Free will deniers

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I had a mentor in the past whom I met again after 10 years. A philosophy professor. He told me something about free will: there are several kinds of people. Those with enormous volition that use their willpower to do either good things or bad things; and there are people with scarce volition who are too scared to use their own free will, for they don't want to commit mistakes. There are so many shades of individualistic cases inbetween.
He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.
They deny free will exists because admitting it does exist would make them feel guilty of all that they have done unto others.
It's a self-defense mechanism not to feel guilty.
What do you think, guys?

I think most of the question of whether we have free will comes down to semantics.

The term can be interpreted a few different ways. In my experience, once we drill down on "what do you mean by 'free will'?" to the point where we can answer without there being confusion, answering the question tends to be pretty straightforward.

 

[Left Coast]

I think having any sort of coherent ethics requires us to believe that human agency exists, ie the ability to do other than what we do. If there isn't, how can anyone be held accountable for actions they take? "Free will" is a misnomer in that we have all sorts of limitations imposed on our choices. But we do have some degree of choice, nonetheless.

 

[Nakosis]

There's atheistic determinism, as well.

I understand, I don't particularly agree with that view either.
I believe in free will. I just don't assume the motivation for everyone who denies free will.

 

[Koldo]

I proved that it does exist because I was free to do otherwise.

Then all you have to do is prove that you were free to do otherwise.

As I said, you can't even imagine how I love pork.
Becoming a vegetarian was a huge sacrifice. But I succeeded. I did otherwise.

No. We don't do "otherwise". That's a huge misunderstanding, because this has nothing to do with taking a side on this debate.

We choose one alternative, out of many. Being free to do otherwise just means that if everything was equal at the time of your choice you could, de facto, have chosen to do something else.

Now I am going to take a side, and make a contentious claim: It doesn't make sense to think that you could have made a different choice if everything was the same, because that would entail even what motivates your choice being the same.

 

[Koldo]

I think having any sort of coherent ethics requires us to believe that human agency exists, ie the ability to do other than what we do. If there isn't, how can anyone be held accountable for actions they take? "Free will" is a misnomer in that we have all sorts of limitations imposed on our choices. But we do have some degree of choice, nonetheless.

Doesn't this lead to an appeal to consequences though?

 

[Left Coast]

Doesn't this lead to an appeal to consequences though?

It's not that the consequences of denying human agency is just something we don't like or wouldn't prefer. It's that it makes ethical discussion incoherent. If you don't believe ethical discussion is incoherent - if you believe it's just and reasonable to hold people morally accountable for what they do - then you know there must be some problem with the premise that we have no agency.

 

[Koldo]

I guess you have had sex in your life.
Does someone force you to have sex? Is there a deity or a person that forces you to have sex?

No. Sex is the evidence of free will. We have sex because we want to. It's our free will.

Doing something because you want to do it is also compatible with saying that free will doesn't exist. This is a common mistake though.

Let me ask you like this: Imagine that I am a powerful wizard and that as soon as you are born I cast a spell on you. I have absolute control over what you want to do. I can manipulate your 'want'. Through your entire life, every single time you feel like you want to do something it is because I chose that to happen. You however are unaware of this spell... Until now. I just told you what is going on. Would say that every time you had sex because you wanted to was an act of your own free will?

 

[Estro Felino]

Then all you have to do is prove that you were free to do otherwise.



No. We don't do "otherwise". That's a huge misunderstanding, because this has nothing to do with taking a side on this debate.

We choose one alternative, out of many. Being free to do otherwise just means that if everything was equal at the time of your choice you could, de facto, have chosen to do something else.

Now I am going to take a side, and make a contentious claim: It doesn't make sense to think that you could have made a different choice if everything was the same, because that would entail even what motivates your choice being the same.

With all due respect.
Give me an example of a choice that is not made freely. An example of unfree will.

 

[Estro Felino]

Doing something because you want to do it is also compatible with saying that free will doesn't exist. This is a common mistake though.

Let me ask you like this: Imagine that I am a powerful wizard and that as soon as you are born I cast a spell on you. I have absolute control over what you want to do. I can manipulate your 'want'. Through your entire life, every single time you feel like you want to do something it is because I chose that to happen. You however are unaware of this spell... Until now. I just told you what is going on. Would say that every time you had sex because you wanted to was an act of your own free will?

I wouldn't say that...but since magic doesn't exist and wizards are just inventions...
I know that we decide to have sex.

The evidence is that we have preferences. We don't have sex with anyone.
We choose our partners. That's another evidence of free will. Free choice.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think most of the question of whether we have free will comes down to semantics.

The term can be interpreted a few different ways. In my experience, once we drill down on "what do you mean by 'free will'?" to the point where we can answer without there being confusion, answering the question tends to be pretty straightforward.

That's why I kindly ask you to define free will before denying it or okaying it.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think having any sort of coherent ethics requires us to believe that human agency exists, ie the ability to do other than what we do. If there isn't, how can anyone be held accountable for actions they take? "Free will" is a misnomer in that we have all sorts of limitations imposed on our choices. But we do have some degree of choice, nonetheless.

I was wondering this: if the human being is so imperfect and so similar to animals (animals have instinct, they don't decide anything), I don't see what is the point of continuing our species.
Why do people decide to create other imperfect beings through procreation?

There is an enormous contradiction. If you believe you are imperfect, why would you make more imperfect beings?

 

[Nakosis]

Now I am going to take a side, and make a contentious claim: It doesn't make sense to think that you could have made a different choice if everything was the same, because that would entail even what motivates your choice being the same.

I'll disagree here. My motivations are part of me. Part of who I am. It is a mistake to say my motivations are something I cannot change during the choice process. So everything being the same does not include my motivation having to be the same.

I can have several motivations that I can chose among to drive my ultimate choice. Maybe it's greed, maybe it's fairness, maybe it's fear. Until the point I have decided which of my motivations to go with, the possibility of what I choose remains open. You can't assume I have only one singular motivation. I can have many motivations to choose from to decide which action I finally choose.

 

[Estro Felino]

I understand, I don't particularly agree with that view either.
I believe in free will.

Ah, great.

 

[Curious George]

Keep in mind that a "free will denier" doesn't deny that we have will. We make choices... but those choices aren't free. The choices we make are determined by prior causes. They don't spontaneously arise like they appear to. A person could recognize that his "choices" (even though they aren't free) do a great deal to affect the events that transpire in his life. When I wake up in the morning I select between oatmeal or cornflakes. No denier of free will says that such a process of selection doesn't take place. It obviously does.

Consider a hypothetical world which we know is deterministic. An extremely rich person in such a world may, due to environmental influences, end up having an internal locus of control. An extremely poor prostitute in the very same world may end up having an external locus of control. The metaphysics of the issue have no bearing on what people learn psychologically.

But now you have placed “choices” in quotes perhaps because you see the problem. There is no “choice” if we live in a deterministic world. On one level you can say that bob was “chose” oatmeal, but he didn’t really- we would just being saying this for convenience. Bob did what bob was always going to do. If one were to truly believe that free will did not exist, then they would have to believe that they had no control over any aspect of their life. Deterministic minded people get around this by noting that free will is an illusion to which even they succumb.

 

[Curious George]

It means at that point you don't have free will. Like if you are in prison your free will is severely restricted.
As I said part of free will is looking at the possibilities of what you can actually choose from. Not the ability to choose something that is impossible for you to do.

I don’t think anyone maintains that one can do things outside of their control with “free will.”

 

[Koldo]

It's not that the consequences of denying human agency is just something we don't like or wouldn't prefer. It's that it makes ethical discussion incoherent. If you don't believe ethical discussion is incoherent - if you believe it's just and reasonable to hold people morally accountable for what they do - then you know there must be some problem with the premise that we have no agency.

Must our belief that it is just and reasonable to hold people morally accountable for what they do be based on facts?

What if we are wrong? Can't we be wrong?

It definitely sounds like you are accepting free will because of what rejecting it would entail.

Putting that side aside for a moment, I don't really think that moral responsibility depends on free will.

 

[Koldo]

With all due respect.
Give me an example of a choice that is not made freely. An example of unfree will.

If you don't believe in free will, then every choice is not freely made and therefore an example of unfree will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's why I kindly ask you to define free will before denying it or okaying it.

Okay - here's one definition that I think is reasonable:

The ability of a thinking agent to choose to act on their desires.

By that definition, I'd say that the answer to "do we have free will?" is a trivial yes.

 

[Koldo]

I wouldn't say that...but since magic doesn't exist and wizards are just inventions...
I know that we decide to have sex.

Great. But it helps illustrating that it is wrong to say there mere act of acting according to what you want to do is sufficient to establish that you have free will.

 

[Estro Felino]

Okay - here's one definition that I think is reasonable:

The ability of a thinking agent to choose to act on their desires.

By that definition, I'd say that the answer to "do we have free will?" is a trivial yes.

Free will is the English translation to liberum arbitrium, a concept that philosophers have never trivialized.
It's something very complex: it's the capability to do what you want to do, but in the context of an universal awareness.
Universal awareness is being aware that we, as human beings, have all legitimate desires and aspirations.

So, if my desire doesn't harm anyone, it's legitimate. Because it doesn't harm another's freedom to choose.