Free Will

[Neutral Observer]

We’re just characters in a movie.

You have a problem with that? Why? Don't you like movies?

 

[Neogaia777]

When someone makes a choice, it’s them who made the choice, no matter how complex the factors are(including their own desires) that led them to that choice.

You know, if it’s true we’re not responsible for our actions then there’s really no point in thinking you can make any difference in society through democracy because the future is set, no matter what you try to do differently. We’re just characters in a movie. I’m sure you’re aware.

The future may be set, but we don't know what it is, etc...

And that's the beauty of it really, none of us knows how we will choose or what it is we will become, etc, none except God, etc, not in any societies case, or cases, and not in any of our each own individual cases either, etc, so then, from our perspective or point of view...?

Anyway, ours is discovering and finding out, through our choices, even if they are not true free will choices technically, how we were already made, and what it is we have already been predestined to become, because we do not know any of that yet, so how can you think it is all just futile, or is all in vain, just because of a technicality that is maybe proving that we may not have true free will choice, etc...?

People who want to be good and better people, will become good and better people, and people who want to do badly, or act wickedly, will choose to do badly, and act wickedly, and nothing has really changed in that area, etc, but it may just only be that some people's true hearts are fully revealed maybe, and I think that is a very good thing, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

---

Learn to see the beauty in not knowing absolutely everything, for we are going to be not knowing absolutely everything for quite a while yet...

Seek out knowledge, but just know it's going to be quite a while until we know absolutely all of the answers to either the human, or God equation, yet, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Seek out knowledge, but just know it's going to be quite a while until we know absolutely all of the answers to either the human, or God equation, yet, etc...

God Bless!

Do you think Jesus knew...?

Anyway, that's a subject for another time I guess...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Do you think Jesus knew...?

Anyway, that's a subject for another time I guess...

God Bless!

I think Jesus knew that we all were caught up in the whole cause and effect situation that originated with God the Father, etc, but did he know all of all the full answers to either the human or God equation...?

Scripture seems to imply that he fully knew all of the hearts of all humans, etc...?

Anyway, another time I guess...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

.

Scripture seems to imply that he fully knew all of the hearts of all humans, etc...?

If he did, then he probably could have judged the whole entire earth while he was here, etc, but scripture also says that that is not what he came here for at first, or at the first time, etc...

God Bless!

 

[childeye 2]

Morality determines whether we can or cannot do something (more specifically, ought or ought not). If someone says 'That's immoral' they are saying that the act will cause harm (if it didn't then it's impossible to define it as immoral). So an agent (Joe) is 'allowed' to do something or he is 'prohibited' from doing it. If you want to claim that the act is immoral, then you must, I repeat must, make a case that it is harmful. Else Jim is free to do what he likes.

This is true. Love intends no harm. Therefore, we have a true positive/negative in the terms, Morality/immorality. I agree with you that the articulation of 'Morality' is referring to principles or some foundational Truth we reason upon about what is right and wrong behavior. And 'immorality' is the articulation of the negative form, or rather the absence of the positive in degrees. Together, they are meant to express two absolutes wherein there are degrees of give and take. Within the semantics of a wicked mind, a person could find something wrong with others whether coming or going or standing still or not standing still, and that is harmful.

So, fundamentally morality is caring about how a persons' own actions affect others, and immorality is about not caring about how their own actions affect others. For example, a selfless Love for others is always moral, and a love of self over others is immoral. Subsequently, the negative must usurp from the positive and the positive does not usurp from the negative. When I say it's not possible to devalue something that has zero value, I'm alluding to a circuit of energy. It's the same as saying you can't learn to value something that is not valuable, and the value of something valuable is learned through experiencing or observing its absence, which in turn is valued for teaching what is valuable.

1) Determining right and wrong is not a concern to any person who doesn't care if they hurt others.
2) Determining right and wrong will become a concern when that person gets hurt by other people.

This means a foundational principle would need to be an objective positive, such as Love others as you would want to be loved, because it's the caring about others over self that morality is objectively about, not the caring about self over others in carnal vanity. And that is why the semantics will turn between selfless/selfish in their motive.

And it entirely depends on the relevant conditions. There is no such thing as an absolute morality in the sense that 'Do not steal' or 'Do not lie' is always valid. Joe may lie on his CV and that will harm another person applying for the same job. Or he may lie to save someone's life. He may steal some food simply because he'd rather not pay for it. Or he may steal food because he is destitute and his child is starving to death.

Are those reasons always objectively valid? I can't think of a case where that wouldn't be true. To the point where I would say that Joe is allowed to do literally anything he likes unless it can be shown that harm will come from it. So that objective determination you mentioned should be to determine if there is a negative.

So if you declare that something is immoral in a specific situation, then the onus is on you to prove that harm will occur.

Those are valid points you bring up. And those are some of the semantics I'm alluding to as well. We all don't judge the same way because we all have unique experiences. Loving others as yourself therefore could entail lying or stealing or even killing depending on the circumstances. But fundamentally the semantics turn between selfless/selfish.

Maybe I didn't word it as well as I should have. I didn't mean that compassion is altruistic. It can be - you hope that it's reciprocated, but the hope that it is or the fact that it might be, is not necessarily so.

And I agree when you say that reciprocal altruism can be described as an instinct. It obviously is when bats do it. And my point was that it was an instinct when we did it back in the evolutionary past. And those that didn't have that instinct were removed from the gene pool. Just like those that didn't instinctively jump back when the grass rustled. It was probably just the wind 99% of the time, but once in a while, it's a snake. And if you didn't have that startled instinct then your genes won't be part of the next generation. Similarly, if you had the instinct for reciprocation, then it was an advantage. If you didn't, then...you're out of the game.

And you really don't need to love someone or to have compassion for them to share your food. It's simply game theory. You can actually despise the guy but if you share your food and he shares his then you both come out in front. You might really dislike your neighbour, but if he agrees to cut down his tree which is blocking your light if you agree to fix the fence, then we have a win/win situation.

The sentiment of the term Altruism is seeing to the needs of others without any consideration for oneself. It implies a pure unadulterated selflessness and therefore a singular intent in one direction towards others, expecting nothing in return. Certainly, as a moral energy a goodness goes out in the abstract and does good for the whole. So semantically speaking it can be claimed there is a return, but that should not be used to obscure the true meaning.

The sentiment of the term Compassion is seeing someone suffering and experiencing the desire to do something to alleviate the suffering. That qualifies as selfless and therefore compassion is always altruistic. To suggest it can not be selfless is to change the meaning of the term.

And you can be selfish and selfless. You are selfless when it comes to your kids - you give them food and shelter and you expend time, effort and finances to do so. But you are selfish when it comes to you and yours versus some starving family on the other side of the planet. Likewise you can be personally selfish in spending your money on yourself (hey, nice watch), versus giving it to the needy (here's enough food for a month).
Let's not kid ourselves that it's either/or.

Childeye said: As I see it, if I had a free will/desire to be selfless, I would not have a free will/desire to be selfish, and visa-versa.

The above statement is meant to convey that if a desire was a voluntary decision, then I could not volunteer to be selfish and volunteer to be selfless at the same time. As a carnal motive, I know people would prefer comfort over discomfort, and I see that as hardwired. So I don't believe a selfless love will manifest voluntarily from the carnal mind.

 

[Bradskii]

This is true. Love intends no harm. Therefore, we have a true positive/negative in the terms, Morality/immorality. I agree with you that the articulation of 'Morality' is referring to principles or some foundational Truth we reason upon about what is right and wrong behavior.

I wasn't saying that. I specifically said that morality is determined by what causes harm. And that can generally be determined objectively. It's not determined by what we believe to be right or wrong in the first instance, which is most definitely not objective ( note that it can be agreed by all that any given act is wrong - child rape perhaps, but getting a unanimous decision on something does not make it objective).

This means a foundational principle would need to be an objective positive, such as Love others as you would want to be loved, because it's the caring about others that morality is objectively about, not the caring about self. And that is why the semantics will turn somewhere between selfless/selfish in their motive.

Again, I must disagree. The only principle is similar to the Hippocratic Oath: Do no harm. If that box is ticked, then whatever act was performed, it was not immoral.

The sentiment of the term Altruism is seeing to the needs of others without any consideration for oneself. It implies a pure unadulterated selflessness and therefore a singular intent in one direction towards others, expecting nothing in return. Certainly, as a moral energy a goodness goes out in the abstract and does good for the whole. So semantically speaking it can be claimed there is a return, but that should not be used to obscure the true meaning.

Briefly on this...

Again I am not convinced that true altruism exists. And even if it does, it's quite rare. So the altruism half of 'reciprocal altruism' is such that it doesn't necessarily expect a return. Just as if a friend says he's short of cash and I stand him a couple of beers. I wouldn't expect him to pay me back. And if it happened a second time, I'd do the same. But if it kept on happening then maybe I wouldn't be so keen in keeping him in beer. I might avoid him. And if I found myself a little short one day and he refused to get me a drink, then all bets are then off. I was acting altruistically as I didn't expect a return, but there reaches a point where you realise that someone is having a free ride at your expense.

On the other hand, if he does get me a drink when I'm short - again acting altruistically, then he's playing his part in this unspoken bargain. I wouldn't demand a beer because he owes me one, but there's a sense of fairness and an unspoken agreement that we will help each other out when needed. And in small, pre-evolutionary groups, that's a monstrous help.

In that sense it is good. And in that sense we term it to be moral.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You know, if it’s true we’re not responsible for our actions then there’s really no point in thinking you can make any difference in society through democracy because the future is set, no matter what you try to do differently. We’re just characters in a movie. I’m sure you’re aware.

But that's not how it works in practice - if you don't even know what you'll decide when you next have what looks to you like a choice, you have no option but to act as if you do have a choice. Sitting doing nothing because you think you can't make a difference is a mistake; you can make a difference from your own (and other's) point of view - if that's the kind of person you are. OTOH you may be the kind of person that sits around doing nothing because they feel they can't make a difference. Either way, the inevitability of your action or inaction is only apparent, if ever, retrospectively.

"We must believe in free will, we have no choice" - Isaac Bashevis Singer

 

[childeye 2]

I wasn't saying that. I specifically said that morality is determined by what causes harm. And that can generally be determined objectively.

And I didn't disagree. I'm just saying it's pointless to make a determination if one doesn't care if they do harm or not. Obviously, people who care about others will care enough to make a determination. We're talking more ethics and should be talking free will.

Again, I must disagree. The only principle is similar to the Hippocratic Oath: Do no harm. If that box is ticked, then whatever act was performed, it was not immoral.

Yeah, that's the low bar, but we don't pay a physician to get no harm done. We go to a doctor to get cared for. It all begins with caring.

Again I am not convinced that true altruism exists. And even if it does, it's quite rare.

And I'm not convinced you've never experienced compassion when you see people suffering.

 

[Bradskii]

And I didn't disagree. I'm just saying it's pointless to make a determination if one doesn't care if they do harm or not. Obviously, people who care about others will care enough to make a determination. We're talking more ethics and should be talking free will.

Yeah, that's the low bar, but we don't pay a physician to get no harm done. We go to a doctor to get cared for. It all begins with caring.

No, it doesn't. It literally depends on whether an act causes harm or not. Period.

I'll be going to bed with my partner tonight. Does care about others dictate whether I should or should not do that? If it did concern others and there was a negative outcome, then yes. It would be a consideration. But it concerns no-one else, so whatever we do, because it causes no harm, cannot be immoral.

That's the criteria. Everything flows from that. Everything else is secondary to it. If it causes harm then it's possibly immoral (notwithstanding situations like the trolley problem). If it doesn't, then It cannot be.

 

[Neogaia777]

No, it doesn't. It literally depends on whether an act causes harm or not. Period.

I'll be going to bed with my partner tonight. Does care about others dictate whether I should or should not do that? If it did concern others and there was a negative outcome, then yes. It would be a consideration. But it concerns no-one else, so whatever we do, because it causes no harm, cannot be immoral.

That's the criteria. Everything flows from that. Everything else is secondary to it. If it causes harm then it's possibly immoral (notwithstanding situations like the trolley problem). If it doesn't, then It cannot be.

Yes, but the real question is are we wise enough yet to know all of everything that absolutely causes harm yet, etc...?

Because some might say our very existence in our current state does, so we should all just maybe all kill ourselves, or destroy ourselves, or all commit suicide, etc...?

Which some say is what we are all doing to ourselves in our current state right now anyway, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

We all live our lives using products that are inevitably causing very much great harm to the earth for example, but do we change the way we all live our lives...? No, we do not... even though it does great harm and is therefore technically very immoral, etc... Does this mean we are bad, or are evil, or are wicked, (or are stupid), people, etc...?

And there are many, many other things that, on the surface, and in our own shortsightedness, we may not think are doing great harm, or are immoral or evil, but maybe actually are, or might be, etc, many of them tied to our just simply existing right now in our current state, but that in our shortsightedness, we maybe just don't simply see it all yet maybe, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, but the real question is are we wise enough yet to know all of everything that absolutely causes harm yet, etc...?

Let me know what the option would be.

'Gee, I don't see any problem at all doing this, but as I actually don't know what the far reaching consequences might be I better not get out of bed. Who knows what might happen'.

 

[Neogaia777]

In my opinion, we need God, or god's, or aliens, or some kind of force, or something else, to save us from ourselves, etc...

And unless it's only with a select group of people that would all agree to what they were doing, or were wanting to do, all whole-heartedly, etc, then it might need to be forced upon us, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Let me know what the option would be.

'Gee, I don't see any problem at all doing this, but as I actually don't know what the far reaching consequences might be I better not get out of bed. Who knows what might happen'.

See my post just now above this one, etc...

Until then, individuals should do the best they can, etc...

But not to look to hope of it all corporately changing, unless a much higher force, or greater intelligence, comes, and forces it upon us all corporately, etc..

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

See my post just now above this one, etc...

Until then, individuals should do the best they can, etc...

But not to look to hope of it all corporately changing, unless a much higher force, or greater intelligence, comes, and forces it upon us all corporately, etc..

God Bless!

And I wouldn't get too deeply involved with what other people might decide what is right or else is wrong for them during this time and day and age right now, etc, as it's probably just going to invite in some kind or type of persecution of some kind more than likely, etc, because I'm stepping back from it a little bit right now during this time and day and age, etc, because I don't think anyone is ever going to change anything corporately right now, etc, but I will just talk to people at certain places, and in certain circumstances/situations, and just try to reach out to strangers and individuals right now during this day and age, etc, but beyond that...?

Yeah, anyway...

Corporately, humanity is not going to save itself, etc, and "an end" might be near right now, etc...

Best to prepare, or be ready for it in every way you can right now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

See my post just now above this one, etc...

Until then, individuals should do the best they can, etc...

There literally is no other option...

 

[childeye 2]

No, it doesn't. It literally depends on whether an act causes harm or not. Period.

I'm talking about free-will and subsequently the impetus of a desire, whether moral/immoral, and you're talking ethics. So, it's understandable how we've arrived at a point where you disagree with me, even though I don't disagree with you.

I wish to frame morality/immorality in a dichotomy of selfless/selfish. And I need these to be absolutes so that the impetus of a desire can be observed moving away from one and towards the other (whether it's a give or take), since I presume, we all want to love and to be loved. The position on ethics that you are ascribing is the sentiment of "Harmless" which carries a neutral tone in connotation, and it represents a criterion in principle without an impetus. When you say "do no harm" it then has an impetus which is caring enough towards another to think to do no harm. Whether that caring is selfish, so as to not go to jail for example, or whether it's selfless, is in my interest because it pertains to the topic of a free will.

I'll be going to bed with my partner tonight. Does care about others dictate whether I should or should not do that? If it did concern others and there was a negative outcome, then yes. It would be a consideration. But it concerns no-one else, so whatever we do, because it causes no harm, cannot be immoral.

Yes, it (caring) does dictate as such, even as we can see when one's approach to a partner it is "careful" with the intention to "do no harm". And as a precautionary measure, I'd kindly mention that the 'careful' meaning of 'caring' that I put forth should not be allowed to morph into sticking one's nose into other people's business.

That's the criteria. Everything flows from that. Everything else is secondary to it. If it causes harm then it's possibly immoral (notwithstanding situations like the trolley problem). If it doesn't, then It cannot be.

In ethics that is sound. For me personally I'd only see harm flowing between harmless and harmful and you're talking to a person that rinses his floss before he throws it away if perchance his wife might see the little pieces of meat hanging on it (gross). I'm just saying it's a caring love that actually makes people act responsibly, as opposed to being held responsible because we can both choose and not choose to be irresponsible. And I believe it's something we reason upon as a Truth we must believe in, and not the product of reasoning or even a voluntary choice. You think of it as evolutionary. As a Christian, to me it's just there living in us, and us in it, the living Word of God.

 

[Chriliman]

But that's not how it works in practice - if you don't even know what you'll decide when you next have what looks to you like a choice, you have no option but to act as if you do have a choice. Sitting doing nothing because you think you can't make a difference is a mistake; you can make a difference from your own (and other's) point of view - if that's the kind of person you are. OTOH you may be the kind of person that sits around doing nothing because they feel they can't make a difference. Either way, the inevitability of your action or inaction is only apparent, if ever, retrospectively.

"We must believe in free will, we have no choice" - Isaac Bashevis Singer

I like to at least try to figure out how it’s possible I can’t know my future choices, yet can know they’re already set…Maybe it’s because my future choices are already known by the maker of the movie, even though, I myself do not yet know my future choices.

Maybe you have a better answer?