Does morality really require free will?

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

Our status as moral agents, along with all of the thought we have developed over many millennia to correctly act on that status, collapses if free will is taken away, we are told.

Products of science, such as evolutionary psychology, and products of philosophy, such as physicalism, make it impossible now for any rational person to believe that we have free will and to see it as anything more than an illusion that has been useful for our survival.

Therefore, morality is toast.

But doesn't all of that depend on how morality is defined?

It seems to me that the most widely understood and accepted definition of morality is "The way things ought to be". It is compared and contrasted with "The way things are".

It is not the way anybody wants things to be. It is not the way anybody thinks things ought to be. It is the way things ought to be, period.

If, say, the way things ought to be includes every member of society being treated the same, that could, in theory, become the way things are through, say, many millennia of the impersonal mechanism of evolution by natural selection, right?

If the way things ought to be includes all members of ecosystems living within the systems' means, that could become the way things are through natural causes and effects, couldn't it?

Or is morality not really "The way things ought to be"?

Or has it been established through metaphysics and science that the way things ought to be can only become the way things are via free will?

Or is there no such thing as the way things ought to be, and really consists of nothing more than the way things are?

If there is nothing more than the way things are, why do we continue to think and talk about morality?

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

Or is there no such thing as the way things ought to be, and really consists of nothing more than the way things are?

Should have read:

Or is there no such thing as the way things ought to be, and reality consists of nothing more than the way things are?

[Impenitent]

the question is choice of action, not ontology

-Imp

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

the question is choice of action, not ontology

-Imp

But we judge a choice based on things independent of it, such as the way things ought to be.

Without something like the way things ought to be choices would be trivial, if not meaningless.

Even if choice is an illusion, the way things ought to be remains.

Why should anybody believe that the way things ought to be can't be realized without free will?

[henry quirk]

If choice is fiction, then there is no 'ought' or 'should', there's only 'is'.

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

If choice is fiction, then there is no 'ought' or 'should', there's only 'is'.

In other words, if we take free will away from humans then the way things ought to be disappears and there is then only the way things are; if we give humans free will then the way things ought to be suddenly appears.

So if women ought to have the right to choose abortion that is going to disappear now that neuroscientists, evolutionary psychologists, and philosophers are telling us that we do not have free will.

Or will it still be the case that women ought to have the right to choose abortion in spite of us being told that the evidence says we do not have free will?

[henry quirk]

"In other words, if we take free will away from humans then the way things ought to be disappears and there is then only the way things are; if we give humans free will then the way things ought to be suddenly appears."

It 'appears' cuz it takes an agent (a chooser) to weigh 'what is' against 'what could be'. Robots (which is what we are if we don't choose) follow programs.

#

"So if women ought to have the right to choose abortion that is going to disappear now that neuroscientists, evolutionary psychologists, and philosophers are telling us that we do not have free will."

If the woman is simply bio-automation then she follows a program. In one woman the program dictates she should seek an abortion; in another the program dictates she shouid give birth and raise the baby (such a cute lil robot!). For robots there are no rights, no choice: just programs.

#

"Or will it still be the case that women ought to have the right to choose abortion in spite of us being told that the evidence says we do not have free will?"

Without the capacity to choose (which is what free will is all about) how can the woman choose?

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

It 'appears' cuz it takes an agent (a chooser) to weigh 'what is' against 'what could be'. Robots (which is what we are if we don't choose) follow programs.

Somebody being able to choose to act according to what ought to be is not the same thing as what ought to be. Even if we eliminate the former the latter remains.

The question about whether or not the latter can become reality without the former remains.

If the woman is simply bio-automation then she follows a program. In one woman the program dictates she should seek an abortion; in another the program dictates she shouid give birth and raise the baby (such a cute lil robot!). For robots there are no rights, no choice: just programs.

And one or both of those actions could be part of the way things ought to be.

Without the capacity to choose (which is what free will is all about) how can the woman choose?

Even if she can't choose it doesn't necessarily mean that the way things ought to be can't become reality through some other means.

[henry quirk]

"Even if she can't choose it doesn't necessarily mean that the way things ought to be can't become reality through some other means."

The way things 'ought to be' is determined by folks who can apprehend infomation, assess that information, then make choices.

Actually: it's choices all the way down the line. The choice to consider the state of things, the choice to investigate, the choice to weigh 'this' against 'that', the choice of a course of action, the choice to actually 'do sumthin'.

Without (our bein') free will(s), without on-going, active, choosing, there can be no 'ought to be'.

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

The way things 'ought to be' is determined by folks who can apprehend infomation, assess that information, then make choices.

Or it is determined by a deity and revealed in ancient texts.

Or it is a property of the universe that is the ultimate telos--the ultimate final cause--according to which everything is unfolding.

Humans--with or without free will--may not even be part of the way things ought to be. Therefore, to saying that the way things ought to be depends on humans may make as much sense as saying that atoms depend on science.

Actually: it's choices all the way down the line. The choice to consider the state of things, the choice to investigate, the choice to weigh 'this' against 'that', the choice of a course of action, the choice to actually 'do sumthin'.

Again, we are not talking about the way anybody thinks things ought to be. We are talking about the way things ought to be, period.

The way things ought to be is categorical.

Without (our bein') free will(s), without on-going, active, choosing, there can be no 'ought to be'.

And that may not be the way things ought to be.

Once again, the way things ought to be is independent of things like actors with (or without) free will.

[Walker]

Does doing the right thing require morality?

[henry quirk]

"we are not talking about the way anybody thinks things ought to be."

No, that's exactly what we're talkin' about.

'Ought' is a state determined by an assessing, choosing, being.

If no such being exists then there is no 'ought', no 'should', no good or evil or right or wrong.

Without a free will to apprehend, to assess, to conclude, to choose, to 'do', there is only what 'is'.

A Roomba, as it goes about its program, sucking up dirt, doesn't say to itself 'this room ought to be cleaner and I'm just the guy to tackle it!'. No the lil robot just does was it was built and programmed to do.

Me, when I decide to clean house, it's because I see the mess, assess the mess, conclude I'm tired of livin' like a bum, and I get up offa my ass and clean house. I see, I assess, I conclude, I choose, I do, cuz I'm a free will. I suss out the 'ought (to be)' and make it happen.

[pulcinella]

The argument is very interesting, assuming that the moral thing and the thing itself can coincide in the existential sphere, in the relevant incident plan. I believe that arbitrariness depends on the structure of morality, if by virtue of morality it is understood as a vitalistic norm. The choice comes from the choice of morality, as the attitude derives from the compatibility between the act and the expected.
On the basis of the difference between common ethics and single morality, I believe that it is based on the pronunciation of ethics in particular or, to misquote Hegel, the difference between generic concept and specific idea. The latter draws from the concept its own substratum in a similar way to how the idea identifies in its own propositiveness an antithesis to the finiteness of the concept, which synthesis is an ethics and a morality closer to the biunivocal relation, in accordance with its own relevance to the existential good.

[TimeSeeker]

"we are not talking about the way anybody thinks things ought to be."

No, that's exactly what we're talkin' about.

'Ought' is a state determined by an assessing, choosing, being.

If no such being exists then there is no 'ought', no 'should', no good or evil or right or wrong.

Without a free will to apprehend, to assess, to conclude, to choose, to 'do', there is only what 'is'.

I agree with this.

A Roomba, as it goes about its program, sucking up dirt, doesn't say to itself 'this room ought to be cleaner and I'm just the guy to tackle it!'. No the lil robot just does was it was built and programmed to do.

Me, when I decide to clean house, it's because I see the mess, assess the mess, conclude I'm tired of livin' like a bum, and I get up offa my ass and clean house. I see, I assess, I conclude, I choose, I do, cuz I'm a free will. I suss out the 'ought (to be)' and make it happen.

But not with this.

We don't know what free will is, and pretending like we do is futile. As best as I can narrate it - it's stop gap we have invented to prevent the 'Why?' regress. e.g Why don't you want to live like a bum? You were OK with it up till 3 minutes ago - what changed? I don't think you have a better answer than "I changed my mind".

This is a moral dilemma in AI development which makes us question our understanding of 'right' and 'wrong': https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer

We too could have been programmed by a 'programmer' to maximise for <some mindless goal> which drives our behavior.
Or maybe - organisms with exhibit the will to adapt/change and "be better" made it through natural selection.
Or both?

I don't know. Some questions don't have meaningful answers

[henry quirk]

As I finished my coffee I found a dead wasp in the bottom of the cup.

Before I discovered I'd drank a mug of wasp-coffee, yeah, I was okay with the mess; after, not so much.

#

"We don't know what free will is"

Not really, no.

Me: i just think it's just self-direction (acting as one chooses, influenced [by all manner of things] but never determined [by them]).