Two important reasons why belief in absolute free will is immoral

[Kriminal99]

The point of this thread is to show that the argument between free will and determinism is not academic.

 

So with respect to ethics, the Free will advocate argues that people should be held accountable for their actions because they chose their behavior.

 

The determinist argues that people should be "held accountable" for negative actions to prevent them from repeating such actions in the future.

 

Reason 1)

 

Therefore punishment should be geared towards this end rather than being geared towards vengeful infliction of suffering against the person being punished.

 

Reason 2)

 

Some kinds of poor "choices" can not be dissuaded by punishment. Thus in these cases punishing the person who made the choice, or even acting like it is their fault is immoral. Normally such behaviors assist in dissuading the poor choices in the future, but in some cases they may even contribute to the problem.

 

An example of this is a person who has difficulty working towards long term goals. This type of problem may have been created because previous attempts at working towards long term goals were met with random punishment.

 

Example: A teenager works for a year at a low paying job to save up money for a car or something else they may want. When the teen has saved up 500 dollars the teen's parent comes in the room and takes all of the money to alleviate that month's expenses.

 

The teenager's subconsious mind reasons that putting too much effort into achieving future goals may or even probably will result in disappointment and lost effort. If the teen will probably attempt to quit the job and just live off the parents. Similar future behavior may ensue, especially if the parent makes a habit of such behavior.

 

Another example: Every accomplishment a child makes is met with extreme skepticism.

 

This type of problem may manifest itself in difficulty concentrating on long term goals especially if there is no immediate punishment or result for not concentrating. In other words, ADD.

 

You can't fix this simply by yelling at the person more for being lazy or whatever else. The only cure is probably external motivation.

[ughaibu]

Free will is the ability to exercise choice. Human beings directly experience their acts of choice, which is to say that the mental event of choice is directly perceived by the mind. Human perception is the ultimate arbitor of the reality humans deal with.

1) we experience free will

2) if free will is non-existent this experience is an illusion

3) if this experience is an illusion our minds are untrustworthy

4) if our minds are untrustworthy we cant trust our conclusion that there's no free will

5) the claim that there's no free will would only be reasonable if there were free will

6) therefore the affirmation of the existence of free will is the only reasonable stance

[Pyrotex]

To those who never exercise free will, there appears to be no free will. That is to say, "free will" appears to be the exercise of options that are so unbearable, undesireable, undoable, unpleasant, counter-habitual or unnatural, that the individual concludes that they can't do those options -- therefore free will does not exist.

 

For perhaps the majority of Human Beings, free will does not exist because they never exercise it. However, for the minority, they choose to do things that are hard, difficult, unpleasant, challenging--things like studying, reading, working, striving even though they do not like it. They give up things like partying, goofing off, watching TV, puttering around, hanging out to make the time to do the hard stuff. They strain to violate their own "natural" desires and attitudes in order to create a future for themselves--a future that wasn't going to just happen.

 

It is ONLY for these people that free will exists. And it exists for them ONLY because they exercised it.

[paigetheoracle]

To those who never exercise free will, there appears to be no free will. That is to say, "free will" appears to be the exercise of options that are so unbearable, undesireable, undoable, unpleasant, counter-habitual or unnatural, that the individual concludes that they can't do those options -- therefore free will does not exist.

 

For perhaps the majority of Human Beings, free will does not exist because they never exercise it. However, for the minority, they choose to do things that are hard, difficult, unpleasant, challenging--things like studying, reading, working, striving even though they do not like it. They give up things like partying, goofing off, watching TV, puttering around, hanging out to make the time to do the hard stuff. They strain to violate their own "natural" desires and attitudes in order to create a future for themselves--a future that wasn't going to just happen.

 

It is ONLY for these people that free will exists. And it exists for them ONLY because they exercised it.

 

Or to quote Castro ' A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past' (If you want to sit on your backside moaning about past failures and how life treats you - then be my guest. If however you want to live, then like a baby you've got to draw the first and every breath you take, to survive: 'Nobody gets out of here alive' Jim Morrison, so if you want to go, stop breathing everyone elses air and let those who haven't given up the struggle, keep on doing it). 'People do not change until the pain of staying the same, outweighs the pain to alter' (I-Ching). 'Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today' (Ayn Rand); 'Anyone who gives up is already dead and buried in the past' (Me).

 

'I love agitation and investigation - and glory in defending unpopular truth against popular error' President Garfield. 'Great men can't be ruled' (Ayn Rand). 'Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible will make violent revolutions inevitable' (JFK). 'Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' (Einstein). Think of the scene in 'The Matrix' where Morpheus points out to Neo the two types of people in the world - those who want an easy life and accept normality and those who fight it with all their strength, just to bring a new one into existence. I rest my case, even if not yours (mines against the stares not the stairs).

[Kriminal99]

Free will is the ability to exercise choice. Human beings directly experience their acts of choice, which is to say that the mental event of choice is directly perceived by the mind. Human perception is the ultimate arbitor of the reality humans deal with.

1) we experience free will

2) if free will is non-existent this experience is an illusion

3) if this experience is an illusion our minds are untrustworthy

4) if our minds are untrustworthy we cant trust our conclusion that there's no free will

5) the claim that there's no free will would only be reasonable if there were free will

6) therefore the affirmation of the existence of free will is the only reasonable stance

 

I have no illusion that I am experiencing free will.

 

You can experience something, and yet fail to comprehend what it is that you are experiencing.

 

No determinist ever meant to contradict any part of, for example, the idea that a person felt like getting a taco, and so they "chose" to go get a taco.

 

The whole point a determinist is trying to bring to light is that you don't control what you feel and these feelings are what cause your choices.

 

For most free will advocates this simple statement is enough to cause them to realize their mistake and at least move to believing in partial free will instead.

 

The ironic thing is if there is anything similar to free will it would be self awareness or the degree to which you can interact with your own causal chain, and refusal to consider any ideas that do not seem immediately intuitive to you is about as low on this scale as you can go...

 

To those who never exercise free will, there appears to be no free will. That is to say, "free will" appears to be the exercise of options that are so unbearable, undesireable, undoable, unpleasant, counter-habitual or unnatural, that the individual concludes that they can't do those options -- therefore free will does not exist.

 

For perhaps the majority of Human Beings, free will does not exist because they never exercise it. However, for the minority, they choose to do things that are hard, difficult, unpleasant, challenging--things like studying, reading, working, striving even though they do not like it. They give up things like partying, goofing off, watching TV, puttering around, hanging out to make the time to do the hard stuff. They strain to violate their own "natural" desires and attitudes in order to create a future for themselves--a future that wasn't going to just happen.

 

It is ONLY for these people that free will exists. And it exists for them ONLY because they exercised it.

 

Being driven by one deterministic motivator to overcome another deterministic motivator is not free will.

 

I work out all the time. I consider opposing ideas even when they might offend me. But I do these things for deterministic reasons.

 

 

In short, to everyone here, the creation of specious convenience arguments to justify everything good that the rationalizer does as being under their own control, and everything bad that other people did as being under those other's control is exactly what I am showing is immoral.

 

You most often see people with the biggest silver spoons stuck in their mouth rambling on about free will because of the time their daddy made them mow the lawn before getting their new sports car...

 

and the person whose high school peers all got shot, put in jail, or drugged into oblivion talking about circumstances.

 

What do the people who come from the worst circumstances and accomplish good things say? That they are grateful for all the good influences in their life...

[Pyrotex]

...Being driven by one deterministic motivator to overcome another deterministic motivator is not free will. I work out all the time....I do these things for deterministic reasons.

Okay. So you do. Perhaps you have a brain tumor, or some kind of genetic brain fault. Perhaps you were exposed to excessive amounts of alcohol in the womb. Or you were dropped on your punkin' head as an infant.

 

There are any number of reasons why you have no free will, and do things only for deterministic reasons.

 

But I am not like you. And you don't speak for me. :):D:evil:

[Kriminal99]

Cry about it as much as you want.

 

Bottom line: There is no way you could tell the difference between being motivated by one deterministic force to overcome another, and choosing to do something which "seems" hard...

 

If you refuse to look at this simple fact even to try and counter it, then you are about as far from anything resembling free will as you could get.

 

I have been spoiled by my time at other boards... this is the first time in a long time that I have run into anyone that completely misunderstood determinism... I started by going on about why it is not academic whether we use free will or determinism to look at the world, and totally forgot about ugahaib, pyrotex and uh... who was the other one... bigdog or whatever should be chiming in any moment...

[ughaibu]

If determinism, in any non-trivial sense, were true of reality, a person wouldn't have the free will required to chose to affirm or deny free will, making the motivations of this thread futile by self contradiction.

In any case, determinism fails to circularity, irreversibility, regresses and observation. Accordingly, it is easy to demonstrate the existence of free will.

Hard determinism contends that if a subject is presented with two crosses and a pencil, and the subject is asked to circle one cross, there is only one cross that can be circled, this has been determined by states of the universe throughout the past. However, we can take a cat-in-a-box type event of radioactive decay to produce a result that is undetermined and ask our subject to circle the cross indicated non-deterministically. I dont think anyone will seriously contend that the subject will not be able to circle either cross, as many times as necessary and with 100% accuracy.

The only objection to this demonstration, as far as I can see, is that determinists can claim that assuming radioactive decay to be non-deterministic is question begging. However, as determinism is a logical failure, I maintain the onus is on determinists to demonstrate that radioactive decay is determined, or at least to provide something more convincing than claims that several basic properties of existence are illusions.

[Buffy]

I have been spoiled by my time at other boards... this is the first time in a long time that I have run into anyone that completely misunderstood determinism...

That's because--as discussed in many threads you participated in long ago--you have your own "unique" definition of determinism that you usually seem to use to justify sociopathy....just been waiting for that shoe to drop in this thread....

 

It gets really tiresome....

 

Using my free will to combat evil,

Buffy

[Kriminal99]

If determinism, in any non-trivial sense, were true of reality, a person wouldn't have the free will required to chose to affirm or deny free will, making the motivations of this thread futile by self contradiction.

In any case, determinism fails to circularity, irreversibility, regresses and observation. Accordingly, it is easy to demonstrate the existence of free will.

Hard determinism contends that if a subject is presented with two crosses and a pencil, and the subject is asked to circle one cross, there is only one cross that can be circled, this has been determined by states of the universe throughout the past. However, we can take a cat-in-a-box type event of radioactive decay to produce a result that is undetermined and ask our subject to circle the cross indicated non-deterministically. I dont think anyone will seriously contend that the subject will not be able to circle either cross, as many times as necessary and with 100% accuracy.

The only objection to this demonstration, as far as I can see, is that determinists can claim that assuming radioactive decay to be non-deterministic is question begging. However, as determinism is a logical failure, I maintain the onus is on determinists to demonstrate that radioactive decay is determined, or at least to provide something more convincing than claims that several basic properties of existence are illusions.

 

UGA you don't ever listen. You don't even know what you are responding to so why bother? If you just want to live in your little illusionary world where everything you already believe is right then why post on the internet? All you are doing by refusing to read posts regarding determinism and then responding as if you had something to say is reducing the efficiency of the human race by increasing confusion.

 

Not once, ever, have you actually read and responded to an argument regarding determinism, you always just respond with some specious argument of your own for why free will exists. I cannot help but picture some crazed lunatic in front of a computer crying and screaming "No NO! THERE IS FREE WILL!!! THERE IS!!! I CAN'T READ IT!!! NO!!!"

 

Free will is not simply the choice to agree or disagree with this thread. If that WERE the extent of your definition of free will, then you would not have any grounds to reject determinism. Determinism doesn't say that you cannot decide whether or not to accept the thread, it explains something about how that decision is made.

 

You have emotions and instincts that guide your decisions, and you do not have control over these emotions and instincts. Rather they are functions of the past...

 

Free will of the type you think you are arguing for can't even be given a definition. If I accept the thread because I understand it, or reject it because it makes me mad that someone believes in determinism, then I did it for a reason. If I roll a dice to decide whether or not to agree, then I just used a high variance deterministic system. What does it even mean to use free will to decide? Not a damn thing, unless you contend free will means deterministically choosing things.

 

PS. Your thought experiment doesn't even make sense...

 

That's because--as discussed in many threads you participated in long ago--you have your own "unique" definition of determinism that you usually seem to use to justify sociopathy....just been waiting for that shoe to drop in this thread....

 

It gets really tiresome....

 

Using my free will to combat evil,

Buffy

 

A) I don't remember ever relating determinism and sociopathy directly, but then again I don't ever include sociopathy in my arguments other than to say that it is a very primitive way of looking at things. My views on the subject are transparent from this very thread.

 

:hihi: The only "evil" in the world is ignorance, and history is littered with nutbags running around talking about fighting evil and killing random people who didn't conform to their backwards beliefs... This brand of ignorance enforced on others certainly needs to be stopped, though I wouldn't call it or actions against it sociopathy...

 

When you have 2 people that try and force acceptance of their beliefs on others, there is no separating them superficially and saying one is right and one is wrong. All that matters is which set of ideas is valid, and which person tried to move from discussion to action according to the valid idea that you must consider ideas that potentially contradict yours in order to validate your ideas.

 

If some idiot comes to my house and tells me to convert to Christianity or die, and I shoot him, it isn't sociopathy. It is doing the right thing.

 

Ideas like sociopath are anti philosophy, or philosophy of convenience meant to justify the thoughtless approach to the situation. "Whoever deviates from the common behavior is superficially wrong" That is absurd for a countless number of reasons. Deviates from which group? How did the group determine their behavior? It is implied they determined their behavior from others, which is bandwagon fallacy, which means the deviate is necessarily someone with superior reasoning ability.

 

Determinism is all about seeing reality for what it is. Whether your talking about criminals or children who think their parents are a joke, you need to understand that there is an underlying system that drives what is going on.

 

Though you might have to forcibly act against people creating real physical problems for other people, if you really want to solve the problem you need to understand that system rather than blaming those people and failing to see what you could have done to influence the situation.

 

People who are really capable of accomplishing anything in this world do just that (it is a widely recognized trait of entrepreneurs for example) - they look at human behavior as a puzzle that can be solved to accomplish their goals.

 

People who aren't capable just blame everyone else for everything that goes wrong ("it was their poor choices") while trying to mimic what those with vision accomplish unsuccessfully.

 

If your kids get horrible grades, it isn't because they make bad choices it's probably because you are being stupid and self centered. They are just kids, you are the one with the power to influence the situation.

[ughaibu]

If that WERE the extent of your definition of free will, then you would not have any grounds to reject determinism

Are you serious, dont you think the fact that "determinism fails to circularity, irreversibility, regresses and observation" constitutes grounds?

Free will of the type you think you are arguing for can't even be given a definition

Yet I defined it in post 2 of this thread.

[Kriminal99]

Are you serious, dont you think the fact that "determinism fails to circularity, irreversibility, regresses and observation" constitutes grounds?Yet I defined it in post 2 of this thread.

 

It constitutes bs... What are you even talking about? Why would observation be a bad thing to base determinism on? I am not sure what defining words has to do with an argument on determinism. You certainly did not show that determinism has any of those traits... Most of the time you don't even write coherently, and even if someone is able to put together what you are trying to say, it's just nonsense...

 

What does asking a person to circle a cross on a piece of paper have to do with determinism? What on earth are you talking about?

[ughaibu]

Circularity:

1) no event is isolated, so determinism is perforce global

2) global determinism says no more than that the universe in state A is followed by the subsequent universe in state B

3) a universe in state A followed by any random universe in state B would qualify as globally determined

4) therefore a model of the universe in state A deterministically leading to a subsequent universe in state B can only be supported by local determinism

5) as all local determinism is non-isolated, it is global

6) as local determinism must be global and global determinism must be local, determinism fails to vicious circularity.

If you're interested in other failings of determinism, I can oblige, but I'd prefer if you made a serious contribution yourself.

[Kriminal99]

There is no such thing as a failing of determinism. There are only lack of understandings of determinism, like the ones you continually present rather than read anything anyone has written to try and help you understand.

 

The quality of reasoning in your posts is ridiculous. So determinism must exist locally and globally. Anyone could have told you that... Those are just two concurrent requirements. There is no circle involved.

 

Instead of trying to come up with convaluted arguments why don't you use that wasted brainpower on reading other people's disproofs of what you say...

[Pyrotex]

Cry about it as much as you want.

 

Bottom line: There is no way you could tell the difference between being motivated by one deterministic force to overcome another, and choosing to do something which "seems" hard...

 

If you refuse to look at this simple fact even to try and counter it, then you are about as far from anything resembling free will as you could get.

 

I have been spoiled by my time at other boards... this is the first time in a long time that I have run into anyone that completely misunderstood determinism....

First of all, no one on this thread is 'crying' or complaining -- except you, of course.

 

2. If you are totally deterministic, then how the hell do YOU tell the difference between a deterministic choice and a free will choice. You're hung on your own petard. (You really should keep that thing cleaner. It'll give you gangrene if you don't.)

 

3. 'Simple fact'? There is no simple fact to look at. You have merely made a deterministic declaration that your determinism is a 'simple fact'. Well, I declare my free will choice a 'simple fact'. I would beg you to accept it, but I know that you deterministically cannot.

 

4. Determinism is really simple to understand. The Universe is a bunch of marbles bouncing around a perfect pool table, with all collisions perfectly determined by prior states. Easy. Even a 12-year old could understand that. The fact that it's TOTALLY WRONG doesn't make it hard to understand. Not at all.

 

5. You really have to stop day-dreaming that we're writhing in anguish in front of our computers in our primitive and petty attempts to prove you wrong, or in our doomed and dismal desperation to understand you. We don't really care if you're right or wrong. We know you too well by now. Most of us are just having fun at your expense. But don't get a big head over it. You're not THAT much fun. Just a modest amount of fun--maybe once a day.

 

6. Of my own free will, and counter to my deterministic judgement, I will refrain from finishing this list. Nanni-nanni-boo-boo! :)

[Pyrotex]

...The whole point a determinist is trying to bring to light is that you don't control what you feel and these feelings are what cause your choices....

Krim,

here is the very central crux of YOUR failure to understand.

 

"you don't control what you feel" ==> Correct! None of us can spontaneously choose to be joyful or sad. It's like being caught in a rain storm. When it rains "joy"--that's what you feel. When it rains "sad"--that's what you feel. So far so good.

 

"these feelings are what cause your choices" ==> Incorrect! Even though this is exactly what happens most of the time for most people. There are other ways to create choices that trump feelings. The most common one is "commitment". This is how mature, intellectually honest people overcome their feelings. They choose to act in accordance with a prior commitment rather than act out their feelings.

 

A more general expression for "commitment" is "promise". Making and keeping promises is an excellent way of living out of your word rather than living out of your feelings. Yet another way to exercise free will is to live out of duty or honor, rather than live out of feelings.

 

For most people--they live out of their feelings. It is apparent that YOU do. Everybody does this when they're young and inexperienced. It's just that the only commitment I detect in your posts is that you're committed to living out of your feelings--AND justifying it. You are obviously looking for our approval that you are helplessly deterministic.

 

That boat just won't float. Sorry.

[Boerseun]

Sheesh...

 

Writhing in anguish in front of my laptop over my total and utter lack of free will in this deterministic universe, an inescapable question comes up (without me having any choice in the matter, of course):

 

How the heck do you tell the difference?

 

Asking what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object is a nonsensical question, a 'non-question', and simply not an issue at all, however much time philosophers might dedicate to toss and turn over that particular one.

 

Same with determinism and free will.

 

Here we are presented with two possible states. Keep in mind that they are completely and utterly mutually exclusive. They cannot exist in the same universe. Same as an irresistable force not possible in the same universe in which an immovable object can exist. The tricky bit here is that both states, determinism and free will, exhibit identical features to those pesky humans actually worrying about this. A deterministic universe will look identical to a universe allowing free will, without any changes at all. But it can only be one, not both.

 

The fact that these are two mutually exclusive states with identical features makes this a non-issue, and a non-sensical question. Decide which one makes you happy, and that'll be the universe you'll live in. I'll pick the other one. My universe will look identical to yours, but I'll have better nights sleeping, not worrying over these irrelevant quasi-philosophical nonsense.