Free will and morality

[bahman]

Most choices involve right or wrong in some respect. Why is choosing between a moral right or wrong different in principle to choosing between a practical right or wrong?

What do you mean by practical right or wrong?

I can go along with killing being a moral issue, and I agree that drinking a glass of water isn't usually a moral issue, but you make no mention of choices regarding either, so what are you trying to illustrate here?

I am trying to illustrate different situations rather than the decisions involved in each.

Let me give you two scenarios:

A: I am buying a car, and I have a choice of either red or blue, but I like both colours equally.

B: I am in a situation where telling the truth will get me into trouble, but telling a lie will keep me out of it. I don't want to lie, because I think it is morally wrong, but I don't want to get into trouble, either. I find that my aversion to telling a lie is equal in strength to my desire to stay out of trouble.

A is not a moral choice, and B is a moral choice, what difference, regarding free will, is there in the process of arriving at a decision in both scenarios?

Yes, A is not moral whereas B is moral. What does the difference free will make? You can choose in both scenarios.

So, yes or no? Agree or disagree?

[bahman]

First thing first, free will by definition is the ability to unbiasedly choose between at least two options.
..........
Morality, however, is not about liking or disliking but about what is right or wrong. It is our thoughts that are guiding us about the correctness of a decision. We are however biased by our thoughts when we follow our thoughts in a situation. Therefore, there is no relation between free will and morality.

The moment one is caught to make a decision on what is supposedly a "moral" issue, that is not morality-proper but rather a pseudo-morality or applied ethics.

Regardless of what decision is made and acted upon in such a judgment, there is no 'free-will' but rather one is conditioned by various constraints.

So you think that there is no free will.

[bahman]

First thing first, free will by definition is the ability to unbiasedly choose between at least two options.

This isn't the first time you've said this, and not the first time a thread of people have all said "wait what? That's not how it's defined."

You can't start your argument with a premise like this in a tone that it's just a commonly accepted fact. You might accept this definition but clearly nobody else does. You have a lot of work to do

Yes, it is not the first time that I use this definition. What is wrong in your opinion with my definition? What is your definition?

[Harbal]

So, yes or no? Agree or disagree?

I don't accept your assertions about free will and morality, but when I questioned you, your responses didn't address my questions, so I decided not to persue it.

[bahman]

So, yes or no? Agree or disagree?

I don't accept your assertions about free will and morality, but when I questioned you, your responses didn't address my questions, so I decided not to persue it.

I am so sorry. I thought I answered your question. You said: A is not a moral choice, and B is a moral choice, what difference, regarding free will, is there in the process of arriving at a decision in both scenarios? I stated that free will allows you to make a decision in both cases. Or in another word, without free will, you wouldn't be able to decide in both cases.

[Harbal]

So, yes or no? Agree or disagree?

I don't accept your assertions about free will and morality, but when I questioned you, your responses didn't address my questions, so I decided not to persue it.

I am so sorry. I thought I answered your question. You said: A is not a moral choice, and B is a moral choice, what difference, regarding free will, is there in the process of arriving at a decision in both scenarios? I stated that free will allows you to make a decision in both cases. Or in another word, without free will, you wouldn't be able to decide in both cases.

But in your opening post you said there is no relation between free will and morality. Now you seem to be saying that free will is involved in making moral choices. Am I misunderstanding something?

[Flannel Jesus]

First thing first, free will by definition is the ability to unbiasedly choose between at least two options.

This isn't the first time you've said this, and not the first time a thread of people have all said "wait what? That's not how it's defined."

You can't start your argument with a premise like this in a tone that it's just a commonly accepted fact. You might accept this definition but clearly nobody else does. You have a lot of work to do

Yes, it is not the first time that I use this definition. What is wrong in your opinion with my definition? What is your definition?

It doesn't really matter what mine is, it matters that you take it as a matter of course that yours is one that should be used, or that other people will accept it.

You state it so quickly without going into any detail on it. But your definition needs MASSIVE detail, it should be the subject of a post all on its own. What does it even mean to make an unbiased choice? What are examples of those? What are biased choices, and what are examples of those? Why are the former free and the latter not free?

You say your first paragraph in such a care free way, when really there's essays worth of baggage in that first paragraph that you have to guide your reader to unpack before they follow you

[Peter Holmes]

The issue of free will v determinism does have a bearing on moral responsibility - praise and blame for behaviour.

But I suggest morality - moral rightness and wrongness - is separate from the free will/determinism issue. Here's an exemplar valid argument.

Moral premise: A is morally right and B is morally wrong.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, choosing A is morally right, and choosing B is morally wrong.

There's no factual (non-moral) assertion about the freedom or determination of choice in this argument - and no moral conclusion is entailed by such a factual premise, even if it's true. For example:

Factual (non-moral) premise: A person's choice of A or B is determined/undetermined.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, it's morally right/wrong to praise/blame a person for choosing A or B.

This is a non sequitur, whichever premise applies.

[bahman]

I don't accept your assertions about free will and morality, but when I questioned you, your responses didn't address my questions, so I decided not to persue it.

I am so sorry. I thought I answered your question. You said: A is not a moral choice, and B is a moral choice, what difference, regarding free will, is there in the process of arriving at a decision in both scenarios? I stated that free will allows you to make a decision in both cases. Or in another word, without free will, you wouldn't be able to decide in both cases.

But in your opening post you said there is no relation between free will and morality.

Yes.

Now you seem to be saying that free will is involved in making moral choices.

I am saying that free will is involved in making a decision in a situation where the options are equally liked for example. Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of an option. Morality as you noticed does not come to play in all situations. When it comes to play it just defines the situation. We are dealing with two things here: 1) The situation which is defined by options and could be moral or not and 2) the ability to decide freely when there is a conflict of interest (as in your both examples). I have to stress that you are not inclined to any option when you are deciding freely otherwise your decision is not free. For example, your decision in your second example is free once you make it and you are not inclined by any options whatsoever.

Am I misunderstanding something?

People think they made a free decision when they follow morality for example. I am saying that this type of decision is not free since you are inclined toward morality. I hope things are clear now.

[bahman]

This isn't the first time you've said this, and not the first time a thread of people have all said "wait what? That's not how it's defined."

You can't start your argument with a premise like this in a tone that it's just a commonly accepted fact. You might accept this definition but clearly nobody else does. You have a lot of work to do

Yes, it is not the first time that I use this definition. What is wrong in your opinion with my definition? What is your definition?

It doesn't really matter what mine is, it matters that you take it as a matter of course that yours is one that should be used, or that other people will accept it.

You state it so quickly without going into any detail on it. But your definition needs MASSIVE detail, it should be the subject of a post all on its own. What does it even mean to make an unbiased choice?

By biased I mean that the person who is going to make a decision is inclined toward one of the options.

What are examples of those? What are biased choices, and what are examples of those?

Let's say that you like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate one. In this case, you are biased/inclined toward vanilla ice cream. If you like them equally then you are not biased/inclined toward one of them. In the first, case you are biased toward vanilla ice cream and you decide to buy one. This type of decision to me is not free. I am saying that free decision comes to play in the second scenario when you are not biased by any option.

Why are the former free and the latter not free?

That depends on the definition of types of decisions.

[bahman]

The issue of free will v determinism does have a bearing on moral responsibility - praise and blame for behaviour.

No, a person is not morally responsible when she/he makes a free decision. That is true since there is a conflict of interest when a free decision is required. Let's say that action A is wrong. Let's assume that you have a strong desire to perform A. On the other hand, you are a moral person so you don't want to perform A. There is a conflict of interest here. You need a free decision when options are equally liked in this example, options are to perform A or not to perform A. This type of situation when I call it a boundary happens all the time. You should not be blamed or praised if you perform A or not perform A.

I also think that the person should not be blamed when the desire is so strong that the person could not help it and perform A. This situation is on one side of the boundary. What is left, is when the desire is very weak and the person manages to not perform A. This situation is on another side of the boundary. Are you going to praise the person?

But I suggest morality - moral rightness and wrongness - is separate from the free will/determinism issue.

That is obviously true.

[Immanuel Can]

"Bias" means a prejudicial judgment, not just a judgment. And all judgments are based on some kind of evidence, motive or warrant.

Well, then we have to agree on a word that shows desire, preference, or inclination toward something. Do you have something in mind? Biased seems that does not work.

I think we'd say "motivation." That would be a good word.

Now, then, the question arises, does having a "motivation" for doing something imply that the choice is not "free"? I would say, "Not at all: there are no such things as choices that do not have some motive behind them. But so long as the motive is your own, and not something imposed externally on you, you're as free as free can be.

Another way of thinking about it is that choices are inevitably made among a field of attractive reasons. For example, I could go to the restaurant (because my hunger is motivating me), or I could have a nap (because I also feel a bit sleepy), or I could go for a workout (because I notice I've been getting a little fat, and I don't like that), or I could surf the internet (because I like writing, or I enjoy the endorphin jolts it gives me).

All those choices have motives. But who gets to select among them, choosing which motive to accept, which to pay attention to, which to suppress or put off for a time, and what action to take first?

I do.

I'm the chooser, and I'm free to choose among all the possible motivations I could accept.

Have you ever gambled? The outcome of gambling is not clear yet your free and can choose to play or not to play.

Oh, I disagree about that. The goal the gambler has in mind is very, very clear: to win. He may be wrong about that, but that doesn't mean he is devoid of the belief that there is a probable outcome to his choices. Quite the contrary: if he doesn't think he'll ever get the outcome he's aiming at, he'll never gamble at all.

The outcome of gambling is different from your desire to win.

Of course. But that's different from arguing the gambler has no motive. He clearly does. And even if he's wrong about getting it, he certainly finds that motive appealing. That's why gambling is addictive, as well.

In the end, you have the ability to resist the final reason for no reason otherwise you are following a reason and you are not free.

That's the part I simply think is not believable. To have a reason doesn't imply you're not free. You can have many different reasons, but there's still somebody who has to choose among them. And he's free to do so.

Well, everything is predetermined if we either follow our feelings or thoughts. I think it is obvious.

Then there would be no such thing at all as "morality." There would only be what was determined to be. And there would be no "choice" either, since, by definition, one cannot have a "choice" of the only road there is.

Determinism has nothing against morality.

Oh, it certainly does.

If I have no choice but to do one particular thing, it doesn't even make sense to ask, "Is that moral?" You see, I can't choose to do anything else, anyway. So morality has no ability to change outcomes at all.

Moreover, in a Determinist world, there is not even a thing called "morality," apart from the fact that it designates an odd delusion that people are, for some unknown reason, preprogrammed and predetermined to have. It's not objective. It corresponds to nothing that exists in reality, other than this common delusion.

If a person follows this code then he is behaving deterministically.

Not at all.

If I read that it says in the code, "You must not steal," I'm still perfectly free to make the decision whether to believe that code or decide to steal anyway. If I choose to steal, that's my decision; but if I choose to take the code seriously and not steal, that is also a decision I have made. I'm still free. The code didn't "make" me do anything. It didn't even "motivate" me to do it. All it did was present an option to me, which I remained free to accept or reject.

You are mixing the existence of options with free will.

Actually, you were. You were arguing as if having options would change free will to determinism. I think they're totally different issues.

Of course, options must be available otherwise no one can make a decision.

Right. And not just options, but motives as well. For one has to have reasons to choose one or another among many options. That doesn't imply the reasons "make" you choose one option or the other, as I suggested above. All it means is that you get to choose among the options, based on the motives you choose to pay attention to.

A machine can work based on reason, purpose, and judgment.

It cannot, actually. A machine only operates according to programming. It does not actually "reason," does not have any "purpose" the programmer didn't assign to it, and has no power of "judgment." What it can do is perform only those functions it's been given to perform.

What fools us is our own metaphors. We speak of "artificial intelligence," as if it were human "intelligence," and completely overlook the word "artificial," which designates "only an appearance," or "not authentic." An interesting philosophy experiment demonstrating this is the famous "Chinese Room" experiment by John Searle, which I commend to your careful attention and thought.

We're not machines. We're biological, organic, and alive. We choose. Computers only seem to "select" according to "selection criteria" among which there is no "they" to choose. There is only programming.

[Flannel Jesus]

By biased I mean that the person who is going to make a decision is inclined toward one of the options.

What are examples of those? What are biased choices, and what are examples of those?

Let's say that you like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate one. In this case, you are biased/inclined toward vanilla ice cream. If you like them equally then you are not biased/inclined toward one of them. In the first, case you are biased toward vanilla ice cream and you decide to buy one. This type of decision to me is not free. I am saying that free decision comes to play in the second scenario when you are not biased by any option.

Why are the former free and the latter not free?

That depends on the definition of types of decisions.

I have no idea what that has to do with morality or why that is a kind of "freedom" that anybody wants or cares about. You aren't making a compelling case

[bahman]

"Bias" means a prejudicial judgment, not just a judgment. And all judgments are based on some kind of evidence, motive or warrant.

Well, then we have to agree on a word that shows desire, preference, or inclination toward something. Do you have something in mind? Biased seems that does not work.

I think we'd say "motivation." That would be a good word.

I would say that inclination would be a better word.

Now, then, the question arises, does having a "motivation" for doing something imply that the choice is not "free"? I would say, "Not at all: there are no such things as choices that do not have some motive behind them. But so long as the motive is your own, and not something imposed externally on you, you're as free as free can be.

That is scenario 4 in OP. You cannot help it, you either have an inclination toward one option or not. If you don't and decide to pick the option that you are not inclined to then there is either a reason for your decision or not. Your decision is not free in the first case and free in the second case.

Oh, I disagree about that. The goal the gambler has in mind is very, very clear: to win. He may be wrong about that, but that doesn't mean he is devoid of the belief that there is a probable outcome to his choices. Quite the contrary: if he doesn't think he'll ever get the outcome he's aiming at, he'll never gamble at all.

The outcome of gambling is different from your desire to win.

Of course. But that's different from arguing the gambler has no motive. He clearly does. And even if he's wrong about getting it, he certainly finds that motive appealing. That's why gambling is addictive, as well.

I was pointing to gambling to show that there are situations that the outcomes of the decision are not known. This type of situation is when a free decision is required. Of course, you might have a strong inclination to gamble which means that that affects your decision which means that your decision is not free.

In the end, you have the ability to resist the final reason for no reason otherwise you are following a reason and you are not free.

That's the part I simply think is not believable.

It is very true. You either decide in a situation based on a reason or not. There is no other option.

To have a reason doesn't imply you're not free.

I didn't say so. I said if you are inclined toward an option because of a reason and then you choose that option then your decision is not free.

Then there would be no such thing at all as "morality." There would only be what was determined to be. And there would be no "choice" either, since, by definition, one cannot have a "choice" of the only road there is.

Determinism has nothing against morality.

Oh, it certainly does.

If I have no choice but to do one particular thing, it doesn't even make sense to ask, "Is that moral?"

Why it does not make sense? You can still define an act as moral or not even if you live in a deterministic world. You are mixing moral responsibility with morality. I think that morality can be defined in a deterministic world and has the ability to affect our decision.

You see, I can't choose to do anything else, anyway. So morality has no ability to change outcomes at all.

Morality has the ability to change outcomes in a deterministic world.

Moreover, in a Determinist world, there is not even a thing called "morality," apart from the fact that it designates an odd delusion that people are, for some unknown reason, preprogrammed and predetermined to have. It's not objective. It corresponds to nothing that exists in reality, other than this common delusion.

What does not make sense in a deterministic world is moral responsibility rather than morality.

If a person follows this code then he is behaving deterministically.

Not at all.

If I read that it says in the code, "You must not steal," I'm still perfectly free to make the decision whether to believe that code or decide to steal anyway. If I choose to steal, that's my decision; but if I choose to take the code seriously and not steal, that is also a decision I have made. I'm still free. The code didn't "make" me do anything. It didn't even "motivate" me to do it. All it did was present an option to me, which I remained free to accept or reject.

I said if you follow by which I mean that you make an unfree decision.

You are mixing the existence of options with free will.

Actually, you were. You were arguing as if having options would change free will to determinism. I think they're totally different issues.

Then why bring the example of free moves that are available in chess?

Of course, options must be available otherwise no one can make a decision.

Right. And not just options, but motives as well. For one has to have reasons to choose one or another among many options. That doesn't imply the reasons "make" you choose one option or the other, as I suggested above. All it means is that you get to choose among the options, based on the motives you choose to pay attention to.

Motives or inclinations define options.

A machine can work based on reason, purpose, and judgment.

It cannot, actually. A machine only operates according to programming. It does not actually "reason," does not have any "purpose" the programmer didn't assign to it, and has no power of "judgment." What it can do is perform only those functions it's been given to perform.

What fools us is our own metaphors. We speak of "artificial intelligence," as if it were human "intelligence," and completely overlook the word "artificial," which designates "only an appearance," or "not authentic." An interesting philosophy experiment demonstrating this is the famous "Chinese Room" experiment by John Searle, which I commend to your careful attention and thought.

We're not machines. We're biological, organic, and alive. We choose. Computers only seem to "select" according to "selection criteria" among which there is no "they" to choose. There is only programming.

We are programmed too. A part through evolution and another part through the teaching system.

[bahman]

By biased I mean that the person who is going to make a decision is inclined toward one of the options.

What are examples of those? What are biased choices, and what are examples of those?

Let's say that you like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate one. In this case, you are biased/inclined toward vanilla ice cream. If you like them equally then you are not biased/inclined toward one of them. In the first, case you are biased toward vanilla ice cream and you decide to buy one. This type of decision to me is not free. I am saying that free decision comes to play in the second scenario when you are not biased by any option.

Why are the former free and the latter not free?

That depends on the definition of types of decisions.

I have no idea what that has to do with morality or why that is a kind of "freedom" that anybody wants or cares about. You aren't making a compelling case

That is the second part of the argument. You can read my response to PH here.