(September 29, 2013 at 5:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: Yeah, I know. Your use of mind-existent words is not one of entity, but of labeling. So free will to you is a label for the kinds of brain function involved in making choices. And presumably, morality is a label for the kinds of brain function involved in mediating those choices based on one's world view or an understanding of their social implications.
It's when it comes to enforcing morality that we run into problems. People get all emotional about certain situations: child rape, murder, homosexuality, interracial marriage. They then use morality as the justification for inflicting punishment on others.
So what happens if free will really is a label for a deterministic process (i.e. the person could really not have behaved other than he did)? Punishing that process amounts to punishing determinism itself-- not very fair for the guy getting the electric chair.
Use of all words is one of labeling. So yes, free will is kind of brain-function involved with making choices. Morality, however is not a brain function. Its a set of concepts that exist in mind or brain which are referenced in particular choices. An understanding of social implications is likewise unnecessary.
As for the problem of enforcing morality - it cannot be solved by appealing to some other kind of morality. If a particular morality is being used to justify inflicting punishment on others, then first the application of that morality must be justified.
Further, even in case of using morality to justify punishment, it is not possible to punish a process. As to the question of "acting otherwise than he did" - that depends on the conditions of "given what constraints". If a person acts in a particular manner because it is in his nature, because that is who he is then he bears the responsibility for his actions and punishing him is justified. If his actions are externally constrained, however, then he shouldn't be punished - and often he isn't.
