(May 25, 2017 at 6:38 am)eggie Wrote:(May 23, 2017 at 10:27 am)Mr.Obvious Wrote: 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? BE
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.)
I agree that free will is just an illusion. I believe more in nature than nurture, including when it comes to the formation of our character. A good example is risk appetite, which is greater in some than in others. Someone with zero risk appetite is not going to do something risky "by nature", while someone else does. From the outside it might look like free will, but the decision is already precast by our genes expressed in our emotions and feelings.
Good point. Though to me, nature vs nurture doesn't even come into play to us having free will or not. Even if it were 100% nurture, it wouldn't change things. If your previous experiences, conditioning, cultural upbringing... every single possible variable that has come into play regarding you up to the present would still determine your choice. Be it biological or sociological variables.
