morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Catholic_Lady]

People on the forum I posted are describing free will as the ability to make moral choices. I think that's the best and simplest way to put it. Of course, in order to do that we need to have a certain level of sentience, intelligence, and rational thought. Not sure if animals or any future machine have enough of all those things to attain the ability to make moral choices.

So picking the type of pizza you eat has nothing to do with it, and isn't a demonstration of free will, then.
Would you agree that the only free will you have has to do with moral choices, and all your other choices are determined, then?  That is what it sounds like you are saying.

No, I think picking which pizza to eat is still freely chosen. But with that example, we usually just pick whichever one tastes better to us, so we're not really exercising much thought. It *could* be a moral choice, like if you pick the opposite of what you want so that your friend can have it, but in most circumstances ppl will just go for whats tastier to them. Having the ability to understand the differences between right and wrong and acting accordingly is much more definitive. That's why I think it's the best way to describe free will.

It is possible that animals may have a certain level of free will, inferior to ours. I started off saying they probably have some, but then thought maybe they don't have any. I don't know. I've never studied animals or animal behavior.

---

Well, I call the immaterial mind that governs reason, freely chooses action, is the conscious command center of the body, is the enduring "I", and the thing that can be intentional about something the soul. I believe our soul is tainted by sin and we cannot do anything about that. Anyone who has had a 2 year old child can attest to the fact that we are born knowing how to sin.

I am not a Calvinist-- I think we have libertarian free will and God's foreknowledge is routed in his middle knowledge (molinism).

I am frankly nauseated by this doctrine.  As if a child learning how to behave (through often misbehaving) is sin.  

I sincerely hope you do not taint any little minds with this sick perversion that will instill in them an unnecessary self hate for the rest of their lives.  Ick.

I would agree with him that we are born with a tendency to sin. Though we consider the age of reason to be 7, so I think 2 is much too young.

---

I was going to answer but hit backspace until it was deleted. Using "gawd" is obnoxious and I don't discuss things with obnoxious people.

So, you expect to come to an atheist site and have us all walk on eggshells around your sensibilities? Get bent.

I think he's simply saying that though you can talk to him whichever way you want, it doesn't mean he'll want to engage with you.

---

So picking the type of pizza you eat has nothing to do with it, and isn't a demonstration of free will, then.
Would you agree that the only free will you have has to do with moral choices, and all your other choices are determined, then?  That is what it sounds like you are saying.

Also, the idea that animals do not have morals is False, as has already been linked.
The bear in the hypothetical forum example posed is a perfect example.  The bear might kill the animal if the bear is hungry.  But the EXACT same scenario applies to a human.  A hungry human will chose to eat another weak animal.  A cared for animal will suddenly care about other animals.  Hippo's saving baby ducks, anyone?
It is only when animals are not driven by base needs that they have the ability to worry much about morals, and mammals all show this.  Elephants, bears, pigs, apes.

This is explained through Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Which my husband recently studied, his minor is in psychology, so we get a lot of this kind of discussion at home).

No, I think picking which pizza to eat is still freely chosen. But with that example, we usually just pick whichever one tastes better to us, so we're not really exercising much thought. It *could* be a moral choice, like if you pick the opposite of what you want so that your friend can have it, but in most circumstances ppl will just go for whats tastier to them. Having the ability to understand the differences between right and wrong and acting accordingly is much more definitive. That's why I think it's the best way to describe free will.

I guess to put it in short, free will is best measured by our ability to make moral choices. Not that all morally neutral choices we make aren't freely chosen.