Free will

[grannymh]

The key words are if there is no free will. If people are compelled to rape and kill they are not doing anything wrong for the simple reason that right and wrong don’t exist!

And, please, please, tell me if the little girl suffered a moral wrong?

I care about the little girl even if other people don’t.

I believe that God created her, giving her the dignity of a person even when other people ignore her suffering. Maybe I should list my religion as Samaritan since I see this little girl as worthy of my concern.

Can you really, truly believe that someone else’s compulsion to rape can nullify God’s creation of that little girl?

 

[danserr]

And, please, please, tell me if the little girl suffered a moral wrong?

I care about the little girl even if other people don’t.

I believe that God created her, giving her the dignity of a person even when other people ignore her suffering. Maybe I should list my religion as Samaritan since I see this little girl as worthy of my concern.

Can you really, truly believe that someone else’s compulsion to rape can nullify God’s creation of that little girl?

You are not being fair; largely, I think because you don’t understand the sort of argument I am trying to make.

This is what philosophers call a reductio ad absurdum argument. Such an argument examines a hypothesis, and shows that this hypothesis entails a conclusion that is obviously false (so the hypothesis is false).
or another way to put it:
hypothesis x entails conclusion y (conclusion y is the logical extension of hypothesis x); but because conclusion y is obviously wrong, it follows that hypothesis x must be wrong.

So, we argue,

1. the hypothesis that there is no free will entails that objective moral duty does not exist.
   (This is because ought implies can. If I am not really free, then my action to kill my neighbor’s cat was a necessary action, I could not have done otherwise, nor was I obligated to do otherwise.
2. If objective moral duty does not exist, then a man is not morally obligated not to torture someone to death.
3. Therefore, the hypothesis, “free will does not exist” entails the obviously ridiculous conclusion that "it is not morally wrong to torture a little girl to death.
   But this is so obviously wrong, one should reject the hypothesis that free will does not exist.

The statement “if free will did not exist, it would not be wrong to do x” is a counter-factual statement in the subjunctive mood. I am not saying free will does not exist, I am saying that if it did not exist, moral duty would not exist.

definitions that you question:
objective: true independent of what people think. 2+2+4 is objectively true. Even if I think, it is 5, this does not actually make it 5. This is as opposed to merely subjective which depends on what people think (light beer is better than dark- which is a matter of personal preference.
moral duty- I don’t see why this is confusing. A duty is the moral obligation to do something (say, fight for one’s country) or not to something (run over my neighbor’s cat).

So now I will respond to some of your more specific questions and concerns:

you are avoiding the moral wrong actually perpetrated on the little girl.

You keep bringing up the moral wrong done to the little girl tortured to death, but the point is that if free will did not exist, the man’s action to torture her to death would not be morally wrong. Moral wrong would not be done to her because moral right and wrong would not exist.

You confuse this claim with people making excuses for their crimes (I did it because I had a bad upbringing etc.), but this is not what I mean by free will not existing. I mean free will not really existing at all; every action made being solely determined by prior physical causes. If every action is absolutely determined (instead of just influenced in this way), then no moral duties would exist at all, for the reasons I give above.

You might be giving people permission to harm others because in their minds, free will is an illusion or it is determined both of which removes their guilt.

It is also true that if God did not exist, then objective morality would note exist. This is simply a fact about the world. By saying so I am not giving atheists permission to do bad things, only pointing out the logical implications of their beliefs. Likewise here. It is simply true that if free will did not exist, moral duty would not.

Why would classmates who believe free will is an illusion come to believe in real free will when not believing in free will means that anything goes?

Because the conclusion of denying free will (torturing a little girl to death is not wrong) is so obviously revolting (please stop thinking you are the only one who thinks so), that they should accept that free will exists. (from the reductio ad absurdum argument above).

• You seem to admit this when you say that most people do recognize the human person is worthy of profound respect.

I care about the little girl even if other people don’t.

I believe that God created her, giving her the dignity of a person even when other people ignore her suffering.

Stop that. It is unfair to accuse other people of not caring because it misses the point of the argument. Yet, you seem to understand this point in your sentence here. You say that girl has dignity because God created her. Exactly!!! People have dignity being made in the image and likeness of God. If they were not made by God, they would not have this dignity. I am making a similar point with regard to free will.

 

[Shike]

I am probably the only one on CAF who is concerned about the base for moral obligations.

I doubt it since I am also interested and that is a very important question.

To me, the obvious answer is that they are based on an universal truth about human nature. I may be wrong, but I would think that the philosophical discipline should be able to reason to universal truths.

I realize that most people believe that God is the base for moral actions or moral obligations among humans. On the other hand, I also believe that there are a few universal truths regarding human nature which can be discovered by reason alone.

I agree. But to clarify I think that it can be shown philosophically that the ground of morality is rooted in human nature, and also more ultimately, in God from Whom we live, move, and have our being–ie. God created us and gave us our nature. This is not an arbitrary voluntarist position since the roots come from the very nature of God (A consequence of the position of the Simplicity of God).

The difficulty of finding a base for moral obligations is that currently subjective reasoning outranks objective reasoning. This is probably why people conclude that free will can be an illusion. Considering something as an illusion, which ultimately depends on one’s own mind, is a good example of subjective reasoning.

I was about to agree, but after reading some of your further remarks it seems that you take issue with hypothetical scenarios and their use in philosophical argumentation. If that is what you mean then I disagree, as such hypothetical scenarios are closely tied to the law of non-contradiction and to possibility and to reality.

You may indeed know that free-will is not an illusion and may even use the reality of free-will as a premise for other arguments, but that is not at issue here. Some people *do not know *that free-will is real, and it is one of the jobs of philosophy (since truth cannot contradict truth) to point out the contradiction or inconsistencies, if possible, and to help the latter conform to the light of truth.

If one couldn’t use hypothetical scenarios, I daresay that one couldn’t reason.

I may be wrong, but my guess is that some theories of determinism deny the fully complete nature of a human person.

I think you are doubly correct. Not only is determinism a narrowing of human nature but those who hold the position are most likely looking at reality through the limiting lens of materialism (as opposed to any immaterial component of reality).

Not being sure of one’s own nature is a good reason for considering the real free will as an illusion.

And considering (hypothetically) that free-will is an illusion can be a good way to come to a fuller understanding of the truth and the reality of free-will. Perhaps. Though in general I think determinism is a logical trap that one would never get into in the first place if he followed correct reasoning from true premises.

Having said all that, in my humble opinion, it is difficult to defend the will without a clear conception of human nature which, in itself, does transcend the limits of the material/physical domain.

On the whole I agree… though I define the physical as a marriage of material and immaterial components.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[tonyrey]

The key words are if there is no free will

 

[grannymh]

I agree. But to clarify I think that it can be shown philosophically that the ground of morality is rooted in human nature, and also more ultimately, in God from Whom we live, move, and have our being–ie. God created us and gave us our nature. This is not an arbitrary voluntarist position since the roots come from the very nature of God (A consequence of the position of the Simplicity of God).

Yes. This is my position. However, the discussion in the OP seemed to include people who were using the “scientific” position that the “soul” is an epiphenomenon in that it emerges from the physical brain. In my observation, people who argue from some form of a materialistic foundation will often concede that free will happens but it is an illusion forming in the brain. When in doubt, since I do not actually know the classmates, I start from the simplest position regarding morality and free will which can appeal to both theists and non-theists

I was about to agree, but after reading some of your further remarks it seems that you take issue with hypothetical scenarios and their use in philosophical argumentation. If that is what you mean then I disagree, as such hypothetical scenarios are closely tied to the law of non-contradiction and to possibility and to reality.

Yes, I do take issue with this particular hypothetical scenario because of its assumption that the listeners (classmates) are seasoned philosophical apologists.

When dealing with “classmates” even those in a philosophy class, I do not assume that they are on a par with seasoned apologists trained in philosophy. Thus, my issue is with the presented hypothetical scenario because in reality it is a half scenario. In a classroom situation, I cannot assume that every student is capable to fill in the blanks surrounding the victim.

In fact, it is quite noticeable that no one here has been able to fill in the blanks surrounding the victim. If someone has and I missed that post, I apologize and would appreciate getting the post number. – Correction. I see that post 24 came in while I was composing this one. At last, someone acknowledged that the little girl suffered a terrible moral wrong. Wish I had time to take that observation to the next level…

You may indeed know that free-will is not an illusion and may even use the reality of free-will as a premise for other arguments, but that is not at issue here. Some people *do not know *that free-will is real, and it is one of the jobs of philosophy (since truth cannot contradict truth) to point out the contradiction or inconsistencies, if possible, and to help the latter conform to the light of truth.

This approach is fine when one is debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while having coffee in the “Ivory Tower.” However, I try to fit what I say to the audience before me even when it is in a CAF OP.

My university required a minor in philosophy. This means I passed the courses but spaced out most of the content. When my friends left for the “Ivory Tower”, I preferred living on the street. This phrase of “living on the street” has a different meaning today. This does not imply that those “Ivory Tower” discussions were useless. On the contrary. These discussions often sharpened one’s analytical skills. It does imply that I learned analization in the trenches. Hopefully there is at least someone still alive who knows what that phrase means.

If one couldn’t use hypothetical scenarios, I daresay that one couldn’t reason.

I don’t know about that – I often reason from my gut instinct.

I have spent all day answering posts which needed some serious thinking on my part. I wanted to say all that I could about a topic, including this one, because I have run out of time.

 

[grannymh]

Have I stated anything to that effect?

Actually, I was expecting your answer to be “no” and then you would explain why. Please accept my apology. See post 25.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, I was expecting your answer to be “no” and then you would explain why. Please accept my apology. See post 25.

No need to apologise. Sooner or later we all become confused in this philosophical jungle!

 

[Wrangler6047]

Can someone please give me a philosophical reason for the possibility of free will? I was trying to discuss this in the philosophy class and all answers I give are responded with by saying that what I am saying is simply the illusion of free will. Can someone also try to exclude determinism?

With free will a person has a choice to choose to follow our Lord Jesus or not. Then comes the judgment of that choice made.

 

[Shike]

Yes, I do take issue with this particular hypothetical scenario because of its assumption that the listeners (classmates) are seasoned philosophical apologists.

When dealing with “classmates” even those in a philosophy class, I do not assume that they are on a par with seasoned apologists trained in philosophy. Thus, my issue is with the presented hypothetical scenario because in reality it is a half scenario. In a classroom situation, I cannot assume that every student is capable to fill in the blanks surrounding the victim.

In fact, it is quite noticeable that no one here has been able to fill in the blanks surrounding the victim. If someone has and I missed that post, I apologize and would appreciate getting the post number. – Correction. I see that post 24 came in while I was composing this one. At last, someone acknowledged that the little girl suffered a terrible moral wrong. Wish I had time to take that observation to the next level…

Except that I did not provide any specific moral example with my arguments (if memory serves). So, aimed at my comments, it seems like you reject the notion of possibility and its usefulness (and necessity) in philosophical argumentation–which is, of course absurd. Good point about target audience in general, however.

This approach is fine when one is debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while having coffee in the “Ivory Tower.” However, I try to fit what I say to the audience before me even when it is in a CAF OP.

I agree in general, good point. Though I do think you are missing the value of the “Angels on pins” question. I know it is often used as a slam against overly pedantic theology, theology as a whole, or most often as a slam against medieval theology in particular. It’s supposed to be funny. Though I wouldn’t “debate” the question I would engage in it because its answer provides us a greater understanding of the material and immaterial, something which is not trivial in the least.

If memory serves Kreeft has a good point about this in his co-authored *Handbook of Christian Apologetics *(or is it his Shorter Summa?). Anyways…

 

[grannymh]

Except that I did not provide any specific moral example with my arguments (if memory serves). So, aimed at my comments, it seems like you reject the notion of possibility and its usefulness (and necessity) in philosophical argumentation–which is, of course absurd. Good point about target audience in general, however.

If you mean by the notion of possibility a situation which begins with the word “if”, the problem I have is when it is a negative aimed at a real problem and then it gets confused with what is actually happening in the real world. But, I will back off since that is one of the tools of philosophy.

Dang! I must be older than my birth certificate because my memory goes further back than most people. As I remember, the angels dancing on a pin was not a slam per se. It was more a reference to the complexity of philosophical (not necessarily theological) discussions. The slam would be the “Ivory Tower” because that referred to some world other than the real world of parking tickets.

Thanks for recognizing the importance of the target audience. The follow-up is that one also has to know the audience’s or the discussion partner’s position backwards and inside out. In practical life, that means one figures out all possible positions in advance and prepares for them just in case.

What I like about the OP is that the person is willing to spend time learning the ins and outs of his own position.

 

[Shike]

Dang! I must be older than my birth certificate because my memory goes further back than most people. As I remember, the angels dancing on a pin was not a slam per se. It was more a reference to the complexity of philosophical (not necessarily theological) discussions. The slam would be the “Ivory Tower” because that referred to some world other than the real world of parking tickets.

Huh, interesting. I wasn’t expecting that interpretation.