morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Catholic_Lady]

I think all those things play a role. A dog can be trained to know that peeing on the carpet is wrong, for example. But of course, that's just bc he'll know he's not supposed to due to his training.

I'm not entirely sure that animals have any free will, but if they do it's certainly not to the same level as us.

[Aroura]

I think all those things play a role. A dog can be trained to know that peeing on the carpet is wrong, for example. But of course, that's just bc he'll know he's not supposed to due to his training.

I'm not entirely sure that animals have any free will, but if they do it's certainly not to the same level as us.

I added another question to my last post, if you don't mind going back and looking.

I'm just trying to figure out what you think causes free-will (haha, no pun intended).

[Catholic_Lady]

I got curious so I googled the question of whether animals do or do not have free will. One of the results was from a Catholic forum where someone asks this question specifically:

https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=452159

Thought it was interesting.

---

I don't think computers have free will lol. They are machines, designed to respond in certain ways you certain commands. They don't have the ability to understand consequences and right from wrong.

Wait, so understanding consequences and telling right from wrong are required for free will?  Or was it thinking at rationality?  Or sentience?

You said you thought animals have some level of free-will.
Can a pig tell right from wrong at any level, and who determines that for the pig?

Edited to add, what if computers someday show all of the above?

Let's say we tell it a is right, b is wrong (Like Asimovs laws of robotics or something), and they become sentient, that is aware of their own existence, and they can think and reason rationally, would they have free-will then?....Hypothetically of course.

I have no idea lol. I can't even fathom a machine being sentient, so it's hard to tell what that would entail.

[Neo-Scholastic]

But not necessarily connected. And for that matter, why should they be?

Supposedly, having true thoughts has some survival value.  I know, rite.  Go figure.

Well, it would seem that in order for that to work, the world would have to be intelligible and at least partially conceivable.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's no more or less difficult to fathom a machine intelligence than it is to fathom a biological intelligence.  Why should it be?  Are you in control of how you feel about that? Which are you, are they exclusive....how can you tell?

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

A machine can already choose not to kill a person.  Voila, moral choice made? What;s all this business about the future?

[Angrboda]

Supposedly, having true thoughts has some survival value.  I know, rite.  Go figure.

Well, it would seem that in order for that to work, the world would have to be intelligible and at least partially conceivable.

You're chasing your own tail, Chad. I never said that the world was completely unintelligible. All that means is that there is some order to the world. It doesn't mean, for instance, that all our perceptions, from sensus divinatatis to the moral sense pick out features from the world. That would be an absurdly hasty generalization. Nor does it mean that reason reflects that order like a mirror.

---

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.

That reflects a doctrinal choice, that free will has to do with God's grace and our responsibility or lack thereof for said gift. As Whateverist intimated, tradition is the illusion of permanence; the fact that somebody before us has thought it through does not grant it any more gravitas.

Are you implying that the monkey isn't acting on a moral impulse? On what grounds?

[SteveII]

You can't have free will without a non-physical process that is capable of physical causation (a mind)

Couldn't the Holy Spirit fill that role?

SteveII, I’d like to know how your think about total depravity. Scripture teaches that in our fallen and corrupted state we are slaves to sin (John 8:34, Titus 3:3, Romans 8:7), that people cannot of their own choice turn towards the Lord (1 Corinthians 2:14, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Mathew 11:27) and it is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that people are called to salvation (John 6:44-45, John 3:27, Romans 9:16).

Also, it certainly seems like God is able to constrain or overpower free will when it suits His purpose, as when Peter denies Christ three times. So generally, it seems to me that libertarian free will in not something natural to man as a conditioned being – only God has unconditioned free will. However, when our hearts and purposes are aligned with His we partake of that unconditioned free will, i.e. Christian Liberty.

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).

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be surprising if babies weren't born "knowing how to sin" since we defined sin along the lines of some common human behaviors.......

The soul, to you, seems to be the thing that does the same stuff that the brain does in any other animal, and in us. Seems awfully redundant. What would the difference between a person with a soul and a person without a soul be? Would they be incapable of choice, woul;d they lack the "go right, go left" command imperative? Would they be less enduring than our already unenduring minds are? Would they be incapable of intent? Would they be immune or untainted by sin, such as that of a tainted soul?

/ shrugs.