Free Will (115)

1 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-02-20 20:04 ID:NK6j9axv

I've decided that since this arguement relies heavily on science (and since there are other philosophical topics on this board) to move this discussion from the General board to here.

http://4-ch.net/general/kareha.pl/1171775011/

66 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-01 23:10 ID:zm6ANFQc

>>65

Exactly. But if you believe morals are just arbitary inherited inhibitions, and you should only act in such a fashion that brings you the greatest happiness, does it not follow that you should try to rid yourself of the feelings of guilt and remorse, as they make you unhappy?

67 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-01 23:33 ID:NK6j9axv

There's a psychological barrier to ridding yourself of those feelings of guilt and remorse though. Like I said, people who show no capacity for guilt or remorse are called sociopaths. You're born with sociopathic tendencies, you don't condition yourself to be that way.

>does it not follow that you should try to rid yourself of the feelings of guilt and remorse, as they make you unhappy?

For those of us who are not sociopaths, it is far easier to avoid feelings of guilt by conforming to our moral inhibitions, rather than undertake the incredibly difficult, perhaps even impossible task of reconditioning ourselves to no longer feel guilt.

68 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-02 00:46 ID:Heaven

>>67

Are you entirely sure that is the case? That seems a pretty frail reason to act morally, when the payoff for not doing so can be very large.

69 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-02 01:34 ID:NK6j9axv

>>68

It seems like an entirely logical and rational explanation to me. What is this "large payoff" you get from not acting morally? You feel intensely guilty about it, and society punishes you for it. The personal gains would be almost exclusively material (due to the remorse involved,) and not very large at that.

70 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-02 03:36 ID:NK6j9axv

>>68

I'm also curious, (if you've stated this already I must have missed it), but what is your belief regarding morals? And what does it have to do with free will?

71 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2007-03-02 18:25 ID:Heaven

> As much as I don't want to die, I'd want even less to be the reason for the death of my loved ones.

So whatever motivates you is not necessarily a pursuit of pleasure then.

If you die, there will be no further pleasure. If you don't die, there will be further pleasure. To maximize pleasure you shouldn't trade yourself for the others.

72 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-02 19:06 ID:NK6j9axv

>So whatever motivates you is not necessarily a pursuit of pleasure then

Sure it is. The pleasure I get from knowing I saved the lives of my loved ones, however brief, would outweigh the grief/guilt I would feel the rest of my life if I had lived. Therefore pleasure is still maximized (a whole bunch really fast versus none for years to come)

This is starting to delve into the territory of altruism though (I believe there are no truly altruistic actions because every action is made with your own best interest in mind.)

73 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-02 23:14 ID:Heaven

>>69

Not from "not acting morally" - from ridding yourself of the urge to act morally. If you can act immorally without regret, your pleasure will surely increase quite a bit.

And my belief regarding morals is that they are inherently about choice, and without choice, there can be no logical justification for morals - you seem to agree on this, as you do not try to justify morals in any way, only explain them, but you do not entirely seem prepared to accept the consequences of this.

74 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-03 01:25 ID:NK6j9axv

>If you can act immorally without regret

This is nearly impossible for psychologically normal people though. I consider it to be essentially a non-issue. Now if somehow you could then sure, you might be able to increase your pleasure, unless of course you end up being caught and punished by society. Even for people with no remorse, the law is still somewhat of a deterrant from immoral behavior.

75 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2007-03-03 01:38 ID:Heaven

> The pleasure I get from knowing I saved the lives of my loved ones, however brief, would outweigh the grief/guilt I would feel the rest of my life if I had lived.

Grief or guilt? That's not maximizing pleasure, dear friend. That's minimizing pain.

Also, believing that relief for your family compensates for the complete loss of any potential pleasure in the future is a bit dubious in my opinion. A single dose of heroin probably has a more profound effect, and you can take a whole lot of those in one lifetime...

You might find the topic of Pavlovian or operant conditioning to be of interest.

76 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-03 03:44 ID:NK6j9axv

>That's not maximizing pleasure, dear friend. That's minimizing pain.

You're splitting hairs now. There is no 0 point on the scale, a place where pain stops and pleasure begins. It's either a shift towards the positive, or towards the negative. Minimizing pain is a shift towards the positive.

And besides that, we're not just talking about sensory pleasure here (like heroin) we're also talking about intrinsic pleasure from confidence, sense of self-worth, etc. If you were responsible for the death of all of your loved ones, those things would go down the tubes drastically for a long time to come, diminishing any potential pleasure you might experience in the future.

77 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-03 03:49 ID:NK6j9axv

>>75

One more point to make, we're also talking about perceived benefit here. For instance, a person who commits suicide is obviously not maximizing their potential pleasure in life, but from their perspective they are taking the action that they perceive will have the greatest benefit to them.

78 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2007-03-03 04:46 ID:Heaven

You may be right that I am being pedantic. I can only go with what was written. Words have meaning, and pleasure isn't benefit.

Perceived benefit I might even agree with, although with some caveats. A lot of our behaviour is hardwired.

79 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-03 13:36 ID:zm6ANFQc

> This is nearly impossible for psychologically normal people though. I consider it to be essentially a non-issue.

But is this then the only reason you, personally, behave morally? Because you think it is too hard to overcome guilt, and you are afraid of punishment?

80 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-03 18:23 ID:NK6j9axv

>>78
It was my original argument that most of our moral behavior is hardwired. But it's not hardwired in a way such that we perceive we're acting beyond our control, it's hardwired in such a way that when we act according to it, we feel as though we're acting in our own best interest.

>>79
I think that's the only reason anyone conforms to societal morals. Personal guilt, and fear of punishment. No guilt and no punishment means no incentive to behave in any particular way.

And it's not just too hard to overcome guilt, you (and I) would feel guilty for trying to overcome guilt, because you know what your intended outcome would be (to behave in a way that would normally make you feel guilty.) That in itself is a deterrant.

81 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-04 17:44 ID:zm6ANFQc

>>80

Even when you know intellectually that guilt is arbitary, and not everybody is bound by it?

Does this not mean your entire behavior is based on being weak of will?

82 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-04 18:33 ID:NK6j9axv

What exactly do you mean by "arbitrary?" It's only as arbitrary as the rest of my emotions or biological desires.

83 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-04 22:13 ID:zm6ANFQc

>>82

That there is no higher reason or justification for it, as people generally like to believe.

84 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-04 23:50 ID:NK6j9axv

I would say that there is no higher reason for it, but I still hesitate to call it arbitrary, because that seems to insinuate there is no logical justification for it either, which I believe there is (as explained in my whole natural selection thing before.)

I would not say that my behavior is based on being weak of will though. All my decisions (everyone's decisions in fact) are based on what they believe is in their best interest. I believe that there is no real benefit for me to lose the capacity for guilt, so I do not attempt to do so. Were I actually to lose the capacity for guilt, I might think otherwise, but currently my psychological state is such that I believe it is in my best interest to be capable of feeling guilt.

85 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-05 01:06 ID:zm6ANFQc

>>84

But natural selection works on averages and groups, not on individuals. There is no reason for an individual to give in to the blind pressures of evolution (if we for a moment accept that morals are evolved).

And if you can intellectualy conceive of a state that offers you greater happiness, but you do not attempt to reach it because of your inhibitions, how can you justify that behavior?

86 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-05 02:26 ID:NK6j9axv

>There is no reason for an individual to give in to the blind pressures of evolution

If you act on a sexual urge, are you "giving in" to evolution? Sexual desire is an evolved trait, the same way that guilt and moral behavior are. You are afforded some degree of control over both of these, and neither are required for survival, but the need to act on these urges is hard wired into you.

>And if you can intellectualy conceive of a state that offers you greater happiness, but you do not attempt to reach it because of your inhibitions, how can you justify that behavior?

As I said before, I do not perceive that losing my capacity to feel guilt would offer me greater happiness. That is not to say that I know for certain it would not, but I do not perceive that it would, therefore I do not attempt to reach that state.

87 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-05 16:25 ID:zm6ANFQc

> If you act on a sexual urge, are you "giving in" to evolution?

Of course. But there's a positive payoff (well, generally speaking), so if you want to act to increase your happiness, there's nothing wrong in indulging. However, there's no benefit from guilt, and so it only makes sense to try and overcome it, if your only basis for acting in increasing happiness.

> As I said before, I do not perceive that losing my capacity to feel guilt would offer me greater happiness.

Losing a source of unhappiness would not increase your happiness?

88 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-05 19:34 ID:NK6j9axv

>However, there's no benefit from guilt

Yes there is, the benefit from guilt is that it inhibits you from behaving in a way that is harmful to society. (Just as the benefit from sex is that you pass on your genes, both of these traits result in increased fitness.)

>Losing a source of unhappiness would not increase your happiness?

Guilt is only a source of unhappiness if I behave in a way that makes me feel guilty. It would a simple matter for me to lose that source of unhappiness by not behaving in ways that make me feel guilty. That's how most people deal with it.

89 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-05 23:41 ID:zm6ANFQc

> Yes there is, the benefit from guilt is that it inhibits you from behaving in a way that is harmful to society.

That is not a benefit for an intelligent individual. It is a benefit for society. It has no bearing on your actions as an indivdual, which is what I was asking about: How and why do you, personally, act?

> Guilt is only a source of unhappiness if I behave in a way that makes me feel guilty. It would a simple matter for me to lose that source of unhappiness by not behaving in ways that make me feel guilty.

And this restricts your options for acting in ways that may very well prevent you from increasing your happiness.

90 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-06 02:26 ID:NK6j9axv

>That is not a benefit for an intelligent individual. It is a benefit for society.

Living in a society benefits an individual. That's how societies formed in the first place, organizations of individuals who work together survive better than individuals who live on their own. A benefit for society is therefore a benefit for the individuals who live in it.

>And this restricts your options for acting in ways that may very well prevent you from increasing your happiness.

I think your logic may be flawed here. If I behave in a way that makes me unhappy, your solution to increase my happiness is not to stop that behavior, but rather psychologically condition myself so that the behavior makes me happy instead. That would be like if you told me you broke your leg and it made you unhappy, so my solution was to tell you to just condition yourself to enjoy breaking your leg. After all, if you don't enjoy breaking your leg, you're just restricting yourself from increasing your happiness. Now I don't deny that it may be theoretically possible to condition yourself to enjoy breaking your leg, but I would argue that it would be unpleasant, nearly impossible, and bad for your physical well-being to boot.

Now you may argue that the only difference here is that immoral behavior is not physically bad for you. Well as long as you're living in a society with morals it is. If your society functions well, you benefit. If it does not function well (due to its members engaging in societally destructive behavior which we have termed "immoral" behavior,) then you do not benefit.

If you were to live outside of society, then (if not for guilt) you could engage in any "immoral" behavior you wish without any negative consequences to yourself. And in fact, people who live outside of society tend to go in this direction (pirates and such.) But this is only an increase to your overall happiness if you perceive the added benefit of being free in your actions to outweigh the benefit of living in a society. I personally believe I benefit more from living in a functional society (I can make use of doctors, grocery stores, police services, etc.) To me, those are worth more than the freedom to murder someone if I felt like it. Note we're still talking about a situation in which guilt has been abolished. As it stands, guilt is still a deterrant for me (and most people) to behave in that manner.

91 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-06 13:28 ID:pCdzougU

> Living in a society benefits an individual.

Only on average. Once again, I am not asking about averages, I am asking about your personal decisions. You cannot live your life making decisions based on averages over the whole population.

> I think your logic may be flawed here. If I behave in a way that makes me unhappy, your solution to increase my happiness is not to stop that behavior, but rather psychologically condition myself so that the behavior makes me happy instead.

No, my solution is to try to remove the already existing psychological conditioning that is making you feel unhappy without an actual, physical cause. "Behaving in this manner would be a detriment to society if everyone did it" is not something that causes you, personally, any disadvantage.

> That would be like if you told me you broke your leg and it made you unhappy, so my solution was to tell you to just condition yourself to enjoy breaking your leg.

No, the pain from breaking a leg serves an important purpose, notifiying you that something is indeed wrong. If you want to use that analogy, I am saying that if a bee stings you and causes pain, you should use whatever means you have to lessen that pain because it is not actually signalling any real danger to you, and is merely making you unhappy.

> If your society functions well, you benefit. If it does not function well (due to its members engaging in societally destructive behavior which we have termed "immoral" behavior,) then you do not benefit.

If only you, personally, misbehave, society will not suffer, at least not enough for it to have any measurable impact on you. For instance, if you scam some money out of the government, it's not like your personal tax burden is going to increase by the same amount. You claimed that you only act to increase your own happiness, but this cannot be true if you in fact also act to preserve society even when not doing so would not cause you any real disadvantage.

92 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-06 16:28 ID:xQrWz19R

If you become a thief you lose your independence.

93 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-06 20:06 ID:NK6j9axv

>the pain from breaking a leg serves an important purpose, notifiying you that something is indeed wrong.

The guilt from committing immoral actions also serves the purpose of notifying you that you are behaving in a manner that is "wrong" (or rather, contrary to your evolved nature.)

>You claimed that you only act to increase your own happiness, but this cannot be true if you in fact also act to preserve society even when not doing so would not cause you any real disadvantage.

You're reasoning as though I am intentionally causing myself to feel guilt after logically determining that my actions have been detrimental to society. That's not how it works, it's an instinctual response. Individuals who feel guilt about certain actions that are detrimental to communities are less likely to commit those actions, are then more likely to survive well in those communities, and therefore have greater fitness. We have evolved from those individuals, so those behaviors have become hardwired into us. When I feel guilt over doing something detrimental to society, it is because it is an instinctual response, just like a fear of predatory animals or a desire to engage in sexual activity. These are all behaviors that have evolved because they confer an advantage to those individuals who exhibit them.

94 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-06 20:16 ID:zm6ANFQc

> The guilt from committing immoral actions also serves the purpose of notifying you that you are behaving in a manner that is "wrong" (or rather, contrary to your evolved nature.)

That "evolution" happened under very, very different circumstances than those you actually live under. It's a toss-up whether or not they serve any useful purpose at this point. And either way, your intellect serves you much better in deciding which actions are beneficial than primitive instincts, I think you'll agree. There is still nothing inherently good about following your programming, and it definitely does not increase your happiness, which you said is how you judge actions.

> Individuals who feel guilt about certain actions...

You're still talking about people as generalizations. Once again, I did not ask about what people in general do, I asked about what you, personally do.

95 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-06 20:31 ID:NK6j9axv

>You're still talking about people as generalizations. Once again, I did not ask about what people in general do, I asked about what you, personally do.

I believe I already answered that in >>90

>I personally believe I benefit more from living in a functional society (I can make use of doctors, grocery stores, police services, etc.) To me, those are worth more than the freedom to murder someone if I felt like it. Note we're still talking about a situation in which guilt has been abolished. As it stands, guilt is still a deterrant for me (and most people) to behave in that manner.

I do not believe I can remove my capacity for guilt any more than I can remove my capacity for fear or my capacity for sexual desire. Therefore, by behaving in a manner that avoids guilt, I am maximizing my pleasure to the best of my ability. Or a better way to phrase it would be to say I am behaving in a way that I perceive benefits me the most.

96 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-06 23:51 ID:zm6ANFQc

> I believe I already answered that in >>90

Sorry, I don't quite see it. Could you summarize? I'll summarize what I preceive to be your argument, and my problem with it:

  1. You say that morals are arbitary, in the sense that they have no higher justification and are merely adaptations for group behaviour.
  2. You say that you live to maximize your own happiness.
  3. You say you only follow morals as defined in point 1 because your instincts tell you to, and not for any higher reason.

I'd argue that your intellect is a far better guide than your insticts, but you seem to defer to instincts and entirely dismiss even attempting to override them by the use of intellect. I can't really say this way of living your life appeals to me.

> I do not believe I can remove my capacity for guilt any more than I can remove my capacity for fear or my capacity for sexual desire.

Many, many people have done either of those. So once again, it seems to me that you are living your life based on the assumption that you are too weak of will to do anything better for yourself.

97 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-07 00:32 ID:rgiFW1sf

So...

Who's that who says "who's that" when I say "who's that?"

98 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-07 01:55 ID:NK6j9axv

>>96

Your summarization sounds pretty accurate.

>I'd argue that your intellect is a far better guide than your insticts

In the case of morals, why? Please explain.

>Many, many people have done either of those.

Sure you can overcome a porn addiction, or overcome a fear of spiders, but to fear nothing? To sexually desire nothing? I seriously doubt there are people who have willed themselves to be in that state. If you can name some examples and cite sources, I'd be interested to look at them.

99 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-07 02:09 ID:zm6ANFQc

>> I'd argue that your intellect is a far better guide than your insticts
> In the case of morals, why? Please explain.

I can't think of any situation where insticts are a better guide than intellect in the first place, so I don't even know where to start explaining that.

Well, maybe one exception would be when you are in a state of abject terror. That's the only one I can think of. As you seldom make moral decisions in a state of abject terror, intellect still wins out.

> Sure you can overcome a porn addiction, or overcome a fear of spiders, but to fear nothing? To sexually desire nothing? I seriously doubt there are people who have willed themselves to be in that state. If you can name some examples and cite sources, I'd be interested to look at them.

Why do you assume you would have to overcome everything before it counts?

100 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-07 04:28 ID:NK6j9axv

>I can't think of any situation where insticts are a better guide than intellect in the first place, so I don't even know where to start explaining that.

Well give me an example of an intellectual rationalization for certain moral behaviors.

>Why do you assume you would have to overcome everything before it counts?

Because that's what we're talking about here. Sure you can overcome feeling guilty about some things that it's irrational to get upset over (for example, guilt over skipping a class, or calling in sick to work,) but to overcome feeling guilt about everything (or at least the "big" things) is what we've been talking about.

101 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-07 13:33 ID:pCdzougU

> Well give me an example of an intellectual rationalization for certain moral behaviors.

You've opened a book on the philosophy of morals, have you not?

> Because that's what we're talking about here. Sure you can overcome feeling guilty about some things that it's irrational to get upset over (for example, guilt over skipping a class, or calling in sick to work,) but to overcome feeling guilt about everything (or at least the "big" things) is what we've been talking about.

No, we are not. That would be silly. Whereever did you get that idea? And how do you differentiate a "big" thing from a non-"big" thing?

102 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-07 15:41 ID:NK6j9axv

>You've opened a book on the philosophy of morals, have you not?

If I have, I am unaware of it. A brief search reveals an essay by Immanuel Kant in which he states "Instruction in the laws of morality is not drawn from observation of oneself or of our animal nature, nor from perception of the course of the world in regard to what happens, or how men act."

In this regard, I disagree, the laws of morality are wholly derived from our animal nature.

I still invite you to give me an intellectual rationalization for certain moral behaviors. I belive that any such rationalization will ultimately boil down to instinctual behavior as a product of evolution.

>No, we are not. That would be silly. Whereever did you get that idea? And how do you differentiate a "big" thing from a non-"big" thing?

All along you have been telling me that if I act purely to increase my happiness, that by abolishing my capacity for guilt, I can be even happier, and that since I claim to act intellectually, it would be illogical for me to not do so. This seems to me to encompass guilt over all things (especially since you did not specify which things it is okay to feel guilty about, and which things it is not.)

As for what a "big" thing is, that would be anything that is considered to be absolutely immoral by society as a whole (rape, murder, that sort of thing) as opposed to things that are opposed by a few or a minority, or opposed only some of the time (such as lying, shirking ones' professional duties, etc.)

103 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-10 18:03 ID:Ikkm2W5v

In Free Willy the killer whale was actually kept in captivity so long during filming that they needed to keep it on antidepressants.

104 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-10 18:38 ID:Heaven

>>103 don't fuck up the discussion of the other 2 posters here.

105 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-10 22:32 ID:NK6j9axv

>>104

Other people are welcome to chime in, as long as it's relevant.

106 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-13 08:05 ID:Heaven

>>105 lol
did you even read >>103 ????

107 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-13 10:26 ID:W+OuxlWm

The very question of free will inherently implies dualism. By rejecting religion, the soul and other spiritual nonsense, the question simply goes away.

108 Name: lemon : 2007-03-13 10:42 ID:W+OuxlWm

Or to phrase this in the form of a question...what can the will be free from?

All freedom can be defined in two ways, as a freedom to or a freedom from. The idea of free will concerns itself with the freedom to choose. This sounds interesting at first, but when turned around it becomes freedom from the flesh. This shows the question fully dependent upon us accepting that our minds can exist independent of the rest of us.

What I claim is that there can be no freedom from the body, the brain or our many nerve endings, nor does there have to be, because it's the only entity. When the entity making the choices is the same thing as the one constraining the choices, the will goes unchained.

109 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-13 15:50 ID:NK6j9axv

>>106

That's why I said "as long as it's relevant." :P

>>107 >>108 This has been essentially my reasoning since the OP. What exactly do you mean by "the will goes unchained" though?

110 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-14 03:30 ID:d+q72amg

Since no one answered when I posted it before, I'll try again.

Who's that who says "who's that" when I say "who's that?"

111 Name: lemon : 2007-03-15 11:03 ID:Auf2zwid

>>109

Heh, "the will goes unchained" is just a phrase I took from a series of old text files from the early 90s. It doesn't mean much, it was just used all the time, even when it had no apparent relation to the rest of the text.

A failed attempt at humour through obscurity, I suppose.

112 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-15 14:29 ID:1yr96F7T

>>110
You.

113 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-15 14:50 ID:QdV5yBWo

Is it bad?
Let's say you play a video game - why do you play it?
The game follows a predetermined route, you are constrained by its rules, your "will" is subject to the programmer's will, you have limited choices... Shouldn't you refuse to play any and all games because your "free will" is restricted in those?

114 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-16 00:21 ID:NK6j9axv

>>110
See >>112

>>113
I don't think it's a bad thing. Was anyone arguing that it was?

115 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-03-16 04:04 ID:QdV5yBWo

Ha, I see someone posted the same logic as mine in the second post of the original thread at http://4-ch.net/general/kareha.pl/1171775011/

Then I don't get this thread. What's the question?

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.