The Philosophy Thread

Then it sounds like you lean towards the side that says free will is an illusion?

This raises the question about just how much our environment affects our choices.

 

Well, I suppose some people can’t help but wonder. The idea of free will has puzzled philosophers forever, and is now a question for scientists, too. Are we only controlled by neural processes? Or do we always have genuine control over our actions? It may matter at a societal level. This raises questions about moral responsibility and accountability. Is punishment or retribution always suitable for bad choices? And how we approach things like addiction and mental illness – whether we judge or rehabilitate. And whether or not a person is more likely to say, “It’s not my fault.”

But, yeah, when we come right down to it – what we are talking about is a belief. Some people believe free will is real. Some people believe free will is not real. Does what you believe matter? Does it affect your moral choices?

 

A lot of philosophy feels to me like a pointless argument looking for a reason to happen. Yeah, sure, free will exists among humans. Sure, you'll be predisposed by your environment and experiences to act more along with this set of values than that set of values, but still you have that choice. Some may elect to make it, some won't.

 

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your point. I think you mean accountability for our actions? I apologize.

Yes, if we believe we have free will, then that does increase accountability. And I suppose that is a necessity if we are to have any social order.

 

My husband was a pragmatist, too. Which I guess is a philosophical outlook, too. Looking at alternative explanations, and asking, "Is there a genuine problem here?"

 

I hear freewill, and yet we are driven by other things. Calling our actions freewill seems like an illusion. Maybe we should call it free to override our conscience and make dangerous decisions. But that would be too long.

 

I haven't read the previous posts in anywhere near the detail that they deserve, but here's my take on the free will issue: I think the ultimate answer to the question of whether it exists is either "we'll never know," or more pragmatically, "it doesn't matter anyway."

We live with all the pre-conceptions, prejudices, histories, and genetics with which we were born, and, I believe, we make the apparent choices we seem to see before us with as much choice as we feel we have. That said, I personally feel that we, each and collectively, are evolving to a point at which we can sense -- not see or rationally comprehend -- the best choices, and the better part of each of us will make such choice with the belief that it will positively affect all humankind.

Or something like that. Namaste.

 

That's really interesting that you tied free will to conscience. I guess a conscience is like a set of guard rails on the worst decisions.

It all makes me wonder what came first? What is the cause? What is the effect? - when looking at empathy, conscience and morality. Can you even have morality without empathy?

 

Functionally, no - philosophically, yes?

I like your optimism. And - looking at the bigger unanswerable questions of existence might help us on our way?

 

In Act 1 Scene 5 of Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, Hamlet says to his friend:

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Speaking as a philosophy major -- more than 40 years back -- I concur with Hamlet. Or maybe with t.s. eliot: ""In a minute there is time / For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse." There is and always will be room for argument in philosophy.

 

I beg your pardon. Which "other things" do you mean?

Why is it an illusion to call our choices "free will"?

I don't think "free to override our conscience and make dangerous decisions" is the same as "free will". In simple D&D terms, "making dangerous decisions" sounds like an unlawful (or chaotic) action, i.e. doing something you're not supposed to; and "overriding our conscience" sounds like an "evil" action (or at least one that would harm someone).

To me, "free will" means the ability to choose good or bad, lawful or chaotic (or neither). Bringing "conscience" (i.e. morality) and "dangerous decisions" (i.e. law) into it simply constrains our freedom to do as we please.

Of course, some people try to constrain our 'free will' by imposing legal and moral boundaries. This isn't always a bad thing (e.g. in the case of theft or murder). But when the moral boundaries are not universally shared (e.g. arguments about abortion, gay rights or what have you), that's when we (i.e. the human race) have disagreements.

Some legal boundaries are also not shared. For instance, some countries frown on chewing gum, or spray paint, or what have you. (This is why checking local laws is helpful when you travel).

To sum up: I think that everyone's free will must extend to the outermost limits of not harming others.

If we want the right to live as we see fit, and not as someone else thinks is "correct", then we must extend that right to everyone, regardless of what we think of them.

Finally, we must all resist the urge to make our own petty prejudices into an "ultimate truth", because that's just an excuse for not being better people.

Of course, that's just my opinion. Feel free to take it or leave it.

(And no, I was never a philosophy major. But I do know who's in charge of Hegelian philosophy and who's in charge of the sheep dip ... and why Immanuel Kant was very rarely stable.

Sidney Nolan! What's that?!)

 

Interesting takes, Rath. But I think you might have missed the point of the discussion.

As for your discussion of free will, you, to borrow the original logical phrase, beggared the question of whether we have free will at all; that is, you presumed your answer in your response, presuming that we have free will, and simply need to define the parameters of acceptable behavior.

Let's take the situation of Adolph Hitler. His actions are almost universally condemned (I wish I could say absolutely universally, but sadly this isn't that sort of world). We can presume that he had sufficient intelligence to be aware of the basic principles of acceptable behavior, and violated many of them. But did he do it because he simply chose to for callously selfish reasons, or were there issues in his past, his upbringing, his brain composition, his DNA, or whatever that compelled him to do it? Did he get caught up in a social movement or did he take advantage of it? Was he dropped on his head as a child or seriously abused? Mentally ill and therefore not responsible for his actions? Or was he simply an evil person?

I suggest there are no absolute answer to those questions.

 

Did a little bit of reading this morning. While Hegel and Kant were both concerned with the “universal good” – their approaches differed.

Hegel has a systemic approach (the universal good is the collective good realized through the state) and Kant’s is more an individualist approach (the universal good is found in the rational good will of individuals).

Of course, this all presupposes that a “universal good” exists. And accepting that, what is its nature? Plato and Aristotle didn’t even agree on that.

Plato believed in a supernatural concept - the existence of perfect, unchanging “Forms” – like the “Form of the Good” – that transcends the natural world, are separate from the physical world.

Aristotle’s ideas, on the other hand, are grounded in the natural world, and in practical experience - the universal good exists in individual things and is not a separate entity.

Does “good” even exist outside of human beings? And how do we define “good” behavior in humans?

 

I always relate back to survival of the fittest. Which seems to dominate the animal world and yet we feel it is wrong to steal a family's food because we are bigger and stronger. If that were true, when I got out of the military, I felt I was pretty tough. I could have had my way in the small town I came from. I know when humans break away from society's norms; they are labeled psychotic.

 

I don't think the need to belong to the group can be underestimated. Rewards and punishments? Where do they come from? The group.

Doing "good" usually means doing what aligns with your ability to remain part of the group.

 

Interesting. In that case, I suppose I agree more with Kant than with Hegel (I don't trust the state - or any large business, for that matter - to produce a "collective good").

Where I disagree with Kant, though, is that I believe some people act through a rational good will, and some people combine their rational good will with self-interest. "What's in it for me?" Etc.

No, I don't believe it does. "Good" or "bad" implies a moralistic viewpoint, and we have no evidence to suggest that animals or plants are interested in morals. They're more interested in finding something to eat, somewhere to crap, and a warm place to stay.

(That's not a judgment on animals or plants. Human beings used to be like that before religion came along. Incidentally, when religious people came along, one of the first things they did was skim off everyone else. "Gimme that hunk of meat, I need it to sacrifice to our god!!!"

"But that's all I have to eat--"

"I don't care! Our god is more important!"

Is it a wonder that I distrust organized religion? *sigh* Religious people are fine, but when they start organizing into a big collective, that's when problems start). =(

 

But is goodness always coupled with morality? Is not the perfect sunset good? Is not the twinkling of the stars in the sky good? Is not a waterfall sparkling in the sunlight good?

Is not all of nature good? Is not the fact that we have consciousness good? Is not our very existence good?

We're all organized into one collective or other.

 

If you're referring to the local or immediate group, that's acting upon a headless morality. I agree it's quite common, and serves people well enough, but it's treacherous because it grants as much, rather, more group validation/acceptance as opposed to being consistent with rooted moral principles.

Take speeding while driving. Functionally it gets you from point A to B faster, and you gain the immediate approval of the the driver behind you who also wants to speed. For countless people, that's evidence enough that speeding is the right thing to do. Headless.

Character crumbles in the face of the local group as well. If I've learned anything from the Internet, it's that it is only okay to mock someone's physical traits—in a mean-spirited way—so long as most of your peers also dislike that person.

 

Yes. I'd venture it's printed right on the can. However, when it comes to exercising rhetoric, I do think there are worse topics.

Guilty. I care. It's an offshoot from the broad "Does God do real?" debate that I don't really have a good humanist rebuttal for. See: popcorn husk stuck in gums.

As far as utility goes, yeah I can't imagine any either.

 

This makes me wonder what part of the head is in charge? Is it our rational side or our emotional/instinct side?

But from the evolutionary standpoint, morality grew out a need to meet the norms of the group. It functions in a system of rewards and punishments.

Can there be any such thing as "solitary morality?" Can "moral principles" exist in isolation? I would say no.

I've been in front of that driver! But I don't speed, I move over to the other lane and let them pass. Does that make me more moral than the speeder?

But that is a sign of a morality - or maybe an immorality. But the fact that it is behavior that can be judged as unethical or unprincipled - can only be done in relation to a moral standard.

 

Um, yes? Good and bad are relative moral values. That's one reason I agree with George Carlin's routine on "bad words": words don't have an intrinsic moral value. A word can't be good or bad. It's how you use the word that counts.

Sunsets, twinkling stars in the sky, and sparkling waterfalls, are beautiful. That doesn't inherently make them good. "Good" is a judgement that us humans pass on things, it's very subjective.

No. Nature also includes unpleasant things, like redback spiders, and venomous reptiles, and scorpions, and belladonna, and death cap mushrooms, and coniine, etc.

Nature doesn't care about good or bad. It just is.

That depends. Is it better to have consciousness than not to? Being conscious of pain and misery, or of incurable diseases, isn't that great.

That depends on how you regard existence. Some people are happy with their existence, while others are perfectly miserable. (It should be noted that wealth doesn't come into it; some relatively poor people are still happy, while some rich folks are utterly despondent).

And this reminds me of this song, with music by Sir Arthur Sullivan. (The operetta is set during the days of King Charles I, and sung by Prince Rupert to a group of Puritans, who moan and groan that everything is woeful. So he basically tells them to cheer up).

 

Sure. That goes back 'ought,' but any complicated behaviour is only so many degrees of separation away from that. I distinctly mentioned character because our adherence to certain qualities is an important factor in our own self-esteem. Even if it's someone you think deserves to feel bad, someone with horrible character, you wouldn't reduce yourself to trying to create that feeling by telling him the shape of his nose is a revolting feature. Or... I hope so.

Something's missing here. Where do you think the norms of the group game from? Sure survival, but that's an individual want/need for survival.

Well belladonna is on the medicine/poison spectrum to be fair (atropine), but otherwise I agree that nature is amoral. Parasites are a good example of natural features that some people struggle to associate with the concept of nature for some reason. Nature will lay eggs in the eyes of starving African children. Nature is also a polar bear that will eat your child and wife alive. Nature features the killing instinct, which in effect becomes comparable to humans killing strictly for sport. Nature is tuberculosis (I'm using the definition of nature as separated from humanity here, since I think that's how it's been meant so far).

 

@Rath Darkblade @Not the Territory

Thank you so much for the thoughtful and thought-provoking replies! I am away for the weekend and unfortunately I don't have the opportunity right now to give proper replies, but hopefully will Sunday evening.