Happy Atheist Forum

General => Ethics => Topic started by: Johndigger on March 25, 2007, 04:56:07 PM

Title: Free will and Moral Responsibility(Or perhaps, lack of them)
Post by: Johndigger on March 25, 2007, 04:56:07 PM
So, what do you guys think of Free will?


If we do, where does it come from?


Can we have moral responsibility without free will?


JD
Title:
Post by: Whitney on March 25, 2007, 10:01:39 PM
Well, if a person isn't free to make a choice then we really can't hold that person accountable for moral actions (although that wouldn't mean it would necessarily be wrong to remove those that harm society from society).  I'm undecided on free will.  I feel like I have free will and if who I am is just what my brain is wired to be then any free choices my brain makes is the same as me having free will.  I do think free will is more likely to exist without a eternal god than with one...because if something created everything while knowing the future then we were all made to make certain choices.
Title:
Post by: Johndigger on March 25, 2007, 10:29:24 PM
So, what causes the Free will, if indeed we have free will?

It must be something outside of science, then, surely. Because in science there is no "random" there are only things we can't measure. Even things like particle diffusion (Which is somewhat considered Random but not in the true sense) if we knew all the factors involved in particle diffusion we could know exactly when and where each particle was going.


JD
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on March 26, 2007, 12:50:31 AM
Do you mean the Rush song Free Will?

It's pretty kick ass I must say
Title:
Post by: Johndigger on March 26, 2007, 01:13:32 AM
Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant, how very...err...astute of you.


JD
Title:
Post by: SteveS on March 26, 2007, 02:24:55 AM
Free will = really tough question to me.  I don't know.  One thing's for sure, people are very very non-trivial.  We are hard to predict, even to ourselves.  This means to me that free will could just be an illusion, we're just so complex that it's hard to get the equations right.

One thing, though, I think I can shed some light on,

Quote from: "Johndigger"Because in science there is no "random" there are only things we can't measure.
I don't think this is really true.  I believe that quantum events are random.  They follow probability curves, so you can predict them statistically, but one for one you don't know until it occurs, so I think they are random.  I believe this is what Einstein was upset about with his famous "God does not play dice" quote, uttered I believe in response to quantum mechanics (he did not like the fact that there was true randomness in nature).  More practical, but less absolute, is chaos theory, which doesn't really require truly random events underneath it to furnish a process that is impossible to predict.

Haha, maybe we are all just really chaotic.  This has a ring of truth to it, just merge into rush hour traffic some time.  :wink:  

Honorable mention to Rush, I like that song too.
Title:
Post by: Johndigger on March 26, 2007, 02:33:36 AM
Yes, I did think of Chaos theory, but I don't that that is random either.


Take the weather for example. An extremely common example when discussing chaos theory.

If you had exactly the same conditions, then you would have exactly the same weather again (Or so people believe)

However, the problem lies in that we can't replicate the same conditions twice because even if you make an absolutely minute error - it throws the whole thing out entirely.


I don't think we can really know weather (Pun intended) Chaos theory really is random or not because we can't replicate the same conditions twice to find out.


The word random for me, basically is the consequence of Chaos theory.

JD
Title:
Post by: SteveS on March 26, 2007, 03:24:03 AM
Johndigger, I agree with you about chaos theory.  My point about the chaos theory was primarily about the free will question; that if people's thoughts are "chaotic", and we can never accurately measure the "initial conditions", we'll never be able to predict their future thoughts and behavior so they may appear to have free will when they don't.  Do they have free will, or is their brain system just chaotic?  How do we tell the difference?  Personally, I have no idea, other than to keep studying how brains work and maybe one day someone will find the answer (go science).

The quantum mechanics part was another beast entirely;  I think random in that regard is very real in nature.  And, you did not address this in your response  :wink:  (Please understand I'm not trying to be rude, just conversing).
Title:
Post by: Johndigger on March 26, 2007, 03:30:53 AM
Well, to be fair, that question is still up for debate amoung some of the world's top scientific brains. I've looked at both sides of the arguement, and they both present interesting cases. I'm going agnostic on this one. ;)

But, even, assuming there is random, does that even prove free will? It proves perhaps, a potential, for free will but it doesn't prove it.

JD
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on March 26, 2007, 04:42:29 AM
there's already a long thread on free will, i'd link to it, but seek and ye shall find.
Title:
Post by: Johndigger on March 26, 2007, 04:59:49 AM
Yes. I did see the thread. But I'm looking not just at Free will.

But free will and moral responsibility.
Title:
Post by: pjkeeley on March 26, 2007, 05:34:43 AM
Hi. This is my first post, though I have been lurking for some time. Good topic, I just have this to add:

Someone in this thread rightly pointed out that if we have no free will, we can't be held responsible for our actions... but then went on to question whether we should punish a person or not. Surely if there is no free will, morality would be just as pre-programmed as anything else? We would either be destined to punish them or not to punish them.

Doesn't make sense to me. I believe in free will.
Title:
Post by: Johndigger on March 26, 2007, 05:39:30 AM
And then we have to somewhat backtrack into where this free will comes from.

To be fair, I don't think any Atheist really claims to have an answer for that question (Although, I'm quite happy to be proved wrong)

Anyone with faith claims to have the answer "God!" but therein lies the problem that if this being knows everything we're going to do and He created us, how do we have free will?
Title:
Post by: Whitney on March 26, 2007, 08:15:04 AM
Maybe there is something beyond our comprehension that allows for free will yet is still natural.  If we define free will rather loosely (the ability to freely make a choice between available options) then I feel confident saying it does exist as long as you aren't being forced by another individual to do something against your will.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on March 26, 2007, 08:05:42 PM
Quote from: "Johndigger"Well, to be fair, that question is still up for debate amoung some of the world's top scientific brains. I've looked at both sides of the arguement, and they both present interesting cases. I'm going agnostic on this one.
I've read about how people try to reconcile the non-deterministic qualities of quantum events with the deterministic qualities of quantum theory through the sort of "all histories happen in alternate universes" kind of approach, but I didn't think anyone was actually challenging the "non-deterministic" (i.e. random) qualities themselves.  But, for this purpose, I guess it really doesn't matter.  Your answer is fair enough for me.

Quote from: "Johndigger"But, even, assuming there is random, does that even prove free will? It proves perhaps, a potential, for free will but it doesn't prove it.
Oh I agree on this one, I don't think it proves it at all.  I'm not sure it even adds to the potential.  I mean, if our will was random, we wouldn't control it any more than if it was hard wired, right?  So it still wouldn't be "free".

I guess I tend to doubt free will for some reason, although it certainly feels like I have free will.  Also, people can modify their own behavior, sometimes just by thinking about it themselves (i.e. not through experiencing negative consequences or being punished).  This seems profound to me.  But, in the end, everything I've got to say about it is really just speculative.  I have no evidence one way or another.  Whether we are unpredictable because we have free will, or because we have a chaotic mental process that is practically random, or because we have some underlying truly random function, well, they all look the same to me right now.  I can't tell them apart.
Title:
Post by: Scrybe on March 26, 2007, 08:31:35 PM
I don't see how free will could exist without a semi-god.  As to random/quantum/chaos/blah blah blah, I don't see how it's pertinent.  There is no way to prove randomness.  Even in quantum physics, where we are dealing with hypothesis upon hypothesis upon hypothesis, we can't possibly know if any given result is truly random.  Someone mentioned how incredibly complex our decision making process is, making it virtually impossible to track all the influences.  I agree with this.  I think we as humans, when bogged down with too much information, or too little, either go to the random explanation or the gods. (which simply seems like a more controlled form of randomness.)  

As to the specific question in the OP… "Can we have moral responsibility without free will?"  I think it depends on two definitions: 'responsibility', and 'free'.  There is less consensus on those definitions than you may think.  Take this true story for instance: A Mc Donald's manager get's a call from someone claiming to be a police officer.  At the caller's insistence she takes a young female employee into the office and strip searches her.  (The story get's much worse, but doesn't apply to the topic.)  So.  Is the manager responsible for the employee's humiliation?  She claims that she believed the caller to be the police, and she was only cooperating with "the law".  Here is another hypothetical: (I just watched Blood Diamond last night.  Great movie BTW.) A diamond dealer buys a bag of rough diamonds from an Indian source.  Unbeknownst to the buyer, some of the diamonds are from conflict zones.  Had the buyer done more research, perhaps he could have discovered this.  Is the buyer partially responsible for the bloodshed that his diamond purchase facilitated?  

Then there is the slippery aspect of responsibility in criminal trials.  Is the guy who shot his father after his father molested him truly responsible?  

So, I think it's really hard to answer that question in a mechanical way when there are so many factors that go into responsibility that are impossible to quantify.  Life and our decision making processes are so organic, sloppy, and unpredictable that it's practically impossible to nail down 'responsibility' with any certainty.  It's not like dominos where one knocks down the other in a (fairly) simple, two-dimensional chain of causality.  

Then comes the "free" in free will.  Free from what?  Free from our upbringing, our culture, religion, (or lack thereof) profound growing experiences, education, epiphanies, traumas, emotions, etc.?  If you simply call an act of the will 'free' if there is no one holding a gun to your head then I think you are drastically oversimplifying the issue.  We are all in cages.  Even if our 'will' is free from all other influences, then are we not subject to our will?  (Assuming you can separate it from your "self".)  If you are free from political repression you are still captive to social repression.  If you are free from religious oppression you are still captive to your impulses.  I don't see a way to claim any act of your will can be free in the purest sense of the word.  Some acts can be more free or less free, but never utterly free.

Without being able to nail down an agreeable definition for 'responsible' and 'free' as they apply to this topic I don't see a good way to answer the question.  

However, when it comes to practical, how-I-operate-in-the-real-world application, I simply look at it this way:  In order for any sort of group to function, individuals need to have consequences for their actions.  A better group will reward good behavior and punish bad behavior.  This is our best attempt at creating justice on this earth.  So that is the Justice side.  My kids misbehave and I punish them.  But acknowledging that I can not truly know all the reasons why a particular act was performed instills a since of humility and mercy that could otherwise be lost in a fit of righteous indignation.  I think that is an essential balance for an individual and a society to achieve.  The concept of justice, rooted in mercy.  People who act in evil ways need to be punished.  But not with hatred and contempt, but with a humble spirit that acknowledges the fact that much, if not all, of their behavior stems from outside influences beyond their control.  We can always claim that if we were in so-and-so's position we would have chosen a better way.  But of course, we have a completely different set of intellectual, emotional, and spiritual assets to work with.  So those kinds of judgments are arrogant and unmerciful.  IMO    


And for a final word on the topic:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sb7eLgaddI4 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sb7eLgaddI4)

(If you are impatient, skip to the last 20 seconds to find the pertinent part.)
Title:
Post by: pjkeeley on March 27, 2007, 02:05:33 PM
QuoteI don't see how free will could exist without a semi-god.

Why not? I get the rest of your argument, just not this bit.
Title:
Post by: Scrybe on March 27, 2007, 04:45:24 PM
Well, if there is no God or other directing force than I can't think of any other mechanism by which we behave than the good ol' cause and effect.  If every effect has a cause, then you (theoretically) have a 'paper trail' leading back to the origin of time and matter.  Every thought and action we have is due to a convergence of chemicals and electrical impulses coursing through our meat computer.  (As every weather system and astrological occurrence is due to the physical laws which control it.)  Our "will" as we call it is a self-realization of the signals our bodies receive and the way our brains interpret them and act upon them.  It seems to me that for our "will" to act outside of that scheme, there would have to be an element of it that transcends the physical aspects of the processes.  And once you start talking about transcendence you are in the realm of metaphysics and spirituality.  (Though I'm sure some would make a case for reinterpreting or renaming such a transcendence, that still leaves them with the problem of causality.)  

And IF there is an omniscient Creator, He could not, by definition, create a will that does what He did not foresee or plan to happen.  If God wanted you not to be an atheist He could have easily changed your D.N.A. parents, society, information access, emotional propensities, or many other factors in order to keep you from your current belief.  

That is why the only viable method that I can figure for a free will to enter the physical or spiritual system would be the impartation of it be a semi-deity.  A god who is bound by time, or some other limitation, unable to see the future, or unable to know how it's creation would work within it's given parameters.  

Does that make sense?
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on March 27, 2007, 09:01:56 PM
Quote from: "Scrybe"Does that make sense?

Indeed and agreed.
If I may add to your response;

pjkeeley,

A god would either be soverign or not.

If soverign, then god is in absolute control. If not, then god is incompetent and unworthy of the title of deity.
Title:
Post by: SteveS on March 27, 2007, 11:15:37 PM
Quote from: "Scrybe"As to random/quantum/chaos/blah blah blah, I don't see how it's pertinent.
I think it's pertinent because if the universe is completely deterministic, then how can free will exist?

If it's non-deterministic, then it would seem there is a potential, but if the universe is non-deterministic simply because it is random, then again, random will isn't really free will to me.

Anyway, I feel that Johndigger and I compromised on the random issue, that neither of the statements:
1) There is true randomness in nature
2) There is not true randomness in nature
can really be said to be truthful beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm still left with my doubt that free will exists.  As distasteful as this seems to my own mind.

Quote from: "Scrybe"Our "will" as we call it is a self-realization of the signals our bodies receive and the way our brains interpret them and act upon them.
I find myself strongly inclined to agree with this statement.

P.S. the YouTube Dora spoof was hilarious!  :lol:
Title:
Post by: Scrybe on March 28, 2007, 12:28:25 AM
Quote from: "Kestrel"If soverign, then god is in absolute control. If not, then god is incompetent and unworthy of the title of deity.

Am I allowed to say "Amen!" on this forum?   :wink:


Quote from: "SteveS"Anyway, I feel that Johndigger and I compromised on the random issue, that neither of the statements:
1) There is true randomness in nature
2) There is not true randomness in nature
can really be said to be truthful beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem I find, is that in order for free will to exist you would have to introduce an un-caused event, thereby breaking the law of causality.  (Is that even a real term/law?)  Such an event would, by definition, be transcendent.    

Quote from: "SteveS"I'm still left with my doubt that free will exists. As distasteful as this seems to my own mind.

Eh… It grows on you.  Although… my determinism is determined by an all-loving deity.  So I suppose that's much more comforting than an undetermined determinism.   :?
Title:
Post by: SteveS on March 28, 2007, 02:09:09 AM
Quote from: "Scrybe"Eh… It grows on you. Although… my determinism is determined by an all-loving deity. So I suppose that's much more comforting than an undetermined determinism.
It's not really a comfort factor that is distasteful to my mind.  It's more an ego thing.  My mind is telling me that it must have free will, it's just that I don't really see how that's possible.  I don't trust my own mind in this matter, if you catch my drift.
Title:
Post by: Scrybe on March 29, 2007, 01:55:42 AM
Haha... Indeed.  My mind is a slippery bugger!
Title:
Post by: SteveS on April 05, 2007, 02:56:40 AM
I know this topic has been quiescent for a few days, but I wanted to throw a few more thoughts onto the end of it.

There's a certain level of absurdity when I think about free will and moral responsibility together.  For example, if someone has no free will, and then they commit a crime, how can I justify punishing them?  I mean, they have no free will right?  So they don't have moral responsibility for their action.  Well, the answer is circular.  I don't have to justify punishing them, because I have no free will, and therefore I have no more moral responsibility for the punishment then did the criminal for the crime.  This line of reasoning I find useless.

It occurs to me that I've been interpreting the "free" in "free will" in a very absolute manner.  Practically, I think our will is free to a point.  It may not defeat causality, but it does react to input, knowledge, and experience.  So, in practice, I think people must bear moral responsibility for their acts.  I agree with Scrybe that punishment should be tempered with mercy.  As the science of mind progresses, we may find more humane ways to punish that are more like corrections than punishments.  Understanding should bring empathy, and with it mercy.

Two things I found fun to think about related to this topic:

1) Suppose for a minute that quantum events really are random.  If they are, then what caused them?  Isn't each quantum event a "first cause"?

2) Scrybe and Kestrel, your above thoughts about needing divinity to defeat causality reminded me of a science fiction book I read called "Radix" by "A. A. Attanasio" (Here's an Amazon link (http://www.amazon.com/Radix-Attanasio/dp/0553254065)) that I enjoyed more than I understood.  In it, he has a concept of a "godmind", which is a mind that has achieved "causal collapse".  This is basically the same idea.  So, my question (this is just for fun, not a debate or anything like that), if defeating causality is divine, and people do have free will and do defeat causality, are we all mini-gods?
Title:
Post by: pjkeeley on April 06, 2007, 01:09:28 PM
Quoteare we all mini-gods?

The Satanic Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible)
Title:
Post by: SteveS on April 07, 2007, 02:12:18 AM
:shock:

I guess according to the satanists we are.  And, according to this guy (http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens.html), atheists are satanists.
Title:
Post by: Scrybe on April 11, 2007, 12:32:28 AM
Quote from: "SteveS"if defeating causality is divine, and people do have free will and do defeat causality, are we all mini-gods?

John 10:34  Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?

And yeah, I think if we did have free will and can overcome causality we would be as God.  I think that may be one of the primary separations between creation and Creator.
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on April 14, 2007, 04:47:11 AM
Quote from: "SteveS"... are we all mini-gods?

Believers don't call God, 'Father' for nuthin'.  :)
Title:
Post by: SteveS on April 15, 2007, 12:59:37 AM
Thanks for the feedback, guys.  Maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses could have converted me if they'd have said I got to be a god.  On second thought, no, that probably wouldn't have worked either :wink: .