JCC If you don't believe in free will, you are bad and should feel bad

What about the many historical example who were said to be fearless because they believed the time and manner of their death was fixed and inalterable? That lends itself to either tremendous moral courage or fanaticism, depending on how you'd want to interpret it. Or alternatively, I could postulate that the existence of elements beyond the person's control might make them even more determined to play a decisive role in those things that they can, again inspiring even more altruism or positive action than would a model built solely on free will.

 

The words "moral" and "courage" both imply there is a choice to be had - "moral" being a set of values one holds to despite there being the opportunity and the choice by which to behave in another manner (be it immoral or amoral), and "courage" being a value ascribed to an act which is held to be engaged in by a person despite there being a choice to do otherwise or indeed to avoid the action altogether (leading to the opposite value of "cowardly" or the neutral value of "as ordered" or "as required" or "the minimum correct thing".)

If an act is engaged in because the person believes the time and manner of their death is fixed, unalterable, they therefore are acting on the certainty that they either will--
(a) inevitably die during the act or
(b) inevitably not die because they know their death is for another point--
--then it seems to me the act cannot be considered morally courageous, at least in the subjective sense. In neither case is there the choice which is inherent to both moral behaviour and courageous behaviour: either you do the act and die because it is appointed (and therefore you're not doing anything you have any choice about, and thus are not being moral as such) or you do the act "knowing" you won't die because your time and place of death is elsewhere (in which case you are not really acting courageously because you have the assurance that there's no actual risk in what you're doing, so how can you be said to be courageous?).

EDIT: For example, Macbeth in Shakespeare's play: deceived though he is, he believes wholeheartedly that he cannot be killed by any man born of a woman. When he takes on Seward's son ahead of his final battle with Macduff, is he being courageous to say "Bring it on, homie, because since you're born of a woman, you can't kill me anyway"? And indeed when he takes on Macduff, knowing he must die in this fight but fights anyway, is he being moral to fight on anyway since he literally has no other choice - "Still I will try the last"?

 

People who reject the reality of free will are either delusional, stupid, or deceived. Very few things are involuntary for us, like breathing, heartbeat, digestion, etc. Most things we do everyday are the result of conscious decisions, whether its to use a fork for lunch or post on this message board. It amazes me how many self-proclaimed "intellectuals" debate over this, completely ignoring the fact that their own participation in such a discussion is also the result of conscious choice.

 

I am thoroughly surprised that Moviefan2k4 is taking a stand against intellectuals.

 

I'm not against people using their brains, but some things are just flat-out foolish. In order to deny the existence of free will, you have to make a conscious choice...which is a result of the free will you're trying to deny. Its a self-defeating argument.

 

How can you just declare free will exists? I can understand treating it like it does, but just declaring it? What makes you so damn sure that you're willing to insult the intelligence of those better educated than you who have written on the topic?

 

People exercise their own free will in seeking out and/or accepting that education; another example of its existence.

 

I like how entire schools of philosophy are now "self-proclaimed intellectuals."

Edit: Furthermore, your arguments "in favor" of free will are pretty much the first thing any decent argument against free will proceeds to dismantle, which to me suggests that your knowledge of the other side of the debate is somewhat cursory.

 

How do you know they exercise free will?

 

Because any conscious choice, by definition, is the result of free will. If you don't make the call for yourself, its not free, or done by your own will.

 

How do you know this? Also how do you know they're making a conscious choice?

 

Consciousness is obvious; we all exercise it on a daily basis unless we're brain-dead. Everyone on this board makes a conscious choice to post, every time they do so.

 

Consciousness isn't obvious. Even if it was, it wouldn't guarantee choice.

 

What is consciousness, though? Is it an awareness of self? If so, what "self" is it aware of? Your 2 year old self? Your 12 year old self? The person you were yesterday? Your future-with-Alzheimer's self? People's thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and basic identities change over a lifetime. "Consciousness" then must be at least in part an illusion--the illusion that all these shifting states of self are somehow a single, changeless "me."

If consciousness is an illusion, then how can there be "conscious choice?"

 

look this would all be so much easier if every time you were tempted to think deeply about the great mysteries and seeming contradictions of life you just defaulted to "god did it"

 

Maybe Moviefan2k4 should become Textbookfan2k4 before continuing this discussion.

 

sick burn. props.

but i mean think about how much easier life would be if you just had one textbook for everything and anything you need to know was in there and there were literally millions of dudes offering to tutor you in said textbook but they all have different takes on the material so you can pick one that appeals to your particular cultural background and/or deep-seated insecurities? why even worry about free will in that scenario?

 

Well, assuming you're making an analogy about the Bible, it's supposed to be a sort of guide to a moral system, and you can't have morality in the conventional sense without free will.

Speaking of which, this article describes a study in which scientists were able to predict people's choices up to 7 seconds before people were aware of choosing. That doesn't exactly prove that we live in a watchmaker universe, with every action and reaction determined at the moment of the Big Bang, but it does show that unconscious brain activity is powerful enough to erode evidence for "conscious choice."

 

Except literally every "conscious choice" - without getting into the hairy subject matter of what exactly constitutes "conscious" or "choice" - is made based on your morals, beliefs, and the situations you've lived in, amongst a myriad of other factors. You have control over exactly none of those, so how exactly are you exercising any control at all?

 

Here's just one example: no one's forcing you to post on this message board right now.

Therefore, you're making a choice, which means free will exists.

 

I thought the bold was a mod edit for some reason.

 

Moviefan2k4, do you believe that every event has a cause? If so, then you have to accept that every decision you make is the end of a long causal chain that leads to someone or something outside yourself. No one is suggesting you're a puppet on an unseen hand. Rather, you're more like a vastly sophisticated marionette with all your internal parts connected to strings that lead elsewhere.

Of course, you may believe in free will anyway, but if you do, you've either got to accept a rather peculiar definition of free will (Compatibilism), or just plug your ears, sing, and say "I know, but I don't care!!" (Existentialism).

I'm an Existentialist. Hi.

 

existentialism is for communists and frenchmen. god did it

 

Mais oui, Comrade!

 

GOD MADE ME POST THOSE NIC CAGE PHOTOS IN THE ROB FORD THREAD