Free Will and Ethics

[Rocinante]

hi all,

another thread on free will and science made me think about free will and compassion. if we all agreed that everything we do is determined by natural causes–that we are all entirely part of the world rather than having a dualistic conception of self-hood split between a physical body and other-worldly entity that looks through our eyes and motivates our movements–would we have anything but compassion for our fellow man?

it seems to me that the whole notions of retribution and contempt would be out the window. instead our justice system would be concerned with understanding, kindness, and rehabilitation. we would become naturally empathetic as we better understood our own dependence on circumstances beyond our control. we would look at homeless people and sinners, convicts and addicts and say to ourselves, there but for the conditions beyond my control that preceded this moment go i, and so we would be inclined to identify the other as no different from the self and therefore become capable of loving the other as our selves. perhaps no other concept is standing in the way of such a deep and universal compassion as the fiction of a soul as a separate entity which is entirely free.

rocinante

 

[brianwalden]

hi all,

another thread on free will and science made me think about free will and compassion. if we all agreed that everything we do is determined by natural causes–that we are all entirely part of the world rather than having a dualistic conception of self-hood split between a physical body and other-worldly entity that looks through our eyes and motivates our movements–would we have anything but compassion for our fellow man?

I’m just wondering, where do you come to the conclusion that those who believe we consist of body and soul think that the soul is an other-worldly entity. Non-material does not mean otherworldly. Those who believe that we have souls see the soul as the reason why we all share the same basic human dignity and therefore as a source of compassion for others.

it seems to me that the whole notions of retribution and contempt would be out the window. instead our justice system would be concerned with understanding, kindness, and rehabilitation.

Changing your worldview from one based on free will to one based on determinism doesn’t get rid of retribution and contempt any more than calling blue “red” does.

we would become naturally empathetic as we better understood our own dependence on circumstances beyond our control.

You seem to be saying that changing our philosophical outlook would change our human nature. What evidence have you got to support this?

we would look at homeless people and sinners, convicts and addicts and say to ourselves, there but for the conditions beyond my control that preceded this moment go i, and so we would be inclined to identify the other as no different from the self and therefore become capable of loving the other as our selves. perhaps no other concept is standing in the way of such a deep and universal compassion as the fiction of a soul as a separate entity which is entirely free.

rocinante

I think you’re setting up a straw man, those who believe in free will believe that our wills are weak and we are incredibly dependent on circumstances outside our control. I don’t see how your assertion that we don’t have free will has anything to do with eliminating our propensity for cruelty toward one another. I mean if it’s true that all our thoughts and actions are merely the result of a chain of physical events, that in no way changes all the evil acts that people have committed since the beginning of time.

 

[Barbkw]

“…everything we do is determined by natural causes–that we are all entirely part of the world rather than having a dualistic conception of self-hood split between a physical body and other-worldly entity that looks through our eyes and motivates our movements–would we have anything but compassion for our fellow man?”

No.

Earth and the animals on it were created by God for humanity’s use. God created the Universe to be self sustaining, in the same way He created humans to be “fruitful and multiply”.

Earth will one day, be swallowed up by the Sun.

I have compassion for my fellow man because by the graces given to me by God, He has forgiven me of my sins and He has asked me to treat others as I treat myself.

 

[po18guy]

hi all,

another thread on free will and science made me think about free will and compassion. if we all agreed that everything we do is determined by natural causes–that we are all entirely part of the world rather than having a dualistic conception of self-hood split between a physical body and other-worldly entity that looks through our eyes and motivates our movements–would we have anything but compassion for our fellow man?

Why assume the positive, when those with no sense of the dual nature of man - body and spirit - behave in precisely the opposite fashion? The ‘of this world’ unity that you cite is the source of and motivator behind the worst and most prevalent horrors of human history. The body - the flesh - seeks for its own good, being possessed of a sense of self; the ego. The ego is akin to a flame, and must be tended and controlled, and kept within limits, lest it spread and consume not only others, but also its own host. This generation, and all of history is replete with examples of such failures to control the ego. At some level, one also has a sense of the other, in some proportion to the sense of self. This proportion is variable in each individual, with no set pattern except for a bias toward the self. The ego has a natural, or worldly tendency to grow out of proportion. If it lacks a sense of justice - a learned trait, it seeks its own advantage. However, if the ego is made aware of a superior and just externality that ultimately controls, it then is motivated toward control of the self and the direction of thought toward others.

it seems to me that the whole notions of retribution and contempt would be out the window. instead our justice system would be concerned with understanding, kindness, and rehabilitation. we would become naturally empathetic as we better understood our own dependence on circumstances beyond our control. we would look at homeless people and sinners, convicts and addicts and say to ourselves, there but for the conditions beyond my control that preceded this moment go i, and so we would be inclined to identify the other as no different from the self and therefore become capable of loving the other as our selves. perhaps no other concept is standing in the way of such a deep and universal compassion as the fiction of a soul as a separate entity which is entirely free. Rocinante

Ah, but such musings are whimsy.Rodney King did not seek that “we all just get along” until a superior externality imposed itself upon him and subjugated him. Justice systems exist to impose external control upon those for whom internal control has failed. Observe the interaction in a day care facility. Mankind is not ordered toward a natural internal control.

 

[Barbkw]

I’ve had conversations with ‘people of the earth’, pagans who were raised Christian but who had renounced Christ.

Their motto is “Harm None”.

Until, of course, it comes to the inconvenience of the unborn. It was then, discussing their views on abortion, that I realized why their philosophy was constructed around the earth and that their “religion” was a house of cards.

Harm none, included the defenseless unborn.

 

[edwest2]

hi all,

another thread on free will and science made me think about free will and compassion. if we all agreed that everything we do is determined by natural causes–that we are all entirely part of the world rather than having a dualistic conception of self-hood split between a physical body and other-worldly entity that looks through our eyes and motivates our movements–would we have anything but compassion for our fellow man?

it seems to me that the whole notions of retribution and contempt would be out the window. instead our justice system would be concerned with understanding, kindness, and rehabilitation. we would become naturally empathetic as we better understood our own dependence on circumstances beyond our control. we would look at homeless people and sinners, convicts and addicts and say to ourselves, there but for the conditions beyond my control that preceded this moment go i, and so we would be inclined to identify the other as no different from the self and therefore become capable of loving the other as our selves. perhaps no other concept is standing in the way of such a deep and universal compassion as the fiction of a soul as a separate entity which is entirely free.

rocinante

It all depends on who’s in charge, doesn’t it? The Godless Communists threatened the “free world” for decades with nuclear annihilation. God and religion were certainly not part of their agenda. In Russia, some closed churches were used to store ammunition.

Prior to Christianity, for example, we had Alexander who decided to conquer the civilized world. We had the Roman Empire whose legions marched where they would, looking for more land and other resources.

Most people who murder other people with firearms in the United States know each other. People kill other people over some actual or perceived wrong out of a sense of personal justice and retribution.

Compassion is wonderful but from the earliest days of human civilization, man knew that disagreements would arise, disputes over territory, disputes between neighbors. So long ago, he established legal bodies to settle these disputes, before witnesses, to bring an end to it. He established laws so that people were not harmed and certain punshments were established. Every society had to answer the question: “How then shall we live?” How, in other words, will society order itself? And those who ruled had to protect themselves from enemies and subversives in their own countries.

Justice does not equal might makes right. Man had to devise just principles to live by. All men desire freedom but all men need to contribute in a positive, functional way to the society they live in. Doing otherwise makes them troublemakers and enemies of the common good and welfare.

God bless,
Ed

 

[AntiTheist]

if we all agreed that everything we do is determined by natural causes …] would we have anything but compassion for our fellow man?

it seems to me that the whole notions of retribution and contempt would be out the window. instead our justice system would be concerned with understanding, kindness, and rehabilitation.

This doesn’t follow at all. Whether or not “free will” exists – and, depending on how you define “free will,” it may or may not – has nothing to do with the presence or absence of violent behavior.

The fact of the matter is that all species have come about through a process of natural selection, one that has as its basis a brutal struggle for survival. It may be that aggressive behaviors are hard-wired into people.

I’m not saying that we have to give in to these impulses simply because they are a part of our nature – after all, our species has evolved the tools to reason out solutions to problems that are more satisfying than violence to everyone involved – but I think it’s more than a little naive to think that anything will completely remove humanity’s aggressive drives…particularly something as abstract and impractical as changing our philosophical outlook.

Ironically, one could argue that it’s only because humans have “free will” – or at least one definition of it, anyway – that we are capable of overcoming these violent impulses some of the time.

 

[Rocinante]

This doesn’t follow at all. Whether or not “free will” exists – and, depending on how you define “free will,” it may or may not – has nothing to do with the presence or absence of violent behavior.

The fact of the matter is that all species have come about through a process of natural selection, one that has as its basis a brutal struggle for survival. It may be that aggressive behaviors are hard-wired into people.

I’m not saying that we have to give in to these impulses simply because they are a part of our nature – after all, our species has evolved the tools to reason out solutions to problems that are more satisfying than violence to everyone involved – but I think it’s more than a little naive to think that anything will completely remove humanity’s aggressive drives…particularly something as abstract and impractical as changing our philosophical outlook.

Ironically, one could argue that it’s only because humans have “free will” – or at least one definition of it, anyway – that we are capable of overcoming these violent impulses some of the time.

if not for the innumerable conditions that preceded this moment i would agree, but i don’t. i think it would be impossible to think of the point of the criminal justice system for example as a means of retribution if we recognize the actions of every other as entirely dependent on natural causes. the question would not be, “how can we punish this person --make them pay–for committing such a horrible deed?,” but rather, “how can we create conditions such that such horrible things will not happen in the future?”

as another example, it is only the idea of a soul that makes any sense out of executing mentally retarded criminals or the apparent joy the that bush demonstrated while reporting being begged by a death row inmate, “please don’t kill me.”

 

[Rocinante]

It all depends on who’s in charge, doesn’t it? The Godless Communists threatened the “free world” for decades with nuclear annihilation. God and religion were certainly not part of their agenda. In Russia, some closed churches were used to store ammunition.

Prior to Christianity, for example, we had Alexander who decided to conquer the civilized world. We had the Roman Empire whose legions marched where they would, looking for more land and other resources.

Most people who murder other people with firearms in the United States know each other. People kill other people over some actual or perceived wrong out of a sense of personal justice and retribution.

Compassion is wonderful but from the earliest days of human civilization, man knew that disagreements would arise, disputes over territory, disputes between neighbors. So long ago, he established legal bodies to settle these disputes, before witnesses, to bring an end to it. He established laws so that people were not harmed and certain punshments were established. Every society had to answer the question: “How then shall we live?” How, in other words, will society order itself? And those who ruled had to protect themselves from enemies and subversives in their own countries.

Justice does not equal might makes right. Man had to devise just principles to live by. All men desire freedom but all men need to contribute in a positive, functional way to the society they live in. Doing otherwise makes them troublemakers and enemies of the common good and welfare.

God bless,
Ed

you’re really a “glass is half empty” sort of person, aren’t ya?