(May 15, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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?
I basically agree with that there is no objective morality. And I don't believe in free will, only the illusion of free will. Basically, I think we think we experience free will while we don't really. But that just means it comes down to a difference in how we wish to determine a term, it doesn't really matter. The world is what it is. And if we are to call our actions 'truly free' or only 'seemingly free', that still won't change one bit about the reality we live in. We are still to be held accounteable for our actions, otherwise coexistance and order would be impossible.
My own subjective take on morality being different than that of any other person but similar to most does not diminish why I feel angry if someone does something I or the collective deems immoral. I don't see why it should. What exactly is the problem of me being angry at someone who murders my friend, for example? Or even a random stranger on the street? The murderer knows the consequences of his actions, the sorrow and pain and loss and loss of life it brings with... Yet does it anyway. The action and the results are still there. The person that did it still did it. Even if there is free will or not. My reaction will still be there. I don't have 'free will' choose how to feel either, so how is that a hurdle for this exactly?
Also I feel obliged to say that if there is a God that is all-knowing, all-powerful and created this entire world and all the people in it, the belief in 'true free will' should be impossible too. If you believe in a deity like that and in free will, I think you probably hold contradicting views.
(P.S. I didn't go through the entire thread. Sorry if my points have already been mentioned. But then again, you asked for our views.)
