morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[brewer]

There's been a few threads recently about free will and morality, so my apologies for starting another one. The thing is, they got me curious about something so I wanted to ask you guys. 

So first of all, 2 things:

1. It seems many of you hold the opinion that morality is subjective. Meaning there is no real, set in stone, right or wrong. Basically, if one person thinks a particular act is good, and another person thinks that same act is bad, nether one of these 2 people is actually correct. It's all just a matter of opinion, like one person thinking red is the best color and another thinking blue is. 

2. It also seems many of you hold the opinion that people don't actually have free will. Their acts are purely a result of circumstances and are not freely chosen. Basically the person could not have acted any differently because their action was only a result of their own inherent nature and whatever circumstances put them in the position to commit that act.

So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do. 

So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

Subjective/relative morality exists on a sliding scale. Quick example(s): Lying to convict an innocent person = very bad side of the scale. Lying when my wife asks me if those jeans make her butt look fat = not as bad. Stealing a freezer of meat because I don't want to pay but want meat = bad, stealing a freezer of meat to feed starving homeless = not as bad. Man rapes a woman = bad, man rapes a ewe = not as bad????? Each person/society will have a different take on where the action lies on the morality scale. Your still thinking in absolutes, stop it. 

Free will does exist. It does not exist in the presence of an omniscient god, inside or outside of time.

[Catholic_Lady]

There's been a few threads recently about free will and morality, so my apologies for starting another one. The thing is, they got me curious about something so I wanted to ask you guys. 

So first of all, 2 things:

1. It seems many of you hold the opinion that morality is subjective. Meaning there is no real, set in stone, right or wrong. Basically, if one person thinks a particular act is good, and another person thinks that same act is bad, nether one of these 2 people is actually correct. It's all just a matter of opinion, like one person thinking red is the best color and another thinking blue is. 

2. It also seems many of you hold the opinion that people don't actually have free will. Their acts are purely a result of circumstances and are not freely chosen. Basically the person could not have acted any differently because their action was only a result of their own inherent nature and whatever circumstances put them in the position to commit that act.

So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do. 

So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

Subjective/relative morality exists on a sliding scale. Quick example(s): Lying to convict an innocent person = very bad side of the scale. Lying when my wife asks me if those jeans make her butt look fat = not as bad. Stealing a freezer of meat because I don't want to pay but want meat = bad, stealing a freezer of meat to feed starving homeless = not as bad. Man rapes a woman = bad, man rapes a ewe = not as bad????? Each person/society will have a different take on where the action lies on the morality scale. Your still thinking in absolutes, stop it. 

Free will does exist. It does not exist in the presence of an omniscient god, inside or outside of time.

To be clear, I understand some things are worse than others and some things are a grey area. That's not what I was saying.

[Edwardo Piet]

Without free will anger isn't rational anymore. It's still natural, however. Although I do think it's possible to grow out of anger completely. And I think I perhaps have... for the most part. It must have been like a year without anger for me.

Acting angry... I'll always act angry sometimes... if it gets people to listen when they otherwise wouldn't. I'd call that righteous indignation though... not anger. The difference is I wouldn't actually be feeling anything besides a strong urge to use civilized aggression in order to discourage the wrongdoing being done to me.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'll field that question.  The answer is simple; humans are flawed.  We don't always act rationally.  As a matter of fact, we rarely act rationally!  lol

Our nature is such that we react first with emotions, and apply rational after the fact, in most cases. I do try to apply the rational that I should not get angry since I know people didn't chose to do, say or believe whatever made me angry, but it takes some effort, and I often fail initially, but am so far always able to eventually get past it and accept people as they are, after some work and constant reminding on my own part.  I usually lose it after I've been personally stressed or judged a lot, then it can take time to get back into the "zone".  

This isn't even a new concept. Some eastern philosophies that are much older than christianity use this idea of radical acceptance.  Things are what they are and could not have been any other way, and that it is not only pointless, but harmful to be angry for people being the way they are.  As with most good things in life, and for most people, putting this into practice takes work.  It does not come naturally.  Particularly when we are often taught as children to be all judgy towards ourselves and others.

Here is an old story:
________________________________________________________
"Master, you must help me," said the visitor. "I am at my wit's end."
"What seems to be the problem?" The sage asked.

"I am having a hard time controlling my anger," the visitor said. "It's just the way people are. I see them criticizing others while totally unaware of their own faults. I do not wish to criticize them because I don't want to be like them, but it really upsets me."

"I see," said the sage. "Tell me something first: Aren't you the villager who narrowly escaped death last year?"

"Yes," the visitor nodded. "It was a terrible experience. I ventured too far into the forest and ran into a pack of hungry wolves."

"What did you do?"

"I climbed up a tree just in time before they converged on me. These wolves were big and I had no doubt they could tear me to pieces."

"So you were trapped?"

"Yes. I knew I wouldn't last long without water and food, so I waited for them to relax their guard. When I thought it was safe enough, I would jump down, make a mad dash for the next tree, and then climb up before they converged again."

"This sounds like quite an ordeal."

"Yes - altogether it lasted two days. I thought I would surely die. Luckily a group of hunters approached when I got close enough to the village. The wolves scattered and I was saved."

"I'm curious about one thing," said the sage. "During the experience, were you ever offended by the wolves?"

"What? Offended?"

"Yes. Did you feel offended, or insulted by the wolves?"

"Of course not, Master. That thought never crossed my mind."

"Why not? They wanted nothing more than to bite into you, did they not? They wanted to kill you, did they not?"

"Yes, but... that is what wolves do! They were just being themselves. It would be absurd for me to be take offense."

"Excellent! Now let's hang on to this thought while we examine your question. Criticizing others while being unaware of their own faults is something that many people do. You might even say that it is something we all do from time to time. In a sense, the ravenous wolves live in every one of us.

"When the wolves bare their fangs and close in on you, you should not just stand there. You should certainly protect yourself by getting away from them if at all possible. Similarly, when people lash out at you with venomous criticism, you should not accept it passively. You should certainly protect yourself by putting some distance between you and them if at all possible.

"The crucial point is that you can do so without feeling offended or insulted, because these people are simply being themselves. It is their nature to be critical and judgemental, so it would be absurd for us to take offense. It would be pointless for us to get angry.

"Next time the hungry wolves in human skin converge on you, remember: it's just the way people are - exactly as you said when you came in."
___________________________________________________________
It is something in our nature that we must constantly work to overcome, as we are emotional beings, not Vulcans.

Thanks Aurora. So you're saying that it indeed *doesn't* make sense and *isnt* justifiable to be angry/express anger at people for their behavior or beliefs. But that you do anyway simply because you can't help being angry and sometimes expressing the anger, though you acknowledge that doing so isn't really called for. That makes sense.

Edit to add:

Do you think it is justifiable to put people in jail for having broken a law even though they did not choose to do so?

[Aroura]

I would also like to point out that I AM 100% against punishment for punishments sake. The death penalty, etc, is flat out wrong. Rehab should be priority for people who harm others and/or themselves, and if rehab is not an option, humane ways of protecting the public should be employed (lock-up but not solitary, sunlight, activity, and decent food, etc).

It is why victims should not decide the fate of these people, they will decide with their emotions, instead of their rational minds.

If you apply determinism to a morality of least harm, you get the best society. Ironically, it seems to me that if Jesus existed, he was very much in line with this way of thinking. Truth is I'd probably get along better with him that most people who profess themselves to be Christian! ( Not you, CL, I think you actually do believe in treating everyone as a human, as far as I can tell, and in NOT meting out punishment for punishment's sake alone. Just like Jesus taught. Am I correct?)

I just try and take it a step further and skip forgiveness and go straight to acceptance. That is a really, really, REALLY hard step, but it has helped me deal with things so much. I used to be angry literally all the time, just fuming. I hated everyone and everything for being awful, or I cried daily, trying to understand how people cold be so cruel. Now I just feel a sort of general sadness most days, but no extreme anger or grief. Last week was the first time I'd fallen back into anger in at least 6 months. And that was because someone literally screamed at me and smashed about a dozen dishes right in my face. It left me...upset and off balance for a few days. I lashed out here on AF. But I'm back to acceptance.

Anyway, hope that helps explain things.

Peace.

[Catholic_Lady]

Oh I added one extra question to the post above!

[Aroura]

I'll field that question.  The answer is simple; humans are flawed.  We don't always act rationally.  As a matter of fact, we rarely act rationally!  lol

Our nature is such that we react first with emotions, and apply rational after the fact, in most cases. I do try to apply the rational that I should not get angry since I know people didn't chose to do, say or believe whatever made me angry, but it takes some effort, and I often fail initially, but am so far always able to eventually get past it and accept people as they are, after some work and constant reminding on my own part.  I usually lose it after I've been personally stressed or judged a lot, then it can take time to get back into the "zone".  

This isn't even a new concept. Some eastern philosophies that are much older than christianity use this idea of radical acceptance.  Things are what they are and could not have been any other way, and that it is not only pointless, but harmful to be angry for people being the way they are.  As with most good things in life, and for most people, putting this into practice takes work.  It does not come naturally.  Particularly when we are often taught as children to be all judgy towards ourselves and others.

Here is an old story:
________________________________________________________
"Master, you must help me," said the visitor. "I am at my wit's end."
"What seems to be the problem?" The sage asked.

"I am having a hard time controlling my anger," the visitor said. "It's just the way people are. I see them criticizing others while totally unaware of their own faults. I do not wish to criticize them because I don't want to be like them, but it really upsets me."

"I see," said the sage. "Tell me something first: Aren't you the villager who narrowly escaped death last year?"

"Yes," the visitor nodded. "It was a terrible experience. I ventured too far into the forest and ran into a pack of hungry wolves."

"What did you do?"

"I climbed up a tree just in time before they converged on me. These wolves were big and I had no doubt they could tear me to pieces."

"So you were trapped?"

"Yes. I knew I wouldn't last long without water and food, so I waited for them to relax their guard. When I thought it was safe enough, I would jump down, make a mad dash for the next tree, and then climb up before they converged again."

"This sounds like quite an ordeal."

"Yes - altogether it lasted two days. I thought I would surely die. Luckily a group of hunters approached when I got close enough to the village. The wolves scattered and I was saved."

"I'm curious about one thing," said the sage. "During the experience, were you ever offended by the wolves?"

"What? Offended?"

"Yes. Did you feel offended, or insulted by the wolves?"

"Of course not, Master. That thought never crossed my mind."

"Why not? They wanted nothing more than to bite into you, did they not? They wanted to kill you, did they not?"

"Yes, but... that is what wolves do! They were just being themselves. It would be absurd for me to be take offense."

"Excellent! Now let's hang on to this thought while we examine your question. Criticizing others while being unaware of their own faults is something that many people do. You might even say that it is something we all do from time to time. In a sense, the ravenous wolves live in every one of us.

"When the wolves bare their fangs and close in on you, you should not just stand there. You should certainly protect yourself by getting away from them if at all possible. Similarly, when people lash out at you with venomous criticism, you should not accept it passively. You should certainly protect yourself by putting some distance between you and them if at all possible.

"The crucial point is that you can do so without feeling offended or insulted, because these people are simply being themselves. It is their nature to be critical and judgemental, so it would be absurd for us to take offense. It would be pointless for us to get angry.

"Next time the hungry wolves in human skin converge on you, remember: it's just the way people are - exactly as you said when you came in."
___________________________________________________________
It is something in our nature that we must constantly work to overcome, as we are emotional beings, not Vulcans.

Thanks Aurora. So you're saying that it indeed *doesn't* make sense and *isnt* justifiable to be angry/express anger at people for their behavior or beliefs. But that you do anyway simply because you can't help being angry and sometimes expressing the anger, though you acknowledge that doing so isn't really called for. That makes sense.

Correct, it is not justifiable, nor does it make sense to be angry at people for literally anything.  But as a human, I have emotional responses that really don't make sense.  

Thanks for reading and doing your best to understand.  I really do appreciate it.

---

Oh I added one extra question to the post above!

Oh I missed it.  Hang on a sec.

[Catholic_Lady]

Nvm, just read your post and it already explained it lol.

[brewer]

Subjective/relative morality exists on a sliding scale. Quick example(s): Lying to convict an innocent person = very bad side of the scale. Lying when my wife asks me if those jeans make her butt look fat = not as bad. Stealing a freezer of meat because I don't want to pay but want meat = bad, stealing a freezer of meat to feed starving homeless = not as bad. Man rapes a woman = bad, man rapes a ewe = not as bad????? Each person/society will have a different take on where the action lies on the morality scale. Your still thinking in absolutes, stop it. 

Free will does exist. It does not exist in the presence of an omniscient god, inside or outside of time.

To be clear,  understand some things are worse than others and some things are a grey area. That's not what I was saying.

 
If morals have grey areas then they are not objective/absolute.

[Edwardo Piet]

Me and Aroura are in full agreement here.

---

I just try and take it a step further and skip forgiveness and go straight to acceptance.

Me too.

In a world without any resentment... who would need forgiveness?

"I can never forgive you for that."

"Why? Isn't that a little harsh? "

"No... I can never forgive you for it because I never blamed you in the first place "