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

[BigMike]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do. So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society. For example,

1. do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?
2. do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
3. is it true that compatibilists tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
4. Is it true that compatibilists usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Note that I'm not asking what you think about free will. I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general.

[Age]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do.

And then there is the "others".

So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society. For example,

1. do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?
2. do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
3. is it true that compatibilists tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
4. Is it true that compatibilists usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Note that I'm not asking what you think about free will. I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general.

Why did you propose your questions in this way and NOT, for example, in this way:
Do people with a free will view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with other views?
Do so-called "free willists" care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
Is it true that "determinists" tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
Is it true that "determinists" usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Your questioning here "bigmike" EXPOSES and REVEALS your TIGHTLY HELD ONTO BELIEFS, which are STOPPING and PREVENTING you from SEEING what is ACTUALLY True here, while at the same time DISTORTING your OWN VIEW and also in regards to how you LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

[Iwannaplato]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do. So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society. For example,

1. do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?
2. do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
3. is it true that compatibilists tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
4. Is it true that compatibilists usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Note that I'm not asking what you think about free will. I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general.

The problem with this project is that 1) most people's idea of what free will is has little to do with what free will means when contrasted with determinism. So there is no good way to even research this topic. 2) Second, people are not simple believers. If you ask them if there is free will and they answer yes AND they understand this as contrasting with determinism, that still doesn't mean we can simply place them in one of two categories. If you track their language use you will find them using all sorts of explanations that include external and internal forces that compel them to do things. Not only are we not binary creatures but further we can even be incorrect about what we believe, and a great deal of psychological research shows this.

Most laypeople think of free will as the ability to make choices and act in accordance with one’s desires, especially in the absence of external constraints (Feldman, 2017; Monroe & Malle, 2010). For example, when asked to describe a time when they acted out of free will, people often describe situations where they overcame external influences on their behavior (Stillman, Baumeister, & Mele, 2011). Although most people believe in free will, the strength of this belief varies (Monroe & Malle, 2010; Sarkissian et al., 2010).

from here
https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/art ... upport-for

Note: the way most laypeople conceive of free will DOES NOT mean they are not determinist. In philosophy forums at least some of us realize that internal causes are still causes and can thus be determined by previous states, causes, etc., going all the way back in time.

[Belinda]

The Free Will stance does affect behaviour as follows.

Free Will theory says that other people are responsible for all their bad choices

a) you are justified in blaming and punishing.

b) you are justified in not searching out the causes of their bad behaviour.

These attitudes of the Free Willist affect personal relationships, politics, and international diplomacy or lack thereof.

[BigMike]

The Free Will stance does affect behaviour as follows.

Free Will theory says that other people are responsible for all their bad choices

a) you are justified in blaming and punishing.

b) you are justified in not searching out the causes of their bad behaviour.

These attitudes of the Free Willist affect personal relationships, politics, and international diplomacy or lack thereof.

I believe that Belinda has hit the nail on the head with this one. I think she's right on the money.

[CHNOPS]

The Free Will stance does affect behaviour as follows.

Free Will theory says that other people are responsible for all their bad choices

a) you are justified in blaming and punishing.

b) you are justified in not searching out the causes of their bad behaviour.

These attitudes of the Free Willist affect personal relationships, politics, and international diplomacy or lack thereof.

Agree.

[CHNOPS]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do. So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society. For example,

1. do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?
2. do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
3. is it true that compatibilists tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
4. Is it true that compatibilists usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Note that I'm not asking what you think about free will. I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general.

Believing in "determinism" is just believing that if we repeat the Big Bang 100 times, the 100 times it happens the exact same moments.

In other hand, we have the "moral", the notion of Good and Evil.

In a determinist view, people can differ on where this determinist evolution of matter (that includes de matter that forms this human bodies and forms this society) is going to. Because they have different notions of what Good and Evil is, even if they both believe in determinism.

So, the questions dont have too much sense for me.


Really really, if you are determinist, there is just one notion of Good and Evil you can believe.
But people in general (99,9%) dont understand this yet, so, you will see determinist people dont agree each others sometimes.


So, they will answer that questions differents.

[Walker]

The Free Will stance does affect behaviour as follows.

Free Will theory says that other people are responsible for all their bad choices

a) you are justified in blaming and punishing.

b) you are justified in not searching out the causes of their bad behaviour.

These attitudes of the Free Willist affect personal relationships, politics, and international diplomacy or lack thereof.

- People who don’t have a choice concerning what they do, are still responsible for what they do.
- People who do have a choice concerning what they do, are still responsible for what they do.

- Doing follows the certainty of no-choice.
- Doing follows the confusion that makes choice necessary.

- Responsibility for doing pertains to doing.

- Responsibility for doing does not pertain to choice.
- Responsibility for doing does not pertain to no choice.

- Extenuating circumstances that affect the doer’s cause for doing, apply to the doer’s penalty, if any, for any damages caused by the doer.
- Extenuating circumstances include pre-meditation and accidents.

- This knowledge of the way things are affects relationships in the sense of knowing that folks are always doing what they must do.
- Knowing this gives attempts at forgiving folks for their actions a better chance of succeeding.
- It doesn't mean that one must be a punching bag because another must punch ... which is the choiceless cause for learning fancy footwork.
- Within the realm of words, words can also be thrown with the same intent as a punch is thrown.

[Dimebag]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do.

And then there is the "others".

So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society. For example,

1. do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?
2. do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
3. is it true that compatibilists tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
4. Is it true that compatibilists usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Note that I'm not asking what you think about free will. I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general.

Why did you propose your questions in this way and NOT, for example, in this way:
Do people with a free will view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with other views?
Do so-called "free willists" care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
Is it true that "determinists" tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
Is it true that "determinists" usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Your questioning here "bigmike" EXPOSES and REVEALS your TIGHTLY HELD ONTO BELIEFS, which are STOPPING and PREVENTING you from SEEING what is ACTUALLY True here, while at the same time DISTORTING your OWN VIEW and also in regards to how you LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

You make a good point which I believe will go over most peoples heads here. But the problem is you never actually specify what it is you actually mean, and so leave it entirely vague to the person in question. In the context of leading someone to their own truth that is useful and maybe necessary, but in the context of a debate or the attempt to find some shared truth it is not very productive.

So I was wondering if you could be more specific about what you think the OP is overlooking in relation to free will vs determinism belief and its impact upon one’s views of responsibility, blame, the following of rules etc?

[Dimebag]

The Free Will stance does affect behaviour as follows.

Free Will theory says that other people are responsible for all their bad choices

a) you are justified in blaming and punishing.

b) you are justified in not searching out the causes of their bad behaviour.

These attitudes of the Free Willist affect personal relationships, politics, and international diplomacy or lack thereof.

- People who don’t have a choice concerning what they do, are still responsible for what they do.
- People who do have a choice concerning what they do, are still responsible for what they do.

- Doing follows the certainty of no-choice.
- Doing follows the confusion that makes choice necessary.

- Responsibility for doing pertains to doing.

- Responsibility for doing does not pertain to choice.
- Responsibility for doing does not pertain to no choice.

- Extenuating circumstances that affect the doer’s cause for doing, apply to the doer’s penalty, if any, for any damages caused by the doer.
- Extenuating circumstances include pre-meditation and accidents.

- This knowledge of the way things are affects relationships in the sense of knowing that folks are always doing what they must do.
- Knowing this gives attempts at forgiving folks for their actions a better chance of succeeding.
- It doesn't mean that one must be a punching bag because another must punch ... which is the choiceless cause for learning fancy footwork.
- Within the realm of words, words can also be thrown with the same intent as a punch is thrown.

What is a “person”? And how does responsibility apply to people? Am I a person, or am I aware of my personality and the associated habits, preferences and characteristics?

[Walker]

What is a “person”? And how does responsibility apply to people? Am I a person, or am I aware of my personality and the associated habits, preferences and characteristics?

- Responsibility for doing pertains to doing.

Responsibility does not apply to pondering. Everyone is free to irresponsibly ponder as they must. The contents of awareness are arbitrary in the sense of, they come and go according to whatever the cause.

[BigMike]

The Free Will stance does affect behaviour as follows.

Free Will theory says that other people are responsible for all their bad choices

a) you are justified in blaming and punishing.

b) you are justified in not searching out the causes of their bad behaviour.

These attitudes of the Free Willist affect personal relationships, politics, and international diplomacy or lack thereof.

- People who don’t have a choice concerning what they do, are still responsible for what they do.
- People who do have a choice concerning what they do, are still responsible for what they do.

- Doing follows the certainty of no-choice.
- Doing follows the confusion that makes choice necessary.

- Responsibility for doing pertains to doing.

- Responsibility for doing does not pertain to choice.
- Responsibility for doing does not pertain to no choice.

- Extenuating circumstances that affect the doer’s cause for doing, apply to the doer’s penalty, if any, for any damages caused by the doer.
- Extenuating circumstances include pre-meditation and accidents.

- This knowledge of the way things are affects relationships in the sense of knowing that folks are always doing what they must do.
- Knowing this gives attempts at forgiving folks for their actions a better chance of succeeding.
- It doesn't mean that one must be a punching bag because another must punch ... which is the choiceless cause for learning fancy footwork.
- Within the realm of words, words can also be thrown with the same intent as a punch is thrown.

Are you saying that if you are part of an endless chain of events that leads to something, you are responsible for that thing?

[BigMike]

What is a “person”? And how does responsibility apply to people? Am I a person, or am I aware of my personality and the associated habits, preferences and characteristics?

- Responsibility for doing pertains to doing.

Responsibility does not apply to pondering. Everyone is free to irresponsibly ponder as they must.

"Free to irresponsibly ponder as they must"? What do you mean when you say "free"?

The contents of awareness are arbitrary in the sense of, they come and go according to whatever the cause.

Are you saying that the "contents of awareness" happen by chance and are caused in the same sentence? I'm trying to get your point of view.

[Iwannaplato]

Are you saying that if you are part of an endless chain of events that leads to something, you are responsible for that thing?

Are you saying that since you are a determinist you wouldn't treat someone who pushed your kid to the ground as if they were responsible for pushing your kid to the ground? That if you found out they had a habit of pushing kids around you wouldn't want society to treat them as if they, and not others, were responsible for those acts? Would it be wrong somehow to treat that person as the immediate cause of your kid hitting the ground and also as the kind of person who does such things?

I am not denying that certain kinds of moral judgment and blame might be reduced in some people, and perhaps rightly so. But still, person X did Y. And if we want to inhibit Y then we hold that person responsible (or answerable, the orgininal meaning of that word) for their action(s).

It makes practical sense to do this. Further we would also then understand our feelings of distaste, rage, fear relating to this person, given that these are not things we are not the original first cause of either.

I suppose since I am not a moral realist, I may view this differently from others. I don't think there is some objective moral good or bad/evil. However I certainly hold people responsible for their actions - with all sorts of provisos for cirumstances and background. And would regardless of free will or determinist ontologies.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

Do people with a free will view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with other views?
Do so-called "free willists" care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
Is it true that "determinists" tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
Is it true that "determinists" usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Age makes a good point.

What manner of freedom is it that determinists may claim to have so they can claim responsibility for their decisions and actions?

Briefly, what's the connection between freedom and responsibility?

It's easy to see how a free willist holds people responsible for their decisions and actions.

The sort of freedom that determinists can reasonably claim to possess is not all or nothing freedom like the freedom claimed by a free willist.

A determinist thinks people are free to choose what to do relative to their knowledge and understanding. The more you know and understand the causes of your actions, and others' actions, the more you can apportion responsibility. For instance if you understand how you learned to become a criminal you can be all the more free to take responsibility for changing your behaviour. And for instance if you understand how Putin learned to be a fanatical nationalist you are better at negotiating with him and can take more responsibility for doing so.

I am not sure I answered Age as he expected to be answered. Age may have implied that altruism and ordinary human kindness are not matters of reason at all but are inherent affects that certain individuals lack. There is a risk that reasoning is emotionally flat.