Free will and determinism

[Fledgist]

In an exchange with 'Servant' on the subject of divine omniscience and free will, it occurred to me that the issue of liberty of the will has not been properly aired. So I thought I'd start a thread on it.

Here's the issue: either we can make choices (subject to the constraints of nature) or our actions are determined by an external force.

If the former case, then we are capable of making decisions for ourselves and we are said to have free will -- the ability to choose freely among available alternatives.

I have to state it in this way because we are not free to will anything, but are constrained by our physical givens (I can't choose to flap my arms and float through the air for example). The issue is important when it comes to moral, political, and other choices that matter.

Why is it important? If we have free will, then we are responsible for our choices, and must stand or fall by them. This is moral agency.

On the other hand, if our actions are determined by an external force, then we have no moral agency and are not personally responsible for our actions.

My own philosophical position is a weak determinism; I believe that we have choice but it is constrained not only by physical nature but by our environmental givens (upbringing, social and economic structure, culture) and by our genetics. For example, I cannot choose to be sexually attracted to sea slugs. There may be, for all I know, persons sexually attracted to sea slugs (though it isn't mentioned in Krafft-Ebing), but I cannot be one, not because I have not formulated the volition but because I cannot. It is not possible for me to do this because of constraints that have nothing to do with physical nature nor with mental choice. I simply cannot formulate this choice.

If someone else can formulate a sexual preference for sea slugs, is that a true volition or is it something else that is not volitional? If the latter, is that sexual preference a morally evaluable choice?

Of course, this could be said about other things. I could not bring myself to eat horse, for example, but millions of French people can. There, though, the constraint is cultural. If I choose not to eat horse, am I, in fact, exercising free will?

[britisha]

Re: Free will and determinism

No takers?

[Oohmsclan]

Re: Free will and determinism

free will is a funny thing, at least from the biblical point of view.
we are told that we were created free and we have free will. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

but the question is do we really? I dont think so!!!! reason? well u have the choice of killing a nation of ppl ,but r u still a man of god after wards ? I chose to curse god , that is my godgiven right, but what happens after wards ??? and this is where the controversy is.
Because it is that "after wards" that most fear and it is the "afterwards" that keep ppl in line. Its the consequence of their choice.
Now what happens to a man who kills a nation of ppl?? (religious point of view here) he will burn forever in hell I was told at a young age. now the thought of burning forever is enuff to keep all /most ppl in line.
now where is the free choice in that?
e.g 2.
a parent say to a child if u work well in school this week u will get a new pair of trainers. the child tries to work hard , be a good student because he really wants the trainers. but when another boy upset him , he knocked him out with a chair.
Oh well . hot damn!! there goes the new trainers!!!!

Christians are the same , they choose to behave a certain way becuse of the "suppose reward". Your choice also have a consequence and it is because of this consequence that we do not have "FREE WILL".

Free will is doing what u like when u like , however u like it and there is no consequence . That is free will, free will is not depended upon a rewrd system.

[Fledgist]

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb] No takers? [/qb]

Bwoy, try fi start a serious philosophical discussion an evrywan gaan!

[Fledgist]

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Oohmsclan:
[qb] free will is a funny thing, at least from the biblical point of view.
we are told that we were created free and we have free will. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

but the question is do we really? I dont think so!!!! reason? well u have the choice of killing a nation of ppl ,but r u still a man of god after wards ? I chose to curse god , that is my godgiven right, but what happens after wards ??? and this is where the controversy is.
Because it is that "after wards" that most fear and it is the "afterwards" that keep ppl in line. Its the consequence of their choice.
Now what happens to a man who kills a nation of ppl?? (religious point of view here) he will burn forever in hell I was told at a young age. now the thought of burning forever is enuff to keep all /most ppl in line.
now where is the free choice in that?
e.g 2.
a parent say to a child if u work well in school this week u will get a new pair of trainers. the child tries to work hard , be a good student because he really wants the trainers. but when another boy upset him , he knocked him out with a chair.
Oh well . hot damn!! there goes the new trainers!!!!

Christians are the same , they choose to behave a certain way becuse of the "suppose reward". Your choice also have a consequence and it is because of this consequence that we do not have "FREE WILL".

Free will is doing what u like when u like , however u like it and there is no consequence . That is free will, free will is not depended upon a rewrd system. [/qb]

Actually, no. Free will, as a concept in moral philosophy, is the ability to make choices unconstrained by anything except physical nature. Because there are consequences to actions, the exercise of free will is also the sign of moral agency.

[britisha]

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb] No takers? [/qb]

Bwoy, try fi start a serious philosophical discussion an evrywan gaan! [/qb]

Mi might throw 2 cents innah dis latayah, mi gaawn gawwn send some stuff to Haiti. Ketch oono latayah.

[Fledgist]

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb] No takers? [/qb]

Bwoy, try fi start a serious philosophical discussion an evrywan gaan! [/qb]

Mi might throw 2 cents innah dis latayah, mi gaawn gawwn send some stuff to Haiti. Ketch oono latayah. [/qb]

Seen.

[Diplomat]

Re: Free will and determinism

I'm mulling this one over. Will share my thoughts once I have them organized.

Edited to post subsequent comments as a separate post instead of an addition to this one.

[Guest]

Re: Free will and determinism

Why is it important? If we have free will, then we are responsible for our choices, and must stand or fall by them. This is moral agency.

On the other hand, if our actions are determined by an external force, then we have no moral agency and are not personally responsible for our actions.


I take it that this is the meat of the argument?

I would disagree with this. The very fact that we have limitations at all suggests that there is an external force responsible for our actions. i.e. no other human being is capable of creating another human being, procreate yes but create no. That alone tells us that there is another force at work.

To see man from a purely physical viewpoint is to accept that we are constrained by our environment as well as our physical and genetic make up. However man is not only a bunch of genes and tissue functioning in an environment that sets limits on his freedom to make choices. He wants to make choices for himself and to determine his destiny.

The question then becomes what choices are these and from what part of the man does he hunger to make other choices for himself as well as to determine his own destiny?

[Fledgist]

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] Why is it important? If we have free will, then we are responsible for our choices, and must stand or fall by them. This is moral agency.

On the other hand, if our actions are determined by an external force, then we have no moral agency and are not personally responsible for our actions.


I take it that this is the meat of the argument?

I would disagree with this. The very fact that we have limitations at all suggests that there is an external force responsible for our actions. i.e. no other human being is capable of creating another human being, procreate yes but create no. That alone tells us that there is another force at work.


{Fledgist: The constraints of physical nature -- and while no human may be able to create human life right now, who's to say that won't be possible down the road -- are givens that have nothing to do with the matter. Obviously, when it comes to physical nature, there are real and visible limitations on our agency (and I dealt with this issue). These are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we are truly able to make choices in those areas where we are unconstrained by the laws of physics or the physical limitations of our bodies.}


To see man from a purely physical viewpoint is to accept that we are constrained by our environment as well as our physical and genetic make up. However man is not only a bunch of genes and tissue functioning in an environment that sets limits on his freedom to make choices. He wants to make choices for himself and to determine his destiny.


{Fledgist: This assumes the consequent.}


The question then becomes what choices are these and from what part of the man does he hunger to make other choices for himself as well as to determine his own destiny? [/qb]

Are those real choices or not?

[joegrind]

Re: Free will and determinism

Between GOd and the devil , if christian theology be true there is no free will . All is pre-ordain .

[Guest]

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] Why is it important? If we have free will, then we are responsible for our choices, and must stand or fall by them. This is moral agency.

On the other hand, if our actions are determined by an external force, then we have no moral agency and are not personally responsible for our actions.


I take it that this is the meat of the argument?

I would disagree with this. The very fact that we have limitations at all suggests that there is an external force responsible for our actions. i.e. no other human being is capable of creating another human being, procreate yes but create no. That alone tells us that there is another force at work.


{Fledgist: The constraints of physical nature -- and while no human may be able to create human life right now, who's to say that won't be possible down the road -- are givens that have nothing to do with the matter.

Jedi: Then it is impossible to really analyze this question fairly. Because first of all we have to deal with the reality of what is right now, i.e. no human being has been able to create another human being that is a fact for right now where we stand. Secondly we are constrained period regardless of whether it is physical, or environmental. Being constrained at all speaks of a force external to us which we did not place there and which we have no control over.

Obviously, when it comes to physical nature, there are real and visible limitations on our agency (and I dealt with this issue). These are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we are truly able to make choices in those areas where we are unconstrained by the laws of physics or the physical limitations of our bodies.

}

See below:

To see man from a purely physical viewpoint is to accept that we are constrained by our environment as well as our physical and genetic make up. However man is not only a bunch of genes and tissue functioning in an environment that sets limits on his freedom to make choices. He wants to make choices for himself and to determine his destiny.

{Fledgist: This assumes the consequent.}

Does not! Your model of the man is a being made up of many parts separate and independent of himself over which he has no influence, which is not true. There is a dynamic relationship between the man, and his environment, each is impacting on the other.
The question then becomes what choices are these and from what part of the man does he hunger to make other choices for himself as well as to determine his own destiny? [/qb]

Are those real choices or not? [/qb]

(slow down I have to think [img]/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] )
A simply law of physics states this plainly, "every action carries an equal and opposite reaction." To know if a choice is real or not the question then becomes is there a consequent to the choice that is made? IMHO the man determines his destiny (outcome) by his own choices. Moral agency is that part of the man which determines the choices he will make.

[Diplomat]

Re: Free will and determinism

OK Fledgist, here goes:

Going back to the initial thread, your argument is valid to the extent that you are using extremely strict interpretations. Because determinism does not mean predictability, your case for 'weak determinism' appears logically sound. However, to arrive at a relationship between freewill and determinism, we cannot apply strict interpretations; they have to be common-sense ones.

IMO, it seems that a choice is free if there were other alternatives available to choose from. My decision to participate on this site was free to the extent that I could have been on some other site instead. If however someone holds a gun to my head and demands my car keys, I really do not have the option of refusing. It seems to me therefore that freedom - or the perception of it - depends upon my option as a moral agent to do something other than what is done. If someone (a moral agent capable of rational/sane choices) chooses between more than one rational course of action, then s/he has made a free choice.

BTW, I am using a common sense definition of moral agency to be that any sufficiently rational being is a moral agent.

[Fledgist]

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] Why is it important? If we have free will, then we are responsible for our choices, and must stand or fall by them. This is moral agency.

On the other hand, if our actions are determined by an external force, then we have no moral agency and are not personally responsible for our actions.


I take it that this is the meat of the argument?

I would disagree with this. The very fact that we have limitations at all suggests that there is an external force responsible for our actions. i.e. no other human being is capable of creating another human being, procreate yes but create no. That alone tells us that there is another force at work.


{Fledgist: The constraints of physical nature -- and while no human may be able to create human life right now, who's to say that won't be possible down the road -- are givens that have nothing to do with the matter.

Jedi: Then it is impossible to really analyze this question fairly. Because first of all we have to deal with the reality of what is right now, i.e. no human being has been able to create another human being that is a fact for right now where we stand. Secondly we are constrained period regardless of whether it is physical, or environmental. Being constrained at all speaks of a force external to us which we did not place there and which we have no control over.


{Fledgist: Nonsense. Clearly we have no or few choice when dealing with external constraints such as the law of gravity, but these are givens of nature. We *appear* to be able to make choices in areas where we are not subject to physical or biological constraints -- that is by material or physical nature. The question is: do we in fact have a real ability to choose and act on our choices, or do we merely appear to do so but in reality act in ways which are determined either externally or as a result of internal programming.}

Obviously, when it comes to physical nature, there are real and visible limitations on our agency (and I dealt with this issue). These are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we are truly able to make choices in those areas where we are unconstrained by the laws of physics or the physical limitations of our bodies.

}

See below:

To see man from a purely physical viewpoint is to accept that we are constrained by our environment as well as our physical and genetic make up. However man is not only a bunch of genes and tissue functioning in an environment that sets limits on his freedom to make choices. He wants to make choices for himself and to determine his destiny.

{Fledgist: This assumes the consequent.}

Does not! Your model of the man is a being made up of many parts separate and independent of himself over which he has no influence, which is not true. There is a dynamic relationship between the man, and his


{Fledgist: Where do you get this from? If you're going to characterise my position, get it right. My model of the individual human (not all humans being men) is one of a being possessing an identity, the self, which is individual and unique. Nonetheless, elements both internal and external limit, constrain, and determine the range of choices that each individual can make.}


environment, each is impacting on the other.
The question then becomes what choices are these and from what part of the man does he hunger to make other choices for himself as well as to determine his own destiny? [/qb]

Are those real choices or not? [/qb]

(slow down I have to think [img]/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] )
A simply law of physics states this plainly, "every action carries an equal and opposite reaction." To know if a choice is real or not the question then becomes is there a consequent to the choice that is made? IMHO the man determines his destiny (outcome) by his own choices. Moral agency is that part of the man which determines the choices he will make. [/qb]

This ducks the issue completely. How do you know that, in fact, people are making their own choices (leaving the sexist language aside)? That's the problem, you see.

[Fledgist]

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb] OK Fledgist, here goes:

Going back to the initial thread, your argument is valid to the extent that you are using extremely strict interpretations. Because determinism does not mean predictability, your case for 'weak determinism' appears logically sound. However, to arrive at a relationship between freewill and determinism, we cannot apply strict interpretations; they have to be common-sense ones.


{Fledgist: Huh? Determinism does not mean predictability, since even the strictest determinist will concede that a range of determined actions is possible. But 'common sense' is a dodge. It's introduction serves to indicate that the answer is going to be fudged. But, let's see.}

IMO, it seems that a choice is free if there were other alternatives available to choose from. My


{Fledgist: A choice may be determined even if the chooser could decide among options. Determination may not limit choices to a simple either/or but could be to an 'either a or b or c' but not 'd or e or f' range of options. In such a case, choice is not free. Free will can only exist if the chooser is equally free to adopt any possible option, not just a limited selection of the available options.}


decision to participate on this site was free to the extent that I could have been on some other site instead. If however someone holds a gun to my head and demands my car keys, I really do not have the option of refusing. It seems to me therefore that freedom - or the perception of it - depends upon my option as a moral agent to do something other than what is done. If someone (a moral agent capable of rational/sane choices) chooses between more than one rational course of action, then s/he has made a free choice.


{Fledgist: In your first example, you rather deliberately limit the range of choices. It is true that you could be on this site, or on another, but you could also be doing something else. Just a note. However, if someone holds a gun to your head, you do have the option to refuse. That is to say, you can choose to risk death -- people make this kind of choice all the time. You're making the assumption that people will not freely choose to die, but that is not so.}

BTW, I am using a common sense definition of moral agency to be that any sufficiently rational being is a moral agent. [/qb]

That's an affirmation of the consequent, though, since the existence of moral agency is what's in question.