Free will

[Joey89511]

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?

 

[tonyrey]

Without free will we cannot be morally responsible for our actions? As Kant observed, “ought implies can”. Free will implies self-determinism!
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8500990

 

[Joey89511]

Without free will we cannot be morally responsible for our actions? As Kant observed, “ought implies can”. Free will implies self-determinism!
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8500990

A determinist would not argue that we have to be held accountable. So this argument does not hold water against a determinist.

 

[tonyrey]

*Without free will we cannot be morally responsible for our actions? As Kant observed, “ought implies can”. Free will implies self-determinism!
*

Determinism is self-destructive because it implies that we are not responsible for our thoughts. If we cannot choose what to think there is no guarantee that we are rational! The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth…

 

[grannymh]

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?

Would you be talking about human nature in philosophy? Does your philosophy class allow discussion about anything spiritual or maybe anything that is non-material. Catholicism considers free will as a non-material faculty or ability.

I noticed that you said the possibility of free will. By going that route, you may be able to argue that the illusion experience of free will does not rule out the real free will. In other words, the evidence of an illusion of free will does not warrant the extrapolation to an universal exclusion of all other possibilities.

What I am trying to do is to understand what is going on in your class. What prompted the discussion in the first place? You might be able to connect the possibility of free will to some other topic of discussion. Are you using a text book? Would free will be in one of the later chapters?

As for determinism, human nature itself may be able to exclude it. I’m not sure if determinism can be said to be a contradiction to free will before free will is firmly established. What I have heard about determinism leaves an impression of fussiness so I best let others answer about it.

I would be interested in knowing what kind of answers you have been giving. Have you asked for a precise description of the illusion of free will? I read such a description on CAF some years ago. It was so excellent that later I wondered what made this “illusion” different from reality. Unfortunately, I never spoke up and asked for an explanation of the difference.

Yes, I know I did not give you the philosophical reason you are seeking.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[danserr]

A determinist would not argue that we have to be held accountable. So this argument does not hold water against a determinist.

A classical argument is:

If determinism is true, then my belief that determinism is true is itself determined, and therefore unwarranted. Therefore, if determinism were true, I would never be justified in believing that determinism is true.

I’m not sure the best way to lay it out, I don’t have a source on me. Maybe other people can play with it and think of a better way.

1. If determinism is true, then my belief that determinism is true is itself determined.
2. If my belief that determinism is true is determined (ie, the necessary result of physical causes), then it is not the result of a rational inference.
3. Any belief that is not the result of rational inference cannot constitute knowledge
4. Therefore, if determinism is true, we could never know that determinism is true.
5. Therefore, if determinism is true, we should not believe that determinism is true.

Second, Tony’s argument is one you could probably push a little harder.

If there is no free will, then no one has moral duties to each other. Morality is meaningless. Because ought implies can. Therefore, if there is no free will, a man who kills a rapes a little girl has not done something morally wrong. Would your classmates agree with this? One option is to push them on it and see.

 

[grannymh]

A classical argument is:

If determinism is true, then my belief that determinism is true is itself determined, and therefore unwarranted. Therefore, if determinism were true, I would never be justified in believing that determinism is true.

I’m not sure the best way to lay it out, I don’t have a source on me. Maybe other people can play with it and think of a better way.

1. If determinism is true, then my belief that determinism is true is itself determined.
2. If my belief that determinism is true is determined (ie, the necessary result of physical causes), then it is not the result of a rational inference.
3. Any belief that is not the result of rational inference cannot constitute knowledge
4. Therefore, if determinism is true, we could never know that determinism is true.
5. Therefore, if determinism is true, we should not believe that determinism is true.

Second, Tony’s argument is one you could probably push a little harder.

If there is no free will, then no one has moral duties to each other. Morality is meaningless. Because ought implies can. Therefore, if there is no free will, a man who kills a rapes a little girl has not done something morally wrong. Would your classmates agree with this? One option is to push them on it and see.

One’s will which is used to freely make decisions or abstain from making decisions is part of the spiritual principle of human nature. No free will means no human person.
Thus, the real question is – can one philosophically define human nature? Did Aristotle define human nature?

By the way, a man who rapes a little girl has done something morally wrong. No doubt about that. If there is a doubt, it would be directed to the person’s capability of knowing it was wrong and choosing to do it anyway.

 

[jochoa]

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?

Please consider the following:
A Person has 3 Distinct Components: 2 Components are directly of the Being(Thoughts and Body) and 1 Distinct Component Proceeds from the Being(Will). The Components of the Person operate according to the Nature (The How and Why) of the Person.
Given that the Will has to continue the course of action as set by the Thoughts and Body combined, it can be stated with validity that the Will is not Free, it must do what the Thoughts and Body force it to do.
However, since the Thoughts and Body are Free to Desire and Act, it can also be stated with validity that the Will is Free.
Also, if there is nothing limiting the Thoughts from Thinking(ex. drugs), nor the Body from Acting(ex. restraints), then it can be stated with validity that the Will is Free.

The Most Exciting Method I enjoy sharing to Validate Free Will is in the Natures of Personhood
Please Note: The following is only presented as an Easy to Understand Concept of God and the Holy Trinity.
God has a Mind, and His Mind is the Exact Mind of the Father, as well as Image and Will of God.
God has an Image/Body, and His Image/Body is the Exact Body/Image of the Son. However the Son has a Distinct Mind from the Father, therefore His Will is both Divine and Human. Since the Mind is Distinct(hence a Human Nature), the Son’s Human Nature had to become Atone with God’s Nature.
God has a Will, and His Will is the Exact Will of the Holy Spirit, however the Holy Spirit has a Distinct Body/Image and Mind from the Father and the Son(hence a Full Human Will).
There are three ways, I understand, as to which the Holy Spirit’s Will is Exactly the Same as God’s Will:

1. God’s Will has to continue the course of action as set by the Mind and Body.
2. God’s Will is to have a Third Person continue the Full course of action as set by the Second Person and the First Person.
3. God’s Will operates according to the Nature of True Love. The Holy Spirit’s Human Nature will become Atone with God’s Nature, and at this point, the Holy Spirit’s Will will be Exactly God’s Will.
   Now Recognize…
   To whomever reads the following:
4. Your Will has to continue the course of action as set by Your Mind and Body, Just like God’s.
5. Your Will is Free to either continue the Full Course of Action as set by Jesus and Our Father, OR not.
6. Your Will operates according to Your Nature. However, You are Free to either become Atone with God’s Nature, or not.

To become Atone with God’s Nature of Ever-Lasting, Unchanging, Unconditional True Love, please consider the following:
Every Single Action a Person Wills is the Culmination of:
-the qualities of Patience, Kindness, Motivation, and Knowledge towards others and the self
-the desiring of Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom for others and the self
-and the achievement of Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom for others and the self
Recognize the Qualities, Achievements, and Desires of God
God is Perfect Patience and Kindness and Motivation and Knowledge towards others and Himself.
Therefore, God’s Level of Peace is Unbreakable, Happiness is Limitless, Energy is Unstoppable, and Wisdom is Complete.
Now God Desires Others to not only Experience Unbreakable Peace, Limitless Happiness, Unstoppable Energy, and Complete Wisdom, He also desires Others to “Spread the Means to” the Experience, just as He Wills.
Which leads me to share a personal interpretation of the Greatest Commandments:
You are called to Achieve and “Spread the Means to” Unbreakable Peace, Limitless Happiness, Unstoppable Energy, and Complete Wisdom by Always being Patient and Kind and Motivated for God with All your Body and All your Spirit and All your Thoughts and All your Will towards God, Others, and Yourself, as Jesus Did, according to His Catholic Church.
Guiding Questions to determine the Quality of Achievement and Practice
Gracefully Stated:
1.Ask yourself: How Awesome are you at practicing Catholicism?
Not Gracefully Stated:
2. If your body is feeling tense, or your mind is thinking stressful thoughts: Why or How are you not being Patient?
3. If your body is feeling hurt or angry, or your mind is thinking sad or frustrated thoughts: Why or How are you not being Kind?
4. If your body is feeling tired of being Patient and Kind, or your mind is fatigued of being Patient and Kind: Why or How are you not being Motivated for God?
5. If your relationships are experiencing strife or boredom or sadness: Why or How are you not being, respectively, Patient or Kind? Also consider: How can you better “Spread the Means to Achieve the Purpose”?
*Please Note: An action of Patience and Kindness requires consideration of situation, relation, recognition of Complete Purpose, and others I have yet to realize.

Thougts?

 

[grannymh]

Please consider the following:
A Person has 3 Distinct Components: 2 Components are directly of the Being(Thoughts and Body) and 1 Distinct Component Proceeds from the Being(Will). The Components of the Person operate according to the Nature (The How and Why) of the Person.
Given that the Will has to continue the course of action as set by the Thoughts and Body combined, it can be stated with validity that the Will is not Free, it must do what the Thoughts and Body force it to do.
However, since the Thoughts and Body are Free to Desire and Act, it can also be stated with validity that the Will is Free.
Also, if there is nothing limiting the Thoughts from Thinking(ex. drugs), nor the Body from Acting(ex. restraints), then it can be stated with validity that the Will is Free.

I have been trying to sort this out in reference to human nature as being an unique unification of both the spiritual and material worlds. This unity is such that there are not two natures united but rather their union forms a single nature. Thus, one component does not proceed from another nor does one component force another component. Do these ideas come from an interpretation of Cartesian dualism?

Perhaps one should start with human nature being both rational and corporeal. The rational principle or spiritual soul includes the intellective ability coupled with the capacity (will) to voluntarily seek the ultimate good which is God or to voluntarily choose a lesser good which, at times, can be morally reprehensible.

 

[Petergray]

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?

If we did not have free will we would be no more than “robots”. We need to have the choice between good and bad, otherwise Heaven would not need to exist.

 

[brotherjoe]

Joey:

Hi. Has anyone in your class attempted to prove determinism? Otherwise determinism is only a theory and should be treated as such. If a thinker desires to denouce the possibility of free will, the burden is on them to prove it. The belief that all the events in the Universe are the result of purely physical causes is unproveable.

Joey P.

 

[jochoa]

I have been trying to sort this out in reference to human nature as being an unique unification of both the spiritual and material worlds. This unity is such that there are not two natures united but rather their union forms a single nature. Thus, one component does not proceed from another nor does one component force another component. Do these ideas come from an interpretation of Cartesian dualism?

Perhaps one should start with human nature being both rational and corporeal. The rational principle or spiritual soul includes the intellective ability coupled with the capacity (will) to voluntarily seek the ultimate good which is God or to voluntarily choose a lesser good which, at times, can be morally reprehensible.

Please Note: First, these ideas come solely from a Personal Interpretation of the Greatest Commandments based on Jesus’ Words, according to Holy Scripture, as Catholicism Teaches and Prays, and the Experience of Living. Second, I believe any interpretation which draws one closer to God, Jesus, His Church, His Nature, is Valid, especially because God IS…

In the post, I did not go deeper into an interpretation of the differentiation of the Spirit and Nature because I did not know the consensus of the Philosophy Class of Joey89511.
Here is a Personal Interpretation as to the Differentiation Between Spirit and Nature
A Person has a Material and/or Immaterial Version of Being.
The Spirit is the Immaterial Version of the Person.
The Nature is the How and Why a Person Thinks, Acts, and Wills, the way S/He Does.
Therefore, I think…the Spirit has an Image, Thoughts, Will and Nature which is not only the same as the Material Version of the Person, but has extra capabilities that cannot be experienced given only the Material Version.
For example: If you take a look at a photo of a Special Moment with a Dearly Loved One. You will interact with that Photo by reliving the moment, re-experiencing the emotions and thoughts surrounding that moment in time, your body might become more relaxed and joyful by smiling. Now recognize that all of the interactions, thoughts, feelings, came about from looking a piece of paper with ink splattered on it. The reasoning is that Your Loved Ones Spirit can Interact with You, if you can precisely relive a moment with your loved one. Since the ink is in the exact image of your loved one, it is easy for your to precisely re-see the moment, which can in turn cause you to relive the moment.

Thoughts?

 

[Shike]

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?

Some good posts on the matter so far, especially the argument that even if determinism were true we cannot know determinism is true. But I don’t think by this fact we can jump to the conclusion that we should not believe in determinism, at least not without another premise.

The ‘ought implies can’ is a good argument against determinism. I see something, however, that a good determinist would object to, so I would like to explore the objection a bit. First, however, is an informal summary of the ‘ought implies can’ argument.

Part 1:

1. Having a moral obligation means that one can fulfill it (ought->can)
2. We have moral obligations
3. Therefore, we can fulfill our moral obligations

Part 2:

1. We can fail to fulfill our moral obligations
2. Determinism is true and posits that for every effect there are causes such that, given them, nothing else could have happened
3. Therefore, given the initial state of affairs of the universe, someone who fails to fulfill a moral obligation could not have done otherwise.

I’d argue that part 1 is sound. I’d argue that part 2 is not sound because the conclusion contradicts the conclusion of part 1… What should we give up in the second argument? I’d argue that both premise 1 is true and that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Therefore, the only option is to throw out 2 as false.

Determinism has very close alliances with fatalism. Given the initial state of the universe, such and such has to happen. But a true determinist would qualify the conclusion of part 2, saying that we are talking past each other. He would argue that any notion I have that i could have done otherwise is taken from the fact that there could have been another possible world with an initial state of affairs that brought out a different outcome–it just so happens that we are in this possible world and not another one.

I disagree, of course, since when I think I know that I could have done otherwise, it is not another possible world I am thinking about, but this one. I think that there is something inherent in my very nature, here and now, by which I could have acted differently, and not some other possible nature.

That said, like Chesterton said (I think… roughly) there are some logical traps one can fall into that have a response for every possible objection (I’m not saying those objections are always good ones). I think the most important thing is to figure out what is the starting point and method for philosophy. It just might be the case that if one has a good (read: true) starting point and good method, one would never have a reason to adopt determinism in the first place–I think the philosophy I’ve been following in my own studies shows as much.

Always start off with definitions! (haha, this is at the end of my post) Many problems will be cleared up once definitions are stated.

 

[grannymh]

Some good posts on the matter so far, especially the argument that even if determinism were true we cannot know determinism is true. But I don’t think by this fact we can jump to the conclusion that we should not believe in determinism, at least not without another premise.

The ‘ought implies can’ is a good argument against determinism. I see something, however, that a good determinist would object to, so I would like to explore the objection a bit. First, however, is an informal summary of the ‘ought implies can’ argument.

Part 1:

1. Having a moral obligation means that one can fulfill it (ought->can)
2. We have moral obligations
3. Therefore, we can fulfill our moral obligations

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

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 may be wrong, but my guess is that some theories of determinism deny the fully complete nature of a human person. Or determinism could be a substitute for the intellective powers of a human person which of course would deny the complete human nature. It is my humble observation that there are people who are not sure what constitutes human nature because they limit their search for truth to the material/physical domain.

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

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.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[You]

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?

If you decided to do something or not on the flip of a coin; This takes your will [determined] out of the equation and you freely decided to follow whatever random choice the coin made. Unless the entire universe is determined and controlled, the coin must be random and so your action is not determined.
I think I remember someone arguing that the universe was conscious and that it determined which way the coin would fall.

 

[tonyrey]

Second, Tony’s argument is one you could probably push a little harder.

If there is no free will, then no one has moral duties to each other. Morality is meaningless. Because ought implies can. Therefore, if there is no free will, a man who kills a rapes a little girl has not done something morally wrong. Would your classmates agree with this? One option is to push them on it and see.

Thanks for pushing the argument further - and pushing his classmates into a corner from which they cannot possibly escape!

 

[grannymh]

"Therefore, if there is no free will, a man who kills a rapes a little girl has not done something morally wrong."

emphasis mine

Thanks for pushing the argument further - and pushing his classmates into a corner from which they cannot possibly escape!

Why is it that you are forgetting the little girl? Why are people acting as if she is a throw away piece of trash. Where is the sense of morality when people ignore this little girl’s pain?

Pushing the argument further? Should there be another school shooting just to prove the point? Or maybe gang rape and then death is better. Is life worthless
because people act as if there is no free will?

My apology if I have been too graphic. The wrong which happens to children is “objective” reality. That wrong is morally wrong no matter what the disposition of the killer is. That wrong is morally wrong because that little girl is worthy of profound respect.

 

[danserr]

"Therefore, if there is no free will, a man who kills a rapes a little girl has not done something morally wrong."

emphasis mine

Why is it that you are forgetting the little girl? Why are people acting as if she is a throw away piece of trash. Where is the sense of morality when people ignore this little girl’s pain?

Pushing the argument further? Should there be another school shooting just to prove the point? Or maybe gang rape and then death is better. Is life worthless
because people act as if there is no free will?

My apology if I have been too graphic. The wrong which happens to children is “objective” reality. That wrong is morally wrong no matter what the disposition of the killer is. That wrong is morally wrong because that little girl is worthy of profound respect.

I’m not sure you understand the argument being made; certainly I have not suggested, implied, or believe that the little girl in the example is “a throw-away piece of trash.” I suggest greater caution before you accuse someone of this.

The OP asked for an argument proving that free will exists and disproving determinism. We have, it seems, 2 decent candidates,

1. if determinism is true, my believe that determinism is true is determined and therefore unwarranted.
2. If there is no free will, then there is no morality. This is based on the argument “ought implies can.” If I “ought” to do x, this implies that I am able to do x. If I ought not to do y, then this implies that it is really possible for me to avoid doing y.

• Now suppose there is no free will. If there is no free will, then everything I did, I had to do. I could not avoid doing. Nor could I do any more than I have done. But since “ought” implies “can,” and i could not do otherwise, then one cannot say that I “ought” to have done otherwise.

Another way to think of this argument is:

1. If free will does not exist, then moral duties do not exist
2. moral duties do exist
3. therefore, free will exists.

His classmates want to deny the existence of free will. What we are trying to show here, is that if one denies free will, that the consequences are so obviously absurd, that they should accept free will.

To drive this point home, a clear example is helpful, so in support of premise 1, we offer an example to show the skeptic what his denial of free will would lead to. hence the example: If free will did not exist, it would not be morally wrong to torture and kill a little girl. Which means, that if his classmates really want to maintain that free will does not exist, that this belief entails that it is not really morally wrong when a man tortures and kills a little girl. But this is so obviously mistaken and ridiculous that his classmates should believe that this really is wrong. Since this is impossible without free will, it shows that his classmates are rationally obligated to believe in free will.

If anyone has a better way to explain it, go for it.

Since this is a concern of yous, I will add that, I do believe that the human person, being made in the image and likeness of God is worthy of profound respect, as I believe that objective moral values and duties existed being based in the nature and commands of an essentially just and loving God. But that is not the argument I am making here. Here I am considering the ethical implications if free will did not exist.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure you understand the argument being made; certainly I have not suggested, implied, or believe that the little girl in the example is “a throw-away piece of trash.” I suggest greater caution before you accuse someone of this.

Actually, I asked Tonyrey why he was forgetting the little girl. This is a valid question since there is more than one person in the example.
I used the word people in my response to Tonyrey because I have seen people acting as if there wasn’t an universal truth about the value of each human person. No one should be considered a throw away piece of trash either as a victim or perpetrator. Thus, there were no personal accusations. The rest of the post included general questions to think about. There have been real incidents of evil.

The OP asked for an argument proving that free will exists and disproving determinism. We have, it seems, 2 decent candidates,

1. if determinism is true, my believe that determinism is true is determined and therefore unwarranted.
2. If there is no free will, then there is no morality. This is based on the argument “ought implies can.” If I “ought” to do x, this implies that I am able to do x. If I ought not to do y, then this implies that it is really possible for me to avoid doing y.

• Now suppose there is no free will. If there is no free will, then everything I did, I had to do. I could not avoid doing. Nor could I do any more than I have done. But since “ought” implies “can,” and i could not do otherwise, then one cannot say that I “ought” to have done otherwise.

Again, my point is that one cannot exclude the moral wrong done whether it is x, y, or Z.

Another way to think of this argument is:

1. If free will does not exist, then moral duties do not exist
2. moral duties do exist
3. therefore, free will exists.

This excludes the moral wrong which does occur with or without moral duties, whatever they are.

His classmates want to deny the existence of free will. What we are trying to show here, is that if one denies free will, that the consequences are so obviously absurd, that they should accept free will.

Again, denying free will or accepting free will does not impact consequences of the moral wrong forced on the girl in the original example

To drive this point home, a clear example is helpful, so in support of premise 1, we offer an example to show the skeptic what his denial of free will would lead to. hence the example: If free will did not exist, it would not be morally wrong to torture and kill a little girl.

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

Please think about this. 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.

Which means, that if his classmates really want to maintain that free will does not exist, that this belief entails that it is not really morally wrong when a man tortures and kills a little girl. But this is so obviously mistaken and ridiculous that his classmates should believe that this really is wrong. Since this is impossible without free will, it shows that his classmates are rationally obligated to believe in free will.

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?

Since this is a concern of yous, I will add that, I do believe that the human person, being made in the image and likeness of God is worthy of profound respect, as I believe that objective moral values and duties existed being based in the nature and commands of an essentially just and loving God. But that is not the argument I am making here. Here I am considering the ethical implications if free will did not exist.

Most people would believe that the human person is worthy of profound respect. But they do not consider it an objective truth so much so that I now usually use universal since “objective” is an unknown.

In my humble observation, all that was accomplished in the examples is that objective moral values went out the window in regard to the victim–all in the name of ethical implications. This is easily done when one links morality to someone’s belief, whether it is illusion or determinism or getting out of bed on the wrong side,

Before I throw up, I should mention that a way to demonstrate true free will is when a person goes against natural instincts of self preservation which, in real life, do not always include facing death. Sometimes self preservation is cheating on an exam or plagiarism, or white collar crime, or gossip, etc.

Probably why we differ so much is that it is easy for me to understand a both and situation. When there are two people involved like in the above examples, I automatically see both the perpetrator and the victim. Because it is easy for me to understand what an universal or objective truth is, I automatically apply it to all people regardless.

You may have the last word.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[tonyrey]

"Therefore, if there is no free will, a man who kills and rapes a little girl has not done something morally wrong."

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!