It is pretty clear that Man has never been able to live alone, mostly out of necessity of life, and therefore has inherited or acquired tribal tendencies.
The formation of a tribe (country) and the necessary formulation of laws and standards results in the some kind of restriction to individual behavior.
Therefore although we have the ability to reason, we cannot exercise our will as we please, we are subject to the decisions made by the group as a whole.
Even in so called free and democratic countries, whose group behavior has been outlined in some kind of constitution or in the absence of this, formulated by common law for example.
Ironically, tribalism can result in group endorsed actions that are contradictory to will, namely taking the life of another person, the majority of individual humans and human societies in general place very high value on individual life and have severe punishment for the taking of another life, and this is reinforced by most religious credo's where religion is used to re-enforce the tribal bonds.
But if one looks at a very short period of human evolution, namely the 20th century, just in this 100yrs it is estimated that between 200 and 300 million people died at the hands of other human beings in what can only be called tribal conflicts.
So it would appear obvious that the surviving population was on the whole responsible for carrying out this taking of life.
Therefore the conclusion might be drawn that this tribalism is a necessary part of human evolution, and therefore are instances where the taking of life against ones will is necessary for the survival of the Tribe?
Max.

But all things exist in context with all other things. It may well be that societies and individuals place a very high value on human life, but that does not mean that they place not taking human life above all else. Priorities and values come into conflict all the time, both at the societal level and at the individual level. In each such case, we must choose which wins out in that particular case given the context within which the conflict and decision exist.

 

I believe this is a dumb question !

Do I believe in Free Willy ? ...... Yep , it was a decent movie !

I was once told that the only dumb question are those that are not asked.

Plus, maybe you're saying that it's a dumb question.

1) Beauce if there isn't free will, why am I asking this anyway? Oh, maybe I AM PROGRAMMED to asked this question?

You are making an assumption and assertion about how people make decisions that precludes the notion of free will and then using that to form a conclusion that people don't have free will. A completely circular line of reasoning.

Maybe he's saying that we are programmed to always choose the ones that will benefit us, so we don't have free will.~

 

I was once told that the only dumb question are those that are not asked.

Plus, maybe you're saying that it's a dumb question.

1) Beauce if there isn't free will, why am I asking this anyway? Oh, maybe I AM PROGRAMMED to asked this question?

Good one Lightfire, touché!

 

You are making an assumption and assertion about how people make decisions that precludes the notion of free will and then using that to form a conclusion that people don't have free will. A completely circular line of reasoning.

You could be right. At the end of the day I don't really know if we have free will; that's quite a deep philosophical question.

But I can't think of an everyday scenario where someone would consciously choose the option that would end in a lower pleasure/pain balance.

Could you put an example of what you meant?

Maybe he's saying that we are programmed to always choose the ones that will benefit us, so we don't have free will.~

Thanks, that's exactly what I'm saying; we always choose the option that would overall provide us with the greatest pleasure and the lowest pain. Said that, different people have different concepts of happiness, therefore, they will go for different things; but they will never, in their own judgment, choose what they think would result in greater pain that pleasure.

I don't think this is an assumption; we all do that, we never choose pain over pleasure unless we think it will benefit us at the end somehow.

 

You could be right. At the end of the day I don't really know if we have free will; that's quite a deep philosophical question.

But I can't think of an everyday scenario where someone would consciously choose the option that would end in a lower pleasure/pain balance.

But it doesn't matter whether they do or do not consciously choose it, only that they COULD consciously choose it! The conclusion that they have no free will requires not that no one would choose it, but that they CANNOT choose it -- that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to choose an option that would end in a lower pleasure/pain balance.

Imagine getting a serving of corn and you've put just enough salt and pepper on it so that it tastes just right to you. If you were to put a bunch more salt on it, it would lower your pleasure, correct? Are you saying that it is impossible for you to choose to put more salt on it anyway? It's an easy experiment to perform.

 

But it doesn't matter whether they do or do not consciously choose it, only that they COULD consciously choose it! The conclusion that they have no free will requires not that no one would choose it, but that they CANNOT choose it -- that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to choose an option that would end in a lower pleasure/pain balance.

Imagine getting a serving of corn and you've put just enough salt and pepper on it so that it tastes just right to you. If you were to put a bunch more salt on it, it would lower your pleasure, correct? Are you saying that it is impossible for you to choose to put more salt on it anyway? It's an easy experiment to perform.

I see what you mean now, and to be honest putting it that way you do make a great point.

To start with, it would be quite difficult for me to argue against free will when we are already using concepts like conscious and choice; which in themselves already sort of imply free will. So, for a moment, let's forget about consciousness, and deal with choice.

In your example of the corn, I don't think it's a matter of impossibility, but a matter of how likely is that event to happen. Say you have 1 million people in that same situation; all of them are simply about to eat their corn as every other day, all of them know it's already perfectly seasoned, and all of them have their minds free of tests and philosophical questions. How many do you think will add more salt?

I think you would agree that the answer is none; no one will ruin their perfectly seasoned corn by adding more salt, right?

Now, if that event is unlikely to happen, even though it could be theoretically possible; did they really have that choice in the first place?

 

Ok. I think maybe majority of you believe in evolution. Do you believe that animals also have free will? I think they have. I think the notion that they do not have maybe came from the fact that they do not have the same intelligence as us.

So where does free will come from?

 

I see what you mean now, and to be honest putting it that way you do make a great point.

To start with, it would be quite difficult for me to argue against free will when we are already using concepts like conscious and choice; which in themselves already sort of imply free will. So, for a moment, let's forget about consciousness, and deal with choice.

In your example of the corn, I don't think it's a matter of impossibility, but a matter of how likely is that event to happen. Say you have 1 million people in that same situation; all of them are simply about to eat their corn as every other day, all of them know it's already perfectly seasoned, and all of them have their minds free of tests and philosophical questions. How many do you think will add more salt?

I think you would agree that the answer is none; no one will ruin their perfectly seasoned corn by adding more salt, right?

Now, if that event is unlikely to happen, even though it could be theoretically possible; did they really have that choice in the first place?

YES!!!!

It doesn't matter WHAT they choose. As long as they had a choice and they could have chosen something else. It doesn't matter whether they did or did not, only that they COULD have.

 

Ok. I think maybe majority of you believe in evolution. Do you believe that animals also have free will? I think they have. I think the notion that they do not have maybe came from the fact that they do not have the same intelligence as us.

So where does free will come from?

It doesn't have to "come" from anywhere. Quite the opposite, you could describe it as the lack of the presence of something that denies us free will.

 

YES!!!!

It doesn't matter WHAT they choose. As long as they had a choice and they could have chosen something else. It doesn't matter whether they did or did not, only that they COULD have.

I think it does matter, because it shows that there never really was a choice in the first place.

If there is no chance that anyone would ever "choose" to ruin their corn, then "choice" is nothing more than an illusion. And if there is no "choice", there is no free will. We can talk about it, and we can theorize and convince ourselves it exists, but at the end of the day we will always do what we are "programmed" to do: take the path that we think will be more pleasurable and less painful.

 

We have to be careful when we utter the word or verb "choose".

I think when adam555 says "choose", he meant that X chooses this not because X chooses this out of free will but because Y causes X to happen.

When we say free will, there really no external influences, or if there be, very small, we still have our OWN JUDGMENT.

But in case of determinism, yeah, we CHOOSE but that CHOOSING is 100% NOT FREE WILL. WE CHOSE because there is a causal factor.

I'm not saying there isn't free will, im just trying to make points clear.

I HOPE THERE IS A FREE WILL. Oh, if there isn't, LAW AND JUSTICE should GO BYE BYE.

 

We have to be careful when we utter the word or verb "choose".

I think when adam555 says "choose", he meant that X chooses this not because X chooses this out of free will but because Y causes X to happen.

Well, first I need to apologize for my poor English; as you may have noticed, it's not my first language.

I use "choice" because I can't find a better word; but what I'm trying to say is that there really is no choice, we are forced by our own nature to act as we do; and even when we think we are consciously "choosing", we are also following that same nature.

I HOPE THERE IS A FREE WILL. Oh, if there isn't, LAW AND JUSTICE should GO BYE BYE.

I'm glad you brought that up, because for a long time I've been convinced that no one "chooses" to break the law or end up in prison; their nature, life experiences and their environment has driven them to act as they do... they never had a "choice".

The solution would be very easy: education and a healthy environment, instead of punishment. But of course, that would be impossible in our world right now; though that's a political matter totally unrelated with this discussion.

 

The solution would be very easy: education and a healthy environment, instead of punishment. But of course, that would be impossible in our world right now; though that's a political matter totally unrelated with this discussion.

But we don't have free will, so it is the destiny that makes our living. So how can we have a solution? What if determinism just like the way life is.

 

Evolution probably believes in abiogenesis not omnis cellula e cellula. So how come from a very simple molecules that cannot even think to the human that can think (and we believe that has free will) happened?

 

But we don't have free will, so it is the destiny that makes our living. So how can we have a solution? What if determinism just like the way life is.

Great point!!! You totally got me there.

I also came to that conclusion recently... the world is like it is, because that's how it's meant to be; there's no point in trying to change it when most people are not ready for it. The only thing we can do is spread ideas... just plant seeds... in the hope that one day it will catch up.

Though maybe that's just my nature...

 

People rarely choose to go to prison (there are exceptions). They break the law because they think they can get by with it.

Most people don't break the law because they are afraid to go to prison, they don't break the law because it is against their personal moral codes. This is a fundamental choice everyone makes in their lives, usually when they are very young. Parents help teach morality, but only you can decide if it is how you want to live your life.

 

Well, first I need to apologize for my poor English; as you may have noticed, it's not my first language.

I use "choice" because I can't find a better word; but what I'm trying to say is that there really is no choice, we are force by our own nature to act as we do; and even when we think are consciously "choosing", we are also following that same nature.



I'm glad you brought that up, because for a long time I've been convinced that no one "chooses" to break the law or end up in prison; their nature, life experiences and their environment has driven them to act as they do... they never had a "choice".

The solution would be very easy: education and a healthy environment, instead of punishment. But of course, that would be impossible in our world right now; though that's a political matter totally unrelated with this discussion.

So since someone that drives drunk and kills a car load of people had no choice in doing so, upon what basis should they be subjected to any penalty at all?

 

Great point!!! You totally got me there.

I also came to that conclusion recently... the world is like it is, because that's how it's meant to be; there's no point in trying to change it when most people are not ready for it. The only thing we can do is spread ideas... just plant seeds... in the hope that one day it will catch up.

Though maybe that's just my nature...

You are talking out both sides of your mouth.

Basically you are saying that you have no choice in what you do, yet by spreading ideas you hope to impact the choices others make. Do you see how absurd that is? Do you really believe that you can influence the actions of others but you have zero control over your own.

 

You are talking out both sides of your mouth.

Basically you are saying that you have no choice in what you do, yet by spreading ideas you hope to impact the choices others make. Do you see how absurd that is? Do you really believe that you can influence the actions of others but you have zero control over your own.

Everyone is constantly influencing everyone else; whether intentionally or not, and whether we have an insignificant or a huge impact. So I don't see how influencing others and don't believing in free will are conflicting ideas.

Assuming that I don't really have free will, no real control over my future actions -because my decisions will be based on my "programming" (and by programming I mean the thought process that results from my nature, my life experiences and the particular circumstances [the environment])-, I'm simply going to end up doing what I'm meant to do, what I'm forced by my "programing" to do; which I perceive as choice, though in reality choice is never involved in the first place.

And in regards to others being influenced if we don't have free will: it's also not a matter of choice, it's a matter of providing additional information so that their "programming" reaches the desired results... and by desired, of course, I mean what my "programming" dictates; not my choice or predilection.

People rarely choose to go to prison (there are exceptions). They break the law because they think they can get by with it.

Most people don't break the law because they are afraid to go to prison, they don't break the law because it is against their personal moral codes. This is a fundamental choice everyone makes in their lives, usually when they are very young. Parents help teach morality, but only you can decide if it is how you want to live your life.

You're right: no one chooses to go to prison; everyone thinks he will get away with it.

What I meant above is that those who broke the law did it because their "programming" (nature, life experiences and the circumstances) returned a "go ahead" after calculating the pain/pleasure balance; that they would gain from it more than what they would loose.

Please consider this: we probably can't change someone's nature, but do you think they would have gone ahead with the crime if their circumstances or their life experiences were different?

So since someone that drives drunk and kills a car load of people had no choice in doing so, upon what basis should they be subjected to any penalty at all?

If I may, I'll answer with another questions: wouldn't it be better to prevent that from ever happening, than looking for fair forms of punishment?

This is an entirely different topic, but: if you could get people to stop driving while drunk, you wouldn't need to find a punishment for it.

 

Let's use an analogy to better explain what I'm talking about:

Imagine you are playing a computer racing game. The computer's car is about to overtake you, and it can overtake you by the left or by the right; it ends up doing it by the right. So....

Has this computer game free will?

If your answer is "no"... why not?