A challenge to show me wrong

[Faybull]

I think this summarizes my position. It is easy to say "I couldn't help myself" or "The devil made me do it". I call it the Adam syndrome... blame anyone but yourself.

You don't agree that a person, through their upbringing, can be conditioned to make the wrong decision?

 

[Norman]

In the last month or so there's been an increased interest in free will.

"Defining Free Will" by Penumbra

"God and his free will" by Skwim

"Do Atheists believe in free-will?" by SPLogan

"Freewill or Fate" by The Sum of Awe

"Free Will? Where?" by ejay286
​

This interest has usually centered around the affirmation of free will and/or a denunciation of it. Some very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of these discussions, many well thought out and others not so much. Whatever the case, there's been a frequent problem with some of the terms involved, most often those concerning "free will" and "will." People have either failed to let others know what they had in mind when they use them, or have provided definitions that got mired in misunderstandings and confusion. Even when directly asked to define these terms people have skirted the request, and have proceeded to side topics, leaving the issue of free will no more resolved than before. So what's going on here?

As I see it, free will is important to many because without it would mean each of is nothing more than Robbie the Robot, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If I have no freedom of choice how can I be blamed for what I do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Any exception to free will is seen as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't at all what the issue of free will is about. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think a decent working definition of "free will" is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished.

Those who most disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused then we could not have done differently, therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic level: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice," "choosing,"chosen," or any other form of the word.

Here's how I see it.
There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate, completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that negate any randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless the causes had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. We HAD to do what we did. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, the will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

Of course this means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. If you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .



This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.

Comments?

Norman: Hi Skwim, I do believe that we have free agency, there is no doubt about it. The information I will present is from an e-book that I have from my college days. Choices of morality, ethics, and human behavior. Although I am coming a from criminal psychology perspective, I find it as good information on the topic and is what it really comes down to in regards to our personality, character and conscious. I have bolded what I think is key points in this information. Please let me know what you agree or disagree on in this information?

QUOTE:
Part of what is needed [for public servants] is a public sense of what Madison meant by wisdom and good character: balanced perception and integrity.
Integrity means wholeness in public and private life consisting of habits of justice, temperance, courage, compassion, honesty, fortitude, and disdain for self-pity. Delattre, 1989b: 78–83.

In answer to a similar question, Braswell (2002: 8) explains goals of a study of ethics: Become aware and open to ethical issues. Begin developing critical thinking skills. Develop whole sight (which roughly means exploring with one’s heart as well as one’s mind).

The words morals and ethics are often used in daily conversations. When an individual does a good deed, engages in charitable activities or personal sacrifice, or takes a stand against wrongdoing, we might describe that individual as a moral person. Very often, morals and ethics are used interchangeably. This makes sense because they both come from similar root meanings. The Greek word ethos pertains to custom (behavioral practices) or character, and morals is a Latin word with a similar meaning. Morals and morality refer to what is judged as good conduct. (Immorality refers to bad conduct.) The term moral is also used to describe someone who has the Capacity to make value judgments and discern right from wrong (Souryal, 1992: 12). Ethics refers to the study and analysis of what constitutes good or bad conduct (Barry, 1985: 5; Sherman, 1981: 8).

ETHICAL SYSTEMS: Our principles of right and wrong form a framework for the way we live our lives. But where do they come from? If you believe it is wrong to steal, why do you believe this to be so? You probably said it is because your parents taught you or because your religion forbids it or maybe because society cannot tolerate people harming one another. Your answer is an indication of your ethical system.

Ethical systems are the source of moral beliefs. They are the underlying premises from which you make judgments. Typically, they are beyond argument. That is, although ethical decisions may become the basis of debate, the decisions are based on fundamental truths or propositions that are taken as a given by the individual employing the ethical system. C. E. Harris (1986: 33) refers to such ethical systems as moral theories or moral philosophies, and defines them as a systematic ordering of moral principles. To be accepted as an ethical system, the system of principles must be internally consistent, must be consistent with generally held beliefs, and must possess a type of “moral common sense.” Baelz (1977: 19) further described them as having the following characteristics: 1. They are prescriptive. Certain behavior is demanded or proscribed. They are not just abstract principles of good and bad, but rather, have substantial impact on what we do. 2. They are authoritative. They are not ordinarily subject to debate. Once an ethical framework has been developed, it is usually beyond question. 3. They are logically impartial or universal. Moral considerations arising from ethical systems are not based on favoritism: If something is considered wrong, it is wrong for everyone. Relativism has no place in an ethical framework. 4. They are not self-serving. They are directed toward others; what is good is good for everyone, not just the individual.

DEONTOLOGICAL AND TELEOLOGICAL ETHICAL SYSTEMS: These may be unfamiliar words to you skwim, but the concepts that underlie them will be
very familiar to you. A deontological ethical system is one that is concerned solely with the inherent nature of the act being judged. If an act is inherently good, then even if it results in bad consequences, it is still considered a good act. Teleological systems judge the consequences of an act. An act might look bad, but if it results in good consequences, then it can be defined as good under a teleological system. The phrase “the end justify the means” is a teleological statement. The clearest examples of these two approaches are ethical formalism (a deontological or “nonconsequentialist” system) and utilitarianism (a teleological or “consequentialist” system).

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) believed moral worth comes from doing one’s duty (Kant, 1949). Just as there is the law of the family (father’s rule), the law of the state and country, and the law of international relations, there is also a universal law of right and wrong. Morality, according to Kant, arises from the fact that humans, as rational beings, impose these laws and strictures of behavior upon themselves. The following comprise the principles of Kant’s ethical formalism (Bowie, 1985: 157):

1. Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. In other words, for any decision of behavior to be made, examine whether that behavior would be acceptable if it were a universal law to be followed by everyone. For instance, a student might decide to cheat on a test; but for this action to be moral, the student would have to agree that everyone should be able to cheat on tests. A system such as ethical formalism is considered an absolutist system—if something is wrong, it is wrong all the time, such as murder or lying. An individual cannot control consequences—only actions—therefore, one must act in a moral fashion without regard to potential consequences.

Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical system: what is good is determined by the consequences of the action. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), a major proponent of utilitarianism, believed that the morality of an action should be determined by how much it contributes to the good of the majority. According to Bentham, human nature seeks to maximize pleasure and avoid pain, and a

moral system must be consistent with this natural fact. Other ethical systems is Religion; we can know God’s divine commands through faith and conscience. According to Barry (1985), human beings can “know” God’s will in three ways: 1. Individual conscience. An individual’s conscience is the best source for discovering what God wants one to do. If one feels uncomfortable about a certain action, it is probably wrong. 2. Religious authorities. They can interpret right and wrong for us and are our best source if we are confused about certain actions.

3. Holy scriptures. The third way is to go directly to the Bible, Koran, or Torah as the source of God’s law. Some believe that the written word of God holds the answers to all moral dilemmas (Barry, 1985: 51–54). Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) believed that human reason was sufficient not only to prove the existence of God, but also to discover God’s divine commands (Borchert and Stewart, 1986: 159). Others feel that reason is not sufficient to know God, and that it comes down to unquestioning belief, so reason and knowledge must always be separate from faith (Borchert and Stewart, 1986: 164–171). The Ethics of Virtue: Each of the foregoing ethical systems seeks to define, “What is good action?” The ethics of virtue instead asks the question, “What is a good person?” This ethical system rejects the approach that one might use reason to discover what is good. Instead, the principle is that to be good, one must do good. Virtues that a good person possesses include thriftiness, temperance, humility, industriousness, and honesty. It is a teleological system because it is concerned with acting in such a way as to achieve a good end (Prior, 1991).The specific roots of this system are in the work of Aristotle, who defined virtues as “excellences.” These qualities are what enable an individual to move toward the achievement of what it takes to be human. Aristotle distinguished intellectual virtues (wisdom, understanding) from moral virtues (generosity, self-control). The moral virtues are not sufficient for “the good life”; one must also have the intellectual virtues, primarily “practical reason.”

Summary:

The Major Ethical Systems consist of:
Ethical formalism: What is good is that which conforms to the categorical imperative.
Utilitarianism: What is good is that which results in the greatest utility for the greatest number.
Religion: What is good is that which conforms to God’s will.
Natural law: What is good is that which is natural.
Ethics of virtue: What is good is that which conforms to the Golden Mean.
Ethics of care: What is good is that which meets the needs of those concerned.
Egoism: What is good is that which benefits me.

Sources:

Pollock, Joycelyn.Ethics in Crime and Justice. Morality, Ethics, and Human Behavior. Copyright 2004 Wadsworth / Thomson

Organizational Behavior, Tenth Edition, by Stephen P. Robbins. Published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., an imprint of Pearson Education, Inc. Copyright © 2003
by Pearson Education, Inc.

 

[Norman]

I think this summarizes my position. It is easy to say "I couldn't help myself" or "The devil made me do it". I call it the Adam syndrome... blame anyone but yourself.

Norman: Hi KenS, Well said.

 

[Skwim]

Norman: Hi Skwim, I do believe that we have free agency, there is no doubt about it. The information I will present is from an e-book that I have from my college days. Choices of morality, ethics, and human behavior. Although I am coming a from criminal psychology perspective, I find it as good information on the topic and is what it really comes down to in regards to our personality, character and conscious. I have bolded what I think is key points in this information. Please let me know what you agree or disagree on in this information?

QUOTE:
Part of what is needed [for public servants] is a public sense of what Madison meant by wisdom and good character: balanced perception and integrity.
Integrity means wholeness in public and private life consisting of habits of justice, temperance, courage, compassion, honesty, fortitude, and disdain for self-pity. Delattre, 1989b: 78–83.

In answer to a similar question, Braswell (2002: 8) explains goals of a study of ethics: Become aware and open to ethical issues. Begin developing critical thinking skills. Develop whole sight (which roughly means exploring with one’s heart as well as one’s mind).

The words morals and ethics are often used in daily conversations. When an individual does a good deed, engages in charitable activities or personal sacrifice, or takes a stand against wrongdoing, we might describe that individual as a moral person. Very often, morals and ethics are used interchangeably. This makes sense because they both come from similar root meanings. The Greek word ethos pertains to custom (behavioral practices) or character, and morals is a Latin word with a similar meaning. Morals and morality refer to what is judged as good conduct. (Immorality refers to bad conduct.) The term moral is also used to describe someone who has the Capacity to make value judgments and discern right from wrong (Souryal, 1992: 12). Ethics refers to the study and analysis of what constitutes good or bad conduct (Barry, 1985: 5; Sherman, 1981: 8).

ETHICAL SYSTEMS: Our principles of right and wrong form a framework for the way we live our lives. But where do they come from? If you believe it is wrong to steal, why do you believe this to be so? You probably said it is because your parents taught you or because your religion forbids it or maybe because society cannot tolerate people harming one another. Your answer is an indication of your ethical system.

Ethical systems are the source of moral beliefs. They are the underlying premises from which you make judgments. Typically, they are beyond argument. That is, although ethical decisions may become the basis of debate, the decisions are based on fundamental truths or propositions that are taken as a given by the individual employing the ethical system. C. E. Harris (1986: 33) refers to such ethical systems as moral theories or moral philosophies, and defines them as a systematic ordering of moral principles. To be accepted as an ethical system, the system of principles must be internally consistent, must be consistent with generally held beliefs, and must possess a type of “moral common sense.” Baelz (1977: 19) further described them as having the following characteristics: 1. They are prescriptive. Certain behavior is demanded or proscribed. They are not just abstract principles of good and bad, but rather, have substantial impact on what we do. 2. They are authoritative. They are not ordinarily subject to debate. Once an ethical framework has been developed, it is usually beyond question. 3. They are logically impartial or universal. Moral considerations arising from ethical systems are not based on favoritism: If something is considered wrong, it is wrong for everyone. Relativism has no place in an ethical framework. 4. They are not self-serving. They are directed toward others; what is good is good for everyone, not just the individual.

DEONTOLOGICAL AND TELEOLOGICAL ETHICAL SYSTEMS: These may be unfamiliar words to you skwim, but the concepts that underlie them will be
very familiar to you. A deontological ethical system is one that is concerned solely with the inherent nature of the act being judged. If an act is inherently good, then even if it results in bad consequences, it is still considered a good act. Teleological systems judge the consequences of an act. An act might look bad, but if it results in good consequences, then it can be defined as good under a teleological system. The phrase “the end justify the means” is a teleological statement. The clearest examples of these two approaches are ethical formalism (a deontological or “nonconsequentialist” system) and utilitarianism (a teleological or “consequentialist” system).

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) believed moral worth comes from doing one’s duty (Kant, 1949). Just as there is the law of the family (father’s rule), the law of the state and country, and the law of international relations, there is also a universal law of right and wrong. Morality, according to Kant, arises from the fact that humans, as rational beings, impose these laws and strictures of behavior upon themselves. The following comprise the principles of Kant’s ethical formalism (Bowie, 1985: 157):

1. Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. In other words, for any decision of behavior to be made, examine whether that behavior would be acceptable if it were a universal law to be followed by everyone. For instance, a student might decide to cheat on a test; but for this action to be moral, the student would have to agree that everyone should be able to cheat on tests. A system such as ethical formalism is considered an absolutist system—if something is wrong, it is wrong all the time, such as murder or lying. An individual cannot control consequences—only actions—therefore, one must act in a moral fashion without regard to potential consequences.

Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical system: what is good is determined by the consequences of the action. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), a major proponent of utilitarianism, believed that the morality of an action should be determined by how much it contributes to the good of the majority. According to Bentham, human nature seeks to maximize pleasure and avoid pain, and a

moral system must be consistent with this natural fact. Other ethical systems is Religion; we can know God’s divine commands through faith and conscience. According to Barry (1985), human beings can “know” God’s will in three ways: 1. Individual conscience. An individual’s conscience is the best source for discovering what God wants one to do. If one feels uncomfortable about a certain action, it is probably wrong. 2. Religious authorities. They can interpret right and wrong for us and are our best source if we are confused about certain actions.

3. Holy scriptures. The third way is to go directly to the Bible, Koran, or Torah as the source of God’s law. Some believe that the written word of God holds the answers to all moral dilemmas (Barry, 1985: 51–54). Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) believed that human reason was sufficient not only to prove the existence of God, but also to discover God’s divine commands (Borchert and Stewart, 1986: 159). Others feel that reason is not sufficient to know God, and that it comes down to unquestioning belief, so reason and knowledge must always be separate from faith (Borchert and Stewart, 1986: 164–171). The Ethics of Virtue: Each of the foregoing ethical systems seeks to define, “What is good action?” The ethics of virtue instead asks the question, “What is a good person?” This ethical system rejects the approach that one might use reason to discover what is good. Instead, the principle is that to be good, one must do good. Virtues that a good person possesses include thriftiness, temperance, humility, industriousness, and honesty. It is a teleological system because it is concerned with acting in such a way as to achieve a good end (Prior, 1991).The specific roots of this system are in the work of Aristotle, who defined virtues as “excellences.” These qualities are what enable an individual to move toward the achievement of what it takes to be human. Aristotle distinguished intellectual virtues (wisdom, understanding) from moral virtues (generosity, self-control). The moral virtues are not sufficient for “the good life”; one must also have the intellectual virtues, primarily “practical reason.”

Summary:

The Major Ethical Systems consist of:
Ethical formalism: What is good is that which conforms to the categorical imperative.
Utilitarianism: What is good is that which results in the greatest utility for the greatest number.
Religion: What is good is that which conforms to God’s will.
Natural law: What is good is that which is natural.
Ethics of virtue: What is good is that which conforms to the Golden Mean.
Ethics of care: What is good is that which meets the needs of those concerned.
Egoism: What is good is that which benefits me.

Sources:

Pollock, Joycelyn.Ethics in Crime and Justice. Morality, Ethics, and Human Behavior. Copyright 2004 Wadsworth / Thomson

Organizational Behavior, Tenth Edition, by Stephen P. Robbins. Published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., an imprint of Pearson Education, Inc. Copyright © 2003
by Pearson Education, Inc.

Nice, but I fail to see its relevance to the determinism v. freewill issue. It doesn't even use the word "determinism" or refer to its nature. It's all predicated on the truth of freewill, making all its points within that framework.

 

[Caligula]

I think this summarizes my position. It is easy to say "I couldn't help myself" or "The devil made me do it". I call it the Adam syndrome... blame anyone but yourself.

In most of the cases people blame themselves for the outcome of a decision they made, which has nothing to do with morality. As long as the intention was good why should one morally blame himself? One could admit that the decision he took was wrong in terms of implementation rather than intention.
Do you think you can provide many examples of people that thought of themselves as being or doing evil/bad?
The request for one to morally blame himself comes from the incorrect assumption that his intentions were all along evil and that happens more rarely than we would like to think.

 

[Norman]

Nice, but I fail to see its relevance to the determinism v. freewill issue. It doesn't even use the word "determinism" or refer to its nature. It's all predicated on the truth of freewill, making all its points within that framework.

Norman: Hi Skwim, Oh, shoot sorry, I did miss your main point of view about determinism; Thank you for pointing that out, back the drawing board. I head just is not screwed on these days.