Free Will & Morality

[EverChanging]

I have just made a post on the topic of free will and morality. I know that some Thelemites and probably some Luciferians disbelieve in free will in a libertarian sense as do I, nor am I persuaded by compatiblism.

Do you think that a disbelief in free will and ultimate moral responsibility undermines moral objectivity? Are not moral codes simply assertions that the laws of physics ought not to have manifested the way they did in a given life form?

 

[EverChanging]

It is unclear from the above what you believe concerning the nature of 'Human Will.' Do you believe in determinism?

Different forms of Compatibilism are the most workable between the libertarian, and a deterministic view.

I consider the view of ultimate moral responsibility? needs more explanation, and as it is stated remains problematic.
I believe more in the group and cultural responsibility, as the determiner of morality. There are too many factors such as genetic and mental illness as examples that bring to question individual 'ultimate' moral responsibility on the individual level.

Moral Objective views are likewise unrealistic in the extreme. It is weak and mechanistic to believe in morality in the rigid black and white, or true and false paradigm. Predictive workable consistent social systems have existed as long as humans have existed, and in primitive forms in primates and some other mammals.

Scientific determinism is very important in the predictability of Methodological Naturalism, but there are limits. The fractal nature of our existence creates a range of predictable outcomes, and as the variables increase, the range of predictable outcomes increases, In terms of human and animal behavior and morality much of it is determined by the evolutionary survival paradigm, but given the natural variability of outcomes there is room for free will, but it is too difficult to rigidly determine that any one decision is the product of a free will or determined or by degrees.
,

I am agnostic as to how far determinism extends but do not believe any random component increases freedom or moral responsibility in the sense that one could have behaved differently in a situation given identical causes and conditions.

 

[EverChanging]

I am agnostic as to how far determinism extends but do not believe any random component increases freedom or moral responsibility in the sense that one could have behaved differently in a situation given identical causes and conditions.

And I have assumed this is the case for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[EverChanging]

And I have assumed this is the case for the purpose of this discussion.

I confused this thread with the other: I did not necessarily confine this discussion to those assumptions.

 

[crossfire]

I have just made a post on the topic of free will and morality. I know that some Thelemites and probably some Luciferians disbelieve in free will in a libertarian sense as do I, nor am I persuaded by compatiblism.

Do you think that a disbelief in free will and ultimate moral responsibility undermines moral objectivity? Are not moral codes simply assertions that the laws of physics ought not to have manifested the way they did in a given life form?

I don't know of any Luciferians who don't believe in volition and free-will.

 

[Liu]

I don't know of any Luciferians who don't believe in volition and free-will.

To continue the recent short discussion on the differences between Luciferians and Satanists - you may just have found one, even though not a hard criterion:
I think the belief in determinism (i.e. no free will) seems rather common among Satanists, at least compared to people of other religions.

I guess the thread is mostly directed at Luciferians, but just for the record: I don't believe in free will, and this is one of my main reasons for believing in amorality. Therefore, if people in this thread believe in free will, then I would assume they also will believe in some form of morality.

 

[crossfire]

To continue the recent short discussion on the differences between Luciferians and Satanists - you may just have found one, even though not a hard criterion:
I think the belief in determinism (i.e. no free will) seems rather common among Satanists, at least compared to people of other religions.

I see it as being more common with hard-core materialists, with carnally-oriented Satanists being a subset of materialists.

I guess the thread is mostly directed at Luciferians,

Well it is the Luciferian DIR

but just for the record: I don't believe in free will, and this is one of my main reasons for believing in amorality. Therefore, if people in this thread believe in free will, then I would assume they also will believe in some form of morality.

I can see how it would follow that you can't follow any moral code if you are just following your programming. However, we "sinners" {who break our programming } may or may not believe in morality, but a belief in a Universal Morality would be less likely, as "breaking our programming" does not follow a specific formula--each individual is different--so how each individual chooses to bring "order out of chaos" may include a subjective moral code.

 

[crossfire]

I don't know of any Luciferians who don't believe in volition and free-will.

Most of the basic practices of Luciferianism are based on the the premises of violation and free-will. Many Luciferian practices and principles would become meaningless without these premises. The results from Luciferian practices seems to suggest that there is volition and free-will for those who chose to plug into them.

 

[Liu]

Well it is the Luciferian DIR

There have been threads in these sub-DIRs that were directed to all members of the meta-DIR. So these sub-DIRs I'm never sure where I'm welcome to post or not. I haven't been thrown out of any sub-DIR here so far although I made it always clear that I don't identify with it.

I can see how it would follow that you can't follow any moral code if you are just following your programming. However, we "sinners" {who break our programming } may or may not believe in morality, but a belief in a Universal Morality would be less likely, as "breaking our programming" does not follow a specific formula--each individual is different--so how each individual chooses to bring "order out of chaos" may include a subjective moral code.

Sure, there is a difference between the belief in a universal morality and having a subjective moral code. But the latter would be something based on our feelings (no matter where those come from), and not something I would normally call morals.

Regarding "breaking our programming"... I would rather say that we are "programmed" even to do something that seems like that.

 

[crossfire]

There have been threads in these sub-DIRs that were directed to all members of the meta-DIR. So these sub-DIRs I'm never sure where I'm welcome to post or not. I haven't been thrown out of any sub-DIR here so far although I made it always clear that I don't identify with it.

Don't worry about it. {I posted it as a blinding flash of the obvious in that it was geared towards Luciferians.}

Sure, there is a difference between the belief in a universal morality and having a subjective moral code. But the latter would be something based on our feelings (no matter where those come from), and not something I would normally call morals.

Morals may be unconscious or conscious. Ethics is the conscious application of philosophy to morality.

Regarding "breaking our programming"... I would rather say that we are "programmed" even to do something that seems like that.

Some people also consciously fight with themselves to break their persistent bad habits and addictions (unconscious programming.) This is an important practice within Luciferianism.

 

[Liu]

Morals may be unconscious or conscious. Ethics is the conscious application of philosophy to morality.

Makes sense - it just seems strange to make it a topic of philosophy if it's subjective morals, i.e. basically one's feelings, that one is taking about.

Some people also consciously fight with themselves to break their persistent bad habits and addictions (unconscious programming.) This is an important practice within Luciferianism.

I'd beg to differ, that is (or at least can be) an important practice within any kind of LHP-spirituality.

By the way...

I see it as being more common with hard-core materialists, with carnally-oriented Satanists being a subset of materialists.

Regarding carnal... what do you even define as such?
Sex, food and such?
Is material wealth a form of carnality? What if it consists of art or intellectual books?

It depends on the situation, but normally I value "non-carnal" things more than "carnal" things simply because I take more enjoyment from them.

Also "materialism" has several meanings.
Normally I understand by it the belief that everything is based of matter/energy, that the mind is caused by that and that there is nothing supernatural. More or less the same as physicalism.
But you seem to be referring to another meaning of it, like Economic materialism - Wikipedia
By that definition at least I'm not a materialist. I mean, I enjoy having tasty food in the fridge, clothes that I like in my wardrobe, and interesting e-books on my computer, but the only things I own for the heck of owning them are those parts of my CD, video game and book collections that are gathering dust, and even most of those ones I intend to listen to, play or read one day. Normally I only acquire things if they have a specific use to me, and rather borrow than buy.

And anyone who is a materialist by that definition would seem like a very boring person to me.

 

[crossfire]

Makes sense - it just seems strange to make it a topic of philosophy if it's subjective morals, i.e. basically one's feelings, that one is taking about.

The driving force of Luciferianism is the bringing of unconscious mental processes into consciousness for examination to either find the wisdom behind the practice or to expose and correct unconscious fallacy. Ethics--the application of philosophy to morality is doing exactly that--bringing morality into consciousness and intellectually examining and critiquing it.

Some people also consciously fight with themselves to break their persistent bad habits and addictions (unconscious programming.) This is an important practice within Luciferianism.

I'd beg to differ, that is (or at least can be) an important practice within any kind of LHP-spirituality.

If you don't believe in free-will, then how is it possible to fight against and change your unconscious programming?

By the way...
Regarding carnal... what do you even define as such?
Sex, food and such?
Is material wealth a form of carnality? What if it consists of art or intellectual books?

Carnal = "relating to the physical" i.e., the material

It depends on the situation, but normally I value "non-carnal" things more than "carnal" things simply because I take more enjoyment from them.

Also "materialism" has several meanings.
Normally I understand by it the belief that everything is based of matter/energy, that the mind is caused by that and that there is nothing supernatural. More or less the same as physicalism.
But you seem to be referring to another meaning of it, like Economic materialism - Wikipedia
By that definition at least I'm not a materialist. I mean, I enjoy having tasty food in the fridge, clothes that I like in my wardrobe, and interesting e-books on my computer, but the only things I own for the heck of owning them are those parts of my CD, video game and book collections that are gathering dust, and even most of those ones I intend to listen to, play or read one day. Normally I only acquire things if they have a specific use to me, and rather borrow than buy.

And anyone who is a materialist by that definition would seem like a very boring person to me.

Again, carnal = "relating to the physical" i.e., the material

 

[Liu]

The driving force of Luciferianism is the bringing of unconscious mental processes into consciousness for examination to either find the wisdom behind the practice or to expose and correct unconscious fallacy. Ethics--the application of philosophy to morality is doing exactly that--bringing morality into consciousness and intellectually examining and critiquing it.

If you don't believe in free-will, then how is it possible to fight against and change your unconscious programming?

Because that unconscious programming is not one consistent thing, but consists of a lot of different parts. One's will and actions are decided by the dynamics between those parts. Even your ideology of believing in this kind of self-improvement is something you follow because of what I would summarize as your programming.

As an example, say I'm in a situation where I have both the desire to spend my time playing a game or reading a book. A typical motivation for wanting to play a game could be for example knowing that I will have fun playing it.
But I may still decide on reading a book because I may have other motivations for that that are stronger, e.g. needing the information in it, expecting that I will have fun reading it, wanting to get the feeling of having accomplished decreasing my to be read-pile or similar, having made a promise that I will read it, and so on and so forth. All such motivations could of cause also apply to the game.
Depending on which motivations win out, I decide on one thing or another.
I haven't studied psychology, but that's my impression of how it works.

And so, if I notice after having spent all the day with games that this has negative consequences for me (e.g. neglecting other tasks, gotten addicted and continued due to that instead of out of actual fun, regret that I now have no time left to spend with other things I had enjoyed more, ...) I may change my attitude towards playing games and decide differently the next time I am in a similar situation. And that attitude adjustment can happen both consciously and unconsciously, I would think.

You seem to make a categorical difference between different kinds of motivations (id vs. super-ego in another thread recently). But that dichotomy seems not very helpful to me.

Carnal = "relating to the physical" i.e., the material

Okay, that's close enough to what I understood by it. However, I don't normally make that strong a difference between the planes.

I mean, for example sex is certainly something carnal. But one can also get turned on by not physical things, even things that are not even depictions of physical things. Are those feelings then still carnal?

Are people carnal if they like to work on their physical appearance (e.g. by making sports, putting on make-up or whatever) because they enjoy the attention and positive feedback they get from other people due to their behaviour?

 

[crossfire]

Because that unconscious programming is not one consistent thing, but consists of a lot of different parts. One's will and actions are decided by the dynamics between those parts. Even your ideology of believing in this kind of self-improvement is something you follow because of what I would summarize as your programming.

My ego is beholden by my id? Perhaps. My unconscious mind is a heck of a lot smarter than my conscious mind. However, if my id really is responsible for my ego, and is serious about this conscious examination thing, then it would behoove the id to give the ego the freedom (free-will) to actually do just that. Even my relatively unintelligent ego can recognize that failure to do so is only propagating self-delusion. If my id truly wants the power to rewrite its programming, then it must grant the power to do so intelligently. (Intelligence means to pick out, read, select. If you don't grant the power to freely and intelligently select (free-will,) then the id is still propagating self-delusion, and is not rewriting its programming intelligently (by definition.)

As an example, say I'm in a situation where I have both the desire to spend my time playing a game or reading a book. A typical motivation for wanting to play a game could be for example knowing that I will have fun playing it.
But I may still decide on reading a book because I may have other motivations for that that are stronger, e.g. needing the information in it, expecting that I will have fun reading it, wanting to get the feeling of having accomplished decreasing my to be read-pile or similar, having made a promise that I will read it, and so on and so forth. All such motivations could of cause also apply to the game.
Depending on which motivations win out, I decide on one thing or another.
I haven't studied psychology, but that's my impression of how it works.

And so, if I notice after having spent all the day with games that this has negative consequences for me (e.g. neglecting other tasks, gotten addicted and continued due to that instead of out of actual fun, regret that I now have no time left to spend with other things I had enjoyed more, ...) I may change my attitude towards playing games and decide differently the next time I am in a similar situation. And that attitude adjustment can happen both consciously and unconsciously, I would think.

You seem to make a categorical difference between different kinds of motivations (id vs. super-ego in another thread recently). But that dichotomy seems not very helpful to me.



Okay, that's close enough to what I understood by it. However, I don't normally make that strong a difference between the planes.

I mean, for example sex is certainly something carnal. But one can also get turned on by not physical things, even things that are not even depictions of physical things. Are those feelings then still carnal?

Are people carnal if they like to work on their physical appearance (e.g. by making sports, putting on make-up or whatever) because they enjoy the attention and positive feedback they get from other people due to their behaviour?

OK, to give further depth to my meaning of "materialist:" there is also a like-dislike bias involved in what I termed as "hard-core materialists." Hard-core materialists definitely have a strong like-dislike bias towords the physical, and an aversion towards that which cannot be explained by the physical paradigm.

 

[Liu]

My ego is beholden by my id? Perhaps. My unconscious mind is a heck of a lot smarter than my conscious mind. However, if my id really is responsible for my ego, and is serious about this conscious examination thing, then it would behoove the id to give the ego the freedom (free-will) to actually do just that. Even my relatively unintelligent ego can recognize that failure to do so is only propagating self-delusion. If my id truly wants the power to rewrite its programming, then it must grant the power to do so intelligently. (Intelligence means to pick out, read, select. If you don't grant the power to freely and intelligently select (free-will,) then the id is still propagating self-delusion, and is not rewriting its programming intelligently (by definition.)

Maybe your unconscious mind is not good at planning ahead in that manner? As I said, I would not assume it to be one coherent something. Also, in what form does the ego even exist independently? I'm not sure whether it would even be possible for it to gain an independent kind of intelligence. I'd rather consider the ego to be something like what one can see on a computer screen. Nice to look at, and not too complicated, but the actual calculating gets done invisibly, under the hood, and the things on the screen are merely the result (although interacting with them can launch or influence what happens in the depths).

OK, to give further depth to my meaning of "materialist:" there is also a like-dislike bias involved in what I termed as "hard-core materialists." Hard-core materialists definitely have a strong like-dislike bias towords the physical, and an aversion towards that which cannot be explained by the physical paradigm.

Well, that would be the physilosophical category of materialism, not what I was referring to in my last comment. But I agree that it can often be the same kind of person to subscribe to both these types of materialism.
In either case, it depends on the exact definition but I'd tend to say that I'm neither kind of materialist.

 

[crossfire]

Maybe your unconscious mind is not good at planning ahead in that manner? As I said, I would not assume it to be one coherent something.'

While it might not be a "coherent something" as you said, it is well-defined as "not my conscioius, waking mind."

Also, in what form does the ego even exist independently?

Where did I make that claim?

I'm not sure whether it would even be possible for it to gain an independent kind of intelligence.

"Independent" and "free" are two different things.

I'd rather consider the ego to be something like what one can see on a computer screen. Nice to look at, and not too complicated, but the actual calculating gets done invisibly, under the hood, and the things on the screen are merely the result (although interacting with them can launch or influence what happens in the depths).

I can agree with this. I like to think of it as being like the Holographic Doctor from Star Trek, who is used so much where he takes on his own identity--more than just the sum of his computer interfaces.

Well, that would be the physilosophical category of materialism, not what I was referring to in my last comment. But I agree that it can often be the same kind of person to subscribe to both these types of materialism.
In either case, it depends on the exact definition but I'd tend to say that I'm neither kind of materialist.

Fair enough. You don't fit into my generalization based on my observations. (That still doesn't invalidate my observations or my analysis of my observations.)

 

[Liu]

Where did I make that claim?

"Independent" and "free" are two different things.

True. Your former comment sounded a bit like it, but I see now how you meant it.

 

[EverChanging]

Careful with the use of 'random,' the fractal nature of Chaos theory is different from randomness.

I believe it has been objectively determined that human decisions do vary and behave differently given the same apparent circumstances. What causes this variation in the decision making process is open to question, but a degree of free will cannot be ruled out.

I believe in will, but it is not necessarily free,

I share Paul Strawson's view for the most part.
From: Moral Responsibility

"Peter Strawson Changed the Subject from Free Will to Moral Responsibility
Peter Strawson argued in 1962 that whatever the deep metaphysical truth on the issues of determinism and free will, people would not give up talking about and feeling moral responsibility - praise and blame, guilt and pride, crime and punishment, gratitude, resentment, and forgiveness.

These "reactive attitudes" were for Strawson more real than whether they could be explained by fruitless disputes about free will, compatibilism, and determinism. They were "facts" of our natural human commitment to ordinary inter-personal attitudes. He said it was "a pity that talk of the moral sentiments has fallen out of favour," since such talk was "the only possibility of reconciling these disputants to each other and the facts."

Strawson himself was optimistic that compatibilism could reconcile determinism with moral obligation and responsibility. He accepted the facts of determinism. He felt that determinism was true. But he was concerned to salvage the reality of our attitudes even for libertarians, whom he described as pessimists about determinism."

I just realized this is a DIR form I may not be ellible to post in this forum. I appologize, and feel free to delete my pos

It sounds like a regularity/law that you are describing, not something that we have control of, so I don't think it could save free will for me in the most fundamental sense.

 

[EverChanging]

It sounds like a regularity/law that you are describing, not something that we have control of, so I don't think it could save free will for me in the most fundamental sense.

I suppose it would count as free will by the definition I gave, but not in the sense of a self having control over the way the universe transitions from one state to the next, especially a self in the sense of a central controller in us which I don't believe in. It is thoughts like this that make me tend to think morality is only a social construct.