Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

And the same would apply to your preference for the belief that we don't have free will?

That's not a preference. It's a logical deduction. IF a THEN b.

 

[Chesterton]

That's not a preference. It's a logical deduction. IF a THEN b.

Sorry. Your last two responses spoke in terms of preferences, so I thought that was the operative word. I didn't know the physics did two different things. Let me re-phrase the question: The same would apply to your logical deduction that we don't have free will?

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm trying to understand determinism better. In retrospect, after you buy a particular car, given all past events in the universe and on Earth, do you believe there's absolutely no way you could not have purchased that particular car?

Yes, that is what it means, and means about everything, etc.

"Preference" is a bit of an odd or loaded word, and can make things confusing, etc, because the word itself implies desire under certain conditions, which can imply will to some, which can be confusing, etc. And while there might have been a desire, etc, that desire was caused/determined by all the previous conditions that existed before it, and the choice couldn't have gone any other way, etc. So no true free will or even true desire is involved in the decision, and never is, etc, because everything is caused/determined/already predetermined already by whatever was present before it always to only ever be able to happen or only go one way, etc. So no real choice is involved in any choice or decision technically, etc. It is only the fact that we don't know everything involved intimately and deeply in any of it that we don't understand the past, and it is only the fact that no one knows the future that it makes it seem like we have a part in dictating or deciding it, etc, when in reality, we don't ever, and nothing anywhere ever does ever, etc, and this trail of causes and antecedent conditions and events can be traced all the way back to the very first cause at the very beginning of everything and all, or all and everything, etc.

I hope this helps some.

I know sometimes it's difficult to understand, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

The brain is a difference engine that is not all that different from A.I., etc. And we are all just bio-electrical/chemical machines, etc. The atoms/cells, or physical matter or material or whatever, is the hardware, or the physical substance, etc, programed to generate electricity or electrical signals, etc, except that we are also chemical addicts in our bodies and our brains as well and/or also, which is where most of our emotions/desires or emotional feelings/wants/needs comes from, etc, and the prior is thought, or the appearance of consciousness, etc, but it is really just all predetermined/predestined matter and material interacting deterministically generating electricity, etc, and instead of battery power for that, or having to be plugged into a wall for that, we ingest food and nutrients for that power to keep all that electricity (and chemicals) (and stuff) operating, or generating, or going, etc.... It's an ingenious machine really, and is perfectly fit for this reality, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why can't what we feel represent what is real lol.

Because one precedes the other.

Reality creates a stimuli...the stimuli makes you feel something...that feeling influences how you describe reality.

Now, if I feel differently, that's fine....reality exists independent from feelings. We cannot really prove anyone's feelings correct.

I have gone through this before with you. Feelings alone cannot explain everything and its an assumption to think so. Like I said its more than feelings and also involves our embodied experiences. We test our free will everyday and our experience of this is more than feelings.

Well of course it is....it's experience + feelings.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually I think its the other way around. I don't think any dicovery in QP is ever going to prove deterministic. Einstein thought there must be hidden variables to explain the probablistic nature of the quantum world. But none have been found.

Uh....well....

QP undermines the deterministic view of physics. There are several interpretations that support the observers choice as part of the equation for influencing reality.

QP just ensures you cannot ever know if determinism is true. There's simply no way to verify or falsify it. There have been experiments showing the majority of people believe choice to be necessary for any type of morality to exist....and even those who claim to believe determinism cannot adjust their views of morality accordingly....so it seems to me the less accurate description of reality than free will.

This is regardless of whether or not either description of reality is true, because truth isn't knowable on this matter.

So at the very least there is no definitive interpretation at this point and any claims that determinism fact as far as fundemental reality is unverified and if anything we should be open to ideas like free will, conscious choice and the observer effect on reality as a possibility.

The observer effect isn't caused by people but mechanical "observers" recording the locations of photons when they hit the observer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you truly believe it is not wrong, but might actually be right, and it is not affecting your moral conscience, then you can always try to change people's minds about it, or push for those things to be changed, etc. Because Heaven knows there is a lot of that going on right now, etc. But it could maybe also be right also maybe, etc. Because Heaven also knows that there were a lot of times in the past when it was also, etc. But I guess only time will tell I guess before we truly find out if we have crossed a bridge too far or something like that or not, etc. We may have to pull back or reign some of it back in at some point maybe, etc. "Maybe" anyway, etc. Like I said, time will tell, etc. If we survive it, or don't set ourselves back socially many, many years, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

It really depends upon the group, the variance of moral norms, and the means by which moral norms are enforced (if enforced at all)....

Imagine telling the gang of criminals you've been committing felonies with that sometimes it's good to snitch to the police, and cooperate with an investigation into your peers, etc. You'll be lucky to only be cast out of the group.

Or consider how many moral norms within Islam are enforced by the death penalty.

The point is that sure....some norms can be negotiated, sometimes. I expect they're almost certainly negotiated between individuals though....not the whole group.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, of course I reason. And after I buy the car it's reasonable to ask 'what determined your decision?' I might be an outdoorsy type so I'd buy a 4 wheel drive. I might be a guy who values thrift, so I buy a hybrid. I might dislike the colour red so I buy a blue one. It's why I prefer one option over the other that determines my choice. And I can't decide to be thrifty if I'm not. I can't decide to like red if I don't.

Or perhaps some completely unknown and seemingly unrelated cause was more responsible....like the temperature.

 

[childeye 2]

No.

I'm saying something else. I'm saying you cannot possibly behave "good" without the judgment of others. It doesn't make much sense conceptually.

Generally speaking, our actions will affect others for either better or worse because we share a planet, no judgment is necessary for that to happen. In fact, I can think of many scenarios where a person can do good for others, and the action will not even be realized much less judged. Most people think to ask why bad things happen rather than why do good things happen. Good is usually taken for granted.

As you hope others would care about you.

In other words, you're hedging your bets against the possibility of you finding yourself in the same situation.

I've read the underscored line about a dozen times and still don't understand it as a paraphrase of the statement above it. "As I hope others would care about me" is supposed to be an answer of sound reasoning when asking myself HOW I should care for others. I'm simply assuming others don't like suffering or discomfort any more than I do. It seems to me that if I didn't care in the first place, then I wouldn't even think to ask the question.

Maybe you said hedging your bet because I used the word "hope". I could have said "As I would want to be cared for". But I chose hope because I mean to imply that the actual caring may not always be there in the way I want it to be.

This is why so many people would agree we should "feed the hungry" or "shelter the homeless" but you see so few of those people actually do those things. Why? It's how they would want to be treated....but not actually how they act.

I think that's because when compassion arises there immediately follows a thought of what it's going to cost us, which conjures up a fear. While compassion is a beautiful emotion, it's also a discomfort, and there can be several different arguments we can make within ourselves as to why we should turn away from compassion.

There's a disconnect between the way they know others see things, the way they see things...and it's created by the way they want to be seen by others.

That sounds like either virtue signaling or fear of feeling ashamed, or both.

What would you say really reflects someone's morals though? The way they act or how they say people should act?

I don't like the articulation of the question only because it's subjective. You probably mean to convey that actions speak louder than words, but still, someone can do actions that look good for their own ego. So, if I say "their" actions reflect "their" morals, then objectively compassion isn't realized as the impetus of morality. Meanwhile, I acknowledge that people can turn away from compassion even though those same people would admit that compassion is a goodness, even if they don't realize it is the impetus of morality.

I don't know if it's hypocritical....but it is self serving.

There's a reason why presumption of innocence is reasonable, and presumption of guilt is unreasonable. It's hypocritical because it's unfair. And while it may seem self-serving to the ignorant, it's actually a disservice to oneself when they turn hard-hearted and become leeches in society.

From a resource standpoint, you want to be in a group that "values" feeding the hungry as something positive. In a big enough group, none will notice you don't actually feed the hungry, but it appears you do....because you signal this virtue.

In reality, I'd suggest that most people claiming that the hungry should be fed are those who want others to do the feeding so they won't need to.

All that matters is that it gets done. I believe that those who turn away from compassion will suffer more than if they didn't. Cowardice and guilt are not pleasant feelings. They may get another chance and do what's right.

Like I said, compassion is a discomfort. It takes a little courage to be willing to sacrifice something so that others don't suffer so much. But there's also the relief that when you see their suffering end, so does the discomfort of compassion turn to a sense of fulfillment.

My point is that compassion is a deterministic power, and we will react to it either positively or negatively.

I'd suggest those who actually feel it moral to feed the hungry can be found feeding the hungry. They don't have to thump their chest telling everyone what they want others to believe about them.

If it's done out of compassion, there's nothing to thump one's chest about. That's why I said all that matters is it gets done.

It's unclear why the moral behavior need be articulated if truly felt.

It wouldn't need to be if there were no corruption.

It's typically judged in retrospect? Or does the positive/negative effects have to be immediate and direct?

I was just meaning to convey that some choices or actions don't qualify as belonging in the moral/immoral paradigm. But your question now brings to mind that some people can be just standing still, and the inaction judged as immoral. So, I think I'm going to add that the intent would be what qualifies an action as moral, or immoral.

Right....and how would we know that you even did this?

You wouldn't. But is it that hard to believe?

And because we're in a society that clearly disapproves....I can't really tell you if I did, can I? I would likely risk some rather severe group judgment for no real gain.

You could tell me if you ever cried watching a movie.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm trying to understand determinism better. In retrospect, after you buy a particular car, given all past events in the universe and on Earth, do you believe there's absolutely no way you could not have purchased that particular car?

This is a big part of the problem with determinism. Where causes aren't known or assumed to be known....they're still assumed to exist.

If you choose coke over pepsi....well obviously you were always going to choose coke. If however, you choose pepsi somehow on a replay of the circumstances....well there must be some factors forcing you to always choose pepsi.

It doesn't matter what you choose under determinism....it was always going to happen for "reasons".

The appeal of determinism is its appearance of "completeness". I'm sure long ago you've asked some atheist what created the "big bang" once he volunteered that as an explanation for creating the universe. I'm sure eventually one said "I don't know"....even though most would probably try and turn the question around on you or demand an explanation for something you don't know, etc.

We like that feeling of completeness in regards to understanding the nature of reality. I don't know is a very honest but unsatisfying answer because it lacks any potential explanatory power.

The determinist knows....even when he doesn't know lol. No, he can't possibly prove any of this and even worse....he seems incapable of pretending that he believes it....

What we can be certain of, is the determinist will invent and insert an unseen or unknown cause, whenever a choice is perceived, because he has to....or admit that he doesn't know....and deal with the discomfort of incompleteness before going on with his day, and the rest of his life, as if he and everyone else has free will.

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry. Your last two responses spoke in terms of preferences, so I thought that was the operative word.

Choosing coffee over tea is hardly a logical deduction.

I didn't know the physics did two different things. Let me re-phrase the question: The same would apply to your logical deduction that we don't have free will?

Some people argue that preferences are the inner 'me' exercising my free will. They're wrong, but it's a tempting argument for them to make, because it feels exactly like a free will decision. But I wouldn't think that anyone would suggest that a logical deduction is an exercise of the same. If I have two children and they each have two children then you don't need free will to work out how many grandchildren I have.

In the same way, once the evidence had been presented to me, the conclusion was inescapable. I haven't been persuaded to think that it doesn't exist. Just like you don't need to be persuaded to think that I have 4 grandkids.

So how come I know it and others reject my position? Well, me being the type of person I am - and I can't choose to be a different person, I was always interested in biology when I was a kid. I read The Naked Ape (by Desmond Morris) when I was 14 and that started a lifelong interest in evolution. Which led to evolutionary psychology and then on to free will.

Each interest determined the next. Each book led to the next. Each author's argument caused me to look for others, for and against (and I'm still looking for arguments against my position).

 

[stevevw]

Then give an example where an event or a decision was not determined.

I've now got that question in my notes folder so that I can cut n paste it each time. So you can waste your time making that same point over and over again but I don't have to waste time responding to it.

Your own video gave the examples from Robert Kane with the examples of the women on her way to an important job interview sees a mugging having to decide what to do and the guy who got angry and broke the glass table. This seems a reasonable explaination which makes sense.

Its not that there are no determinants and causes for actions or that there is no free will. Its not so black and white as you make out and perhaps a combination of both going on. Your making an either/or fallacy. Most people agree its a bit of both to varying degree.

As he mentions up until the point of the decision and action things are not set and there can be different possibilities. So nothing is determined yet despite the determinants that brought them to that point. The person is both the women who chooses her career over doing something about the mugging she witnessed and the one who sacrifices her career to save the victim of the mugging at that point.

But in choosing one or the other actions she is also taking responisbility for better or worse even though she may not be able to predict what will happen. Thats when the self comes into the picture as opposed to the physical determinants. She is injecting herself into the equation and by doing so is making herself part of it and willing to take responsibility for her choices regardless of the determinants of possibilities that ensew.

Or like the guy who breaks the table in anger. The physical determinants may have caused his arm to strike the table but there was no predicted outcome. The table may have not broken. But once it did he was then put in a position of an outcome he then had to take responsibility for. It would be silly to say nature or his brain nuerons caused him to break the table.

 

[Bradskii]

But in choosing one or the other actions she is also taking responisbility for better or worse even though she may not be able to predict what will happen. Thats when the self comes into the picture as opposed to the physical determinants. She is injecting herself into the equation...

Yeah, of course she is. We all do. There aren't just 'physical determinants' as in events outside ourselves. We are always, and I mean always part of the process. We act according to our preferences as the situation dictates. The self makes the decision. Which yet again, doesn't mean that free will exists.

So the woman has a choice. And she makes one or the other. One of them will obviously be her preference at that specific time. And will be determined by antecedent conditions.

Or like the guy who breaks the table in anger. The physical determinants may have caused his arm to strike the table but there was no predicted outcome.

Prediction doesn't come into it (although Kane brings it up). You can predict an outcome or not. It has no bearing on free will whatsoever. He wanted to strike the table. That was determined. Whether it actually breaks or not is an unknown and is completely irrelevant up to the point when he strikes it. Whether it then breaks or not will determine his consequent decisions.

 

[stevevw]

Because one precedes the other.

Reality creates a stimuli...the stimuli makes you feel something...that feeling influences how you describe reality.

Now, if I feel differently, that's fine....reality exists independent from feelings. We cannot really prove anyone's feelings correct.

My point was if our conscious experiences give additional knowledge about reality apart from our feelings then our feelings may be reflecting that experience rather than our sense perceptions based on physical determinants.

In that sense our feelings are secondary and a response to experiential reality which is different to arbitrary sense feelings. Like feelings accompany morality, the sense of knowing right from wrong. MOral subjectivists will say its feelings alone that is causing the belief about moral truths.

Whereas if we have a natural sense for morality that gives us knowledge beyond the physical determinants then the feelings that accompany our moral sense are a natural part of this but not the determinant of our moral sense. Not all feelings are unreal and as emotional creatures feelings can also be justified and reflect the reality of the situation.

Well of course it is....it's experience + feelings.

Yes thats more or less what I just mentioned above. But if our experiences tell us something real about what is happening that is beyond sense perceptions then any feelings that come with consciousness may be a reflection of the reality of experience such as belief or intuition of something rather than being the cause of it.

 

[stevevw]

Uh....well....

I don't know. But I think we are pretty close to the bottom. I mean virtual what else could it be. Whatever it is I think its going to be even weirder than QM and certainly not deterministic with a Newtonian cause and effect which is what would be needed.

In fact I think it will be something along the lines of making the observer even more central to reality, something like Mind. It makes sense because its moire or less at the point of how nothing becomes something and nothing is completely alien to material determinism.

QP just ensures you cannot ever know if determinism is true. There's simply no way to verify or falsify it. There have been experiments showing the majority of people believe choice to be necessary for any type of morality to exist....and even those who claim to believe determinism cannot adjust their views of morality accordingly....so it seems to me the less accurate description of reality than free will.

This is regardless of whether or not either description of reality is true, because truth isn't knowable on this matter.

I agree ultimately we can never know and certainly not to the level of verified science on these matters. Scientific naturalism should stay out of matters like morality and free will as they are philosophical issues.

I think the best way to measure morality and free will in at the coal face of lived reality. Materialist will say that all behaviour reduces to deterministic causes but the lived reality doesn't line up with those explanations.

Even though we cannot fully understand why humans do what they do as its too complex in some ways lived reality is the evidence, the proof in the pudding so to speak. If it walks and talks like a duck then maybe its a duck. We live out what is real because we are a real part of the world and embody it.

At the very least we can say regardless of whether free will is real or not we can say that it works in reality. For whatever reason we have to treat it like its real for us to even live. So in that sense its real and it doesn't matter about how we came to have it.

The observer effect isn't caused by people but mechanical "observers" recording the locations of photons when they hit the observer.

 

[Chesterton]

The appeal of determinism is its appearance of "completeness". I'm sure long ago you've asked some atheist what created the "big bang" once he volunteered that as an explanation for creating the universe. I'm sure eventually one said "I don't know"....even though most would probably try and turn the question around on you or demand an explanation for something you don't know, etc.

I think that's true. And that may bring emotional comfort to some. But I think the bigger appeal is negative - it simply negates anything other than materialism. If you start from a materialistic perspective, free will is not possible. Atoms can't make decisions, no matter how many there are, no matter how they're arranged. Yet every 4 year old child knows they make free choices. But they'll just deny it based on nothing. It's like the well-educated intellectual's way of saying "I'm taking my ball and going home".

And again, the moral aspect could come into play for some. I imagine it's only a matter of time before some lawyer uses determinism as a defense, lol. They already use sleepwalking as a defense to murder, so why not a lack of free will? It's practically the same thing.

 

[Chesterton]

Choosing coffee over tea is hardly a logical deduction.

As I indicated in my first example, preferences are just some of the ingredients that can go into a making a decision.

Some people argue that preferences are the inner 'me' exercising my free will. They're wrong, but it's a tempting argument for them to make, because it feels exactly like a free will decision. But I wouldn't think that anyone would suggest that a logical deduction is an exercise of the same. If I have two children and they each have two children then you don't need free will to work out how many grandchildren I have.

In the same way, once the evidence had been presented to me, the conclusion was inescapable. I haven't been persuaded to think that it doesn't exist. Just like you don't need to be persuaded to think that I have 4 grandkids.

So how come I know it and others reject my position? Well, me being the type of person I am - and I can't choose to be a different person, I was always interested in biology when I was a kid. I read The Naked Ape (by Desmond Morris) when I was 14 and that started a lifelong interest in evolution. Which led to evolutionary psychology and then on to free will.

Each interest determined the next. Each book led to the next. Each author's argument caused me to look for others, for and against (and I'm still looking for arguments against my position).

I'm trying to take determinism seriously here, and I wish you could do the same, because with all due respect, it would help you to understand how insanely delusional you sound. It sounds like a man kept in chains in a dungeon, who's fed nothing but rice every day of his life, and has somehow managed to sincerely convince himself that he chooses to eat rice instead of steak, and that he eats rice because it's the reasonable thing to do, while at the same time acknowledging the reality that he's being force fed.

You can't take determinism seriously because you can't actually follow it through to its logical conclusion, or maybe you can, but you disregard the conclusion because it's contradictory and absurd. For one, if you did follow it through, you'd have to admit that you have never reasoned about anything ever, and therefore your belief is unreasonable. Without free will, there's no reasoning.

 

[Bradskii]

Without free will, there's no reasoning.

Which is another way of saying that we don't make decisions. Which we do for reasons that determine our choices. That's what 'reasoning' is. A robot will take all available information and reach a decision as to the best choice. And it obviously has no free will. If you ask it for the reasons why its chose as it did then it will tell you.

What do you think reasoning actually means? I hope you're not going to say 'something we do with our free will'. Here's a standard definition:

'Reason is the capacity of applying logic by drawing valid conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth.'

ChatGpt will do that (with the exception of 'consciousness' which I took out not to muddy the water).

 

[Neogaia777]

It really depends upon the group, the variance of moral norms, and the means by which moral norms are enforced (if enforced at all)....

Imagine telling the gang of criminals you've been committing felonies with that sometimes it's good to snitch to the police, and cooperate with an investigation into your peers, etc. You'll be lucky to only be cast out of the group.

Or consider how many moral norms within Islam are enforced by the death penalty.

The point is that sure....some norms can be negotiated, sometimes. I expect they're almost certainly negotiated between individuals though....not the whole group.

Well, the thing about being a Christian, or believing in God is, that you don't necessarily always follow the group always, etc, but you follow the group as much as you can, and for as long as you possibly can, and fully obey all it's rules and laws, until it goes against the higher (moral) rules and/or laws of your conscience, or what you think are God's standards or rules or laws, etc. Because if it does that, then that's the point that you no longer follow them, or go against them, etc. But it's pretty much up to the individual to decide when the group is crossing these lines for each one, etc. Because many have gotten it wrong over the years, and still do sometimes, etc. But the groups standards are to always be fully followed and obeyed until they begin going against what you think are the higher rules or laws or moral standards, etc, and at that point you go against them, etc. Non-violently if you can, but there might even become a time where violence is maybe needed and/or is justified or is deemed necessary maybe, etc. But if you have to do that, or if you feel you have to resort to that, then you might just find yourself getting into some very dark or questionable areas concerning your own morality, etc. You shouldn't allow yourself to become no better than who or what you are going or fighting against in order to get victory, etc, because then you maybe just replace them without anything ever being or becoming any different maybe, etc. If you have to become them to defeat them, then you didn't really defeat them, but you just became them, etc, so you have to make sure you don't cross that line, etc.

If people are being unjustly marginalized/mistreated, then that goes against God's rules and laws, or moral standards, etc. And I think that is something that almost every human being knows on the inside, etc. They know it clearly violates the highest moral law or rule which is "Love" basically, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Generally speaking, our actions will affect others for either better or worse because we share a planet, no judgment is necessary for that to happen.

Where judgements don't exist as moral norms imposed by society....it seems unlikely you give much consideration to the effect of your actions.

Indeed, contrary to the idea most people seem to have of morals as a sort of mental list guiding behavior....I'd say you simply come to understand the norms through repetition or through blatant expression by society at large.

Your consideration of the effect of your actions tends to correlate with your own awareness of your choices potentially violating a moral norm...and the potential consequences therein.

I've read the underscored line about a dozen times and still don't understand it as a paraphrase of the statement above it. "As I hope others would care about me" is supposed to be an answer of sound reasoning when asking myself HOW I should care for others. I'm simply assuming others don't like suffering or discomfort any more than I do.

Really? You're assuming that people don't like suffering? That's why you consider something "morally good"? Because it lessens suffering in your eyes?

It seems to me that if I didn't care in the first place, then I wouldn't even think to ask the question.

Well....you certainly wouldn't unless you wanted to appear to care.

Maybe you said hedging your bet because I used the word "hope". I could have said "As I would want to be cared for". But I chose hope because I mean to imply that the actual caring may not always be there in the way I want it to be?

The actual caring may not exist the way you want....but it also may not exist.

I think that's because when compassion arises there immediately follows a thought of what it's going to cost us, which conjures up a fear.

I would be hard pressed to find a corner of the US wherein people find it morally good to feed the hungry....and also have soup kitchens, and homeless shelters that are over stocked, over resourced, and really don't lack for help. If you convinced just a few thousand of these "morally good" people to make a small 10-50$ donation monthly or volunteer a couple of hours...think of all the "suffering" you could alleviate?

Yet I bet your shelters, kitchens, food pantries....they all look understaffed and under resourced....despite the proclaimed moral norms of the group.

That sounds like either virtue signaling or fear of feeling ashamed, or both.

Both and more.

I don't like the articulation of the question only because it's subjective. If I say "their" actions reflect "their" morals, then objectively compassion isn't realized as the impetus of morality.

Well not objectively....no. It doesn't really matter any way that I or you describe morality....nobody will be proving any objectively moral values....so while I'll note your objection, it's difficult to see some way it changes the discussion.

Meanwhile, I acknowledge that people can turn away from compassion even though those same people would admit that compassion is a goodness, and even if they don't realize it is the impetus of morality.

You seem to be making a poor case for it as an impetus for morality.

Again, it seems if compassion were underlying moral behaviors.....the state of our local charitable organizations would be excellent.

There's a reason why presumption of innocence is reasonable, and presumption of guilt is unreasonable.

Sure, you cannot disprove a legal accusation. We saw it multiple times under "MeToo" when the people supporting the movement effectively abandoned any presumption of innocence of the accused.

We saw it under the BLM movement when people supporting the movement were encouraged to simply assume police and white people were racist. There was no need to wait for evidence of racism and what's more....no evidence was likely to be found because the racists would hide it.

This also plays rather well into my theory of morality. If you believe that race does hold some innate characteristics....like privilege, bigotry, hypersexuality or passivity....you probably hid these views. Racism was seem as immoral by nearly all peer groups. Unfortunately, some peer groups began spreading the idea that certain racist beliefs were inherently valid (so long as data was ignored) and some "races" cannot ever be racist because of various reasons (which were wholly invented).

Once enough people became convinced of those ideas....we saw a lot of racists, openly, and proudly express their racist views....effectively because of rationalizations that removed the prior moral norms.

All that matters is that it gets done.

Idk if that's "all that matters".

Like I said, compassion is a discomfort. It takes a little courage to be willing to sacrifice something so that others don't suffer so much.

I donate 200-300 a year to a local shelter. I don't feel courageous, or discomfort. I see a need and want to help in some small way.

But there's also the relief that when you see their suffering end, so does the discomfort of compassion turn to a sense of fulfillment.

It's a charitable donation. I don't actually see it's effects. I get a ty card around Christmas.

My point is that compassion is a deterministic power, and we will react to it either positively or negatively.

A deterministic power like momentum?

It wouldn't need to be if there were no corruption.

I'm going to guess you mean "corruption" in some biblical sense.

I was just meaning to convey that some choices or actions don't qualify as belonging in the moral/immoral paradigm.

Indeed. That's a part of the 2 door thought experiment.

But your question now brings to mind that some people can be just standing still, and the inaction judged as immoral. So, I think I'm going to add that the intent would be what qualifies an action as moral, or immoral.

That's a there's some trouble with that I think....but I'd say intent exist in free will choices, and free will choices are necessary for moral judgements of behavior....

You wouldn't. But is it that hard to believe?

You could tell me if you ever cried watching a movie.

Not quite the same risk of dehumanization and ostracizism is there?

But sure, I've cried at a movie.

Let me ask you about the 2 door thought experiment. Let's imagine we have time traveling abilities and can reset the experiment endlessly and still record it.

The result of 100 runs is 79 right, 21 left...

Are you then convinced we have free will by some mechanism that we don't understand?

Or do you believe some unknown, unseen, unconsidered cause created the 21 left outcomes and reality is still deterministic?

Be honest, because it's not as if we can actually find out anyway.