morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Edwardo Piet]

I think all arguments for "no free will" are nonsense.

I think all arguments for "free will" are nonsense.

Of course there are actions that humans will take based on past experience, even evolution. That does not eliminate independent actions not constrained by the past. 

If determinism is true then all actions are determined by prior causes stretching all the way back to the first cause/the big bang/the singularity.

The whole idea of "independent actions" (as in, actions independent from causation) is just hocus pocus.

The christian definition of omniscient god = only the illusion of free will.

Determinism entails exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons.

This is one of the incompatible parts of the fantasy that christians refuse to admit.

And all philosophical libertarians also refuse to admit.

I expect we will see some tap dancing soon.

I've already seen you tap dancing when you speak of our "independent actions" being independent from causation. We're human, not magic.

It should take the form of, we get to make our own definitions, rationalizations and inconsistencies, it's our fantasy.

That's exactly what compatabilists do with free will, too. They attempt to avoid the classic problem of free will by redefining the terms rather than addressing the question.

Sam Harris is right: Compatabilism resembles theology.

[brewer]

I think all arguments for "no free will" are nonsense.

I think all arguments for "free will" are nonsense.

Of course there are actions that humans will take based on past experience, even evolution. That does not eliminate independent actions not constrained by the past. 

If determinism is true then all actions are determined by prior causes stretching all the way back to the first cause/the big bang/the singularity.

The whole idea of "independent actions" (as in, actions independent from causation) is just hocus pocus.

The christian definition of omniscient god = only the illusion of free will.

Determinism entails exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons.

This is one of the incompatible parts of the fantasy that christians refuse to admit.

And all philosophical libertarians also refuse to admit.

I expect we will see some tap dancing soon.

I've already seen you tap dancing when you speak of our "independent actions" being independent from causation. We're human, not magic.

It should take the form of, we get to make our own definitions, rationalizations and inconsistencies, it's our fantasy.

That's exactly what compatabilists do with free will, too. They attempt to avoid the classic problem of free will by redefining the terms rather than addressing the question.

Sam Harris is right: Compatabilism resembles theology.

Isn't this your masturbation time?

[SteveII]

THat does not change the fact that redefining free will so that it is impossible for a person to have it is not proof that a person does not have free will.

The definition of omniscient god eliminates the possibility of free will. Why do you have a problem with other peoples definitions?

Depends on God's source of omniscience. I think it is derived from his middle knowledge (defined as God knows without error what we will freely choose to do because he knows every fact and factor up to that point and what we would choose in any circumstance--including counterfactuals) and not because he has been to the future and seen it happen.

[brewer]

The definition of omniscient god eliminates the possibility of free will. Why do you have a problem with other peoples definitions?

Depends on God's source of omniscience. I think it is derived from his middle knowledge (defined as God knows without error what we will freely choose to do because he knows every fact and factor up to that point and what we would choose in any circumstance--including counterfactuals) and not because he has been to the future and seen it happen.

bold mine

Yep, alter the fantasy to make it into what you want. Now there are different kind of omniscience. Comfortable now?

[Edwardo Piet]

I think all arguments for "free will" are nonsense.


If determinism is true then all actions are determined by prior causes stretching all the way back to the first cause/the big bang/the singularity.

The whole idea of "independent actions" (as in, actions independent from causation) is just hocus pocus.


Determinism entails exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons.


And all philosophical libertarians also refuse to admit.


I've already seen you tap dancing when you speak of our "independent actions" being independent from causation. We're human, not magic.


That's exactly what compatabilists do with free will, too. They attempt to avoid the classic problem of free will by redefining the terms rather than addressing the question.

Sam Harris is right: Compatabilism resembles theology.

Isn't this your masturbation time?

It's always my masturbation time.

[Catholic_Lady]

Of course there are all sorts of things that can influence us and our decision making. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. But at the end of the day (excluding special circumstances like mental illness) we are still responsible for our behavior. We still have the ability to make choices.

[Edwardo Piet]

So as I said in another post, suffering can often times be for the best. That doesn't really jive with saying that suffering is inherently immoral in and of itself, and that suffering literally = wrongness. And as such, doesn't jive with basing morality entirely on suffering. 

Well, of course, because I believe suffering is wrong in and of itself I also believe that if it's a choice between suffering a little and suffering a lot... suffering a little is objectively better.

Also, if I cheat on my husband and he never finds out, it won't hurt him. He won't suffer from it or be less happy for it.

Yes, but you can't know that he wouldn't find out.... and you'd also worry about him finding out even if he never does... so even if it doesn't cause him distress, it would cause you distress.

The harm it does both to the partner and yourself, is, IMO, the whole reason it's deemed immoral in the first place.

 If I steal $10 from a rich person so that I can buy a pack of cigarettes, and they never find out, it won't effect them in the least bit. No suffering will come to that rich person and they won't be less happy.

Suffering will come to yourself though.... because cigarettes are bad for you.

And I do think that, despite they won't suffer, they'd be better off with a little more money. It could be sent to charity rather than spent on cigarettes.

I think there are many holes and flaws in the notion that immorality is entirely based on suffering.

I don't think so. I think harm naturally produces an obligation to help. The very essence of morality is reducing as much suffering as realistically possible in the long run and as causing as little harm as possible in the long run.

---

Of course there are all sorts of things that can influence us and our decision making. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. But at the end of the day (excluding special circumstances like mental illness) we are still responsible for our behavior. We still have the ability to make choices.

Socially and legally people hold us that way. And with good reason.... but the reality of the matter is... prior causes don't just influence our decision making. They cause it. It's like Galen Strawson said:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

[Catholic_Lady]

So you think suffering because you're working out or doing homework is still wrong, just not AS wrong as not doing those things?

Also, the fact that I'd be stealing to buy cigarettes wasn't the point lol. Fine, let's say I stole $10 from a rich person to buy myself a pretty necklace.

Your argument that suffering = wrongness isn't getting any better.

[Whateverist]

My understanding is only reason to think we do not have free will is to presuppose naturalism. So it is not a belief the atheists necessarily wants to believe, it is one they are stuck with. Same with morality--most people actually believe there are objective moral truths, but the atheist can't admit that because it is a necessary conclusion of naturalism that there is not.

That's exactly right. The notion that the physical universe is causally closed is the unfalsifiable second-order principle.

But I presuppose naturalism without doubting free will. Given a choice, why would anyone presuppose supernaturalism? I am fiercely pro natural world, proud to be a natural animal and think everyone with a lofty idea of themselves as a free floating/radically free willing disembodied mind is just off their rocker. Being an animal is a great privilege, being a deluded and pompous non-naturalist is ... unnatural!

---

Even monkeys can evolve group protective emotions.

Nature for the F'in win suckers!

[Aroura]

Harm reduction is the basis for most morality in most society. That does not make it objectively correct, but at least it has a testable basis that makes sense.

Harm to society must be considered as well as individual harm is considered, which I think Hammy is neglecting to mention. Gayness was once considered wrong for this reason, the claim that it harmed society, not the individuals. Once it was demonstrated it caused no societal harm, people began to reject the arguments of it's imorality.

Someone who steals any amount of money will likely do so again. Even if the 10 bucks did not directly harm the thief or the victim this time, the act itself is harmful to society, because it erodes trust in the individual. And the next time they steal it could cause more direct harm. The behavior has a high harm potential to individuals and groups, so we call it immoral.

However, if a starving child in some country where there is no social welfare program steals a piece of bread, most people would no longer consider that act completely imoral, though it remains illegal. That is because it is reducing the net suffering when there are no other options. Who is the villain, the rich people who refuse to help feed the poor, or the poor who do what they must to survive? Aladdin or Jafar? Robin Hood or Prince John? Valjean or Javert? Etc etc etc.
Morality, like most things, works on a sliding scale, not just 2 states of is or isn't.

Stealing isn't blaket imoral, because there are times when it reduces more suffering than it causes. If it has no net harm reduction, as in your 10 bucks analogy, then it is considered imoral, though minorly so at time, as the behavior of stealing without the intent to reduce harm or suffering will eventually cause harm and/or suffering.