which is different from morality.

Morality is a societal construct, it allows society itself to be, it only works if its citizens live by the societal dictates of its morality. It is quite impossible to live in the protection of said society or societies by means of keeping your moral contract with it; and call yourself an agent of free will.

As stated previously, I utterly reject the concept of free will. However, I do not believe morality logically precludes free will; I reject it for other reasons.

Your statement seems to assert that living by the moral dictates of a society precludes the ability to act with free will. This is a false dichotomy. One can both live by the moral standards of a society and still, hypothetically, possess free will.

Free will and societal norms are not mutually exclusive concepts. Society's moral norms and values can provide a framework for individuals to make choices, but ultimately individuals can have the agency to choose whether or not to abide by those norms and make their own decisions.

Moreover, the idea that morality is solely a societal construct is an oversimplification. While social and cultural factors certainly play a role in shaping individual and collective moral views, the existence of moral reasoning and ethical considerations is a well-documented phenomenon across societies and cultures, suggesting that there are fundamental, universal elements to morality that go beyond mere social convention.

People who do not keep the social contract inhabit our prison systems; you cannot call yourself an agent of free will if you live within a preexisting set of rules of behavior. Like I said previously, the psychopath comes closer to being an agent of free will than the citizens of any given society. Morality and free will are mutually exclusive.

[BigMike]

Morality is a societal construct, it allows society itself to be, it only works if its citizens live by the societal dictates of its morality. It is quite impossible to live in the protection of said society or societies by means of keeping your moral contract with it; and call yourself an agent of free will.

As stated previously, I utterly reject the concept of free will. However, I do not believe morality logically precludes free will; I reject it for other reasons.

Your statement seems to assert that living by the moral dictates of a society precludes the ability to act with free will. This is a false dichotomy. One can both live by the moral standards of a society and still, hypothetically, possess free will.

Free will and societal norms are not mutually exclusive concepts. Society's moral norms and values can provide a framework for individuals to make choices, but ultimately individuals can have the agency to choose whether or not to abide by those norms and make their own decisions.

Moreover, the idea that morality is solely a societal construct is an oversimplification. While social and cultural factors certainly play a role in shaping individual and collective moral views, the existence of moral reasoning and ethical considerations is a well-documented phenomenon across societies and cultures, suggesting that there are fundamental, universal elements to morality that go beyond mere social convention.

you cannot call yourself an agent of free will if you live within a preexisting set of rules of behavior.

Really? Not even if you freely choose to?

[popeye1945]

As stated previously, I utterly reject the concept of free will. However, I do not believe morality logically precludes free will; I reject it for other reasons.

Your statement seems to assert that living by the moral dictates of a society precludes the ability to act with free will. This is a false dichotomy. One can both live by the moral standards of a society and still, hypothetically, possess free will.

Free will and societal norms are not mutually exclusive concepts. Society's moral norms and values can provide a framework for individuals to make choices, but ultimately individuals can have the agency to choose whether or not to abide by those norms and make their own decisions.

Moreover, the idea that morality is solely a societal construct is an oversimplification. While social and cultural factors certainly play a role in shaping individual and collective moral views, the existence of moral reasoning and ethical considerations is a well-documented phenomenon across societies and cultures, suggesting that there are fundamental, universal elements to morality that go beyond mere social convention.

you cannot call yourself an agent of free will if you live within a preexisting set of rules of behavior.

Really? Not even if you freely choose to?

What are the chances of you agreeing with every facet of complex morality and the legal system that supports it? If you are controlled by anything, and especially if you agree to it, you are not an agent of free will.

[BigMike]

you cannot call yourself an agent of free will if you live within a preexisting set of rules of behavior.

Really? Not even if you freely choose to?

What are the chances of you agreeing with every facet of complex morality and the legal system that supports it? If you are controlled by anything, and especially if you agree to it, you are not an agent of free will.

I reject the concept of free will, but if it were to exist, it can be logically assumed that an individual would utilize it to their advantage. For example, if they wished to avoid being imprisoned, it would be reasonable to conclude that they would freely choose to abide by the laws and ethical norms.

[Sculptor]

Whether of not you ignore the obvious fact that acts of will are caused, and that choices are made because of antecedent conditions, morality and character remain the same.
The only possible difference is that free will belief rends to lead to a lock em up and throw away the key attitude to the penal system; whereas if you accept that crime is cause then you should also accept that change, rehabilitation and correction can be designed into the penal system because you realise that this can be effective in reducing recidivism.

It is no surprise that the US, the home of the free will myth, is the country with the highest prison population; the highest crime rate in the G7, and a high rate of re-offending.

By contrast Norway that practices rehab, has a low rate. Determinism is about change.

[popeye1945]

Really? Not even if you freely choose to?

What are the chances of you agreeing with every facet of complex morality and the legal system that supports it? If you are controlled by anything, and especially if you agree to it, you are not an agent of free will.

I reject the concept of free will, but if it were to exist, it can be logically assumed that an individual would utilize it to their advantage. For example, if they wished to avoid being imprisoned, it would be reasonable to conclude that they would freely choose to abide by the laws and ethical norms.

The members of a society are protected by that society as long as they live by the social contract. In agreeing to live by a social contract one forfeits one's independence, one's free will. To become in essence the children of society cared for and protected. This is not a free agent moving out of its center, there are not even many animals who would qualify as agents of free will, in essence, to behave civilly is to be governed, to sacrifice one's will on the altar of civilization. Perhaps you could give me an example of a public figure you would consider an agent of free will? Essentially in other terms. the individual whores himself in the self-interest of societal protection, not a bad deal, and one few reject.

[Iwannaplato]

The members of a society are protected by that society as long as they live by the social contract. In agreeing to live by a social contract one forfeits one's independence, one's free will.

It seems to me you are conflating the choices you consider going against free will with the ontological ability to make choices not dependent on the past. For example, if someone generally goes along with the laws - freely chooses to do so - but does breaks some laws - as nearly everyone does, just different ones - makes choices in their personal and professional lives not based on the past, they are gaming a system and free. Note, I am not saying that there is free will. It's just you are arguing against free will based on what choices people make, which is not an argument against ontological will. You can't point to choices made and say that they rulle out free will, unless we are defining free will in a non-ontological way.

An analysis of what choices are made: non-ontological issues
An analysis of how choices are made or what did or did not lead to the choices made: ontological issues.

[BigMike]

What are the chances of you agreeing with every facet of complex morality and the legal system that supports it? If you are controlled by anything, and especially if you agree to it, you are not an agent of free will.

I reject the concept of free will, but if it were to exist, it can be logically assumed that an individual would utilize it to their advantage. For example, if they wished to avoid being imprisoned, it would be reasonable to conclude that they would freely choose to abide by the laws and ethical norms.

The members of a society are protected by that society as long as they live by the social contract. In agreeing to live by a social contract one forfeits one's independence, one's free will. To become in essence the children of society cared for and protected. This is not a free agent moving out of its center, there are not even many animals who would qualify as agents of free will, in essence, to behave civilly is to be governed, to sacrifice one's will on the altar of civilization. Perhaps you could give me an example of a public figure you would consider an agent of free will? Essentially in other terms. the individual whores himself in the self-interest of societal protection, not a bad deal, and one few reject.

I agree with Iwannaplato's post above.

The idea that individuals forfeit their free will by living in a society under a social contract is incorrect. The concept of free will itself is flawed as it presumes that individuals have control over their actions and choices, when in reality, their actions and choices are determined by a multitude of factors including genetics, environment, and social conditioning. So, even if free will exists, it wouldn't be something that individuals could choose to give up or keep.

The social contract provides individuals with benefits such as protection and security, but it also imposes rules and restrictions on their behavior. However, this doesn't mean that individuals are sacrificing their free will, as they are not making a conscious choice. They are simply behaving in a way that is conditioned by the society they live in.

It is difficult to provide an example of a public figure who could be considered an agent of free will, as this goes against the premise that free will doesn't exist. All individuals, including public figures, are products of their genetics, environment, and social conditioning, and their actions and choices are determined by these factors, not by their own free will.