Morality and Free Will

[S.A.M.]

(Based on the recommendation of glaucon in the Determinism thread)

Free will, or the capacity to choose from a set of available alternatives, is an integral part of the concept of selfhood and personal moral responsibility.

But what is free will? And how would you define morality as a consequence of free will?

From the thread on Determinism:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58417&page=1&pp=10

There is a true story about a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp who is raped by a guard. Fearful of discovery (since the Nazi regime was homophobic), the guard took the prisoner's cap. Knowing full well that coming to roll call without a cap means certain death with a bullet in the brain, the prisoner stole the cap of another prisoner. The next day, during roll call, the second prisoner was shot dead.

Was the first prisoner moral?

Did he make a choice to take the cap?

Is this free will?

What do you think?

In his place what would you have done?

 

[*stRgrL*]

To save your own life... is immoral?

 

[Baron Max]

Morality can't be defined. It's different for different people, different cultures, different times, ....different everything. What's moral today might well be immoral tomorrow ..or what's moral for one group might not be for another group.

Questions about morality are, at best, something that only an individual can decide for himself, not for others.

Baron Max

 

[Jaster Mereel]

To save your own life... is immoral?

If you are sacrificing another in order to do it, in most contexts, is considered immoral. It offends the sensibilities of most who would look upon the situation. I'll go no further in my definition of morality than that. I might have to start a separate thread about it.

 

[TimeTraveler]

(Based on the recommendation of glaucon in the Determinism thread)

Free will, or the capacity to choose from a set of available alternatives, is an integral part of the concept of selfhood and personal moral responsibility.

But what is free will? And how would you define morality as a consequence of free will?

From the thread on Determinism:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58417&page=1&pp=10



What do you think?

Do whatever you want, minimize harm to everyone else, that is freewill.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Morality can't be defined. It's different for different people, different cultures, different times, ....different everything. What's moral today might well be immoral tomorrow ..or what's moral for one group might not be for another group.

Questions about morality are, at best, something that only an individual can decide for himself, not for others.

Baron Max

Morality is what allows the species to survive, no species, no morality.

 

[TimeTraveler]

To save your own life... is immoral?

It's always moral to save your own life.

 

[Baron Max]

Morality is what allows the species to survive, no species, no morality.

Can you prove that ..or even provide some evidence to substantiate that claim? I mean, what's your reasoning behind it ...or is it just your own personal belief?

You realize, of course, that to actually make that statement means that you have to have a complete definition of "morality", right? I'd dearly love to hear that one.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

It's always moral to save your own life.

Even at the expense of others? Say, a thousand people? Or perhaps at the expense of your wife and all your children?

I'd like to read your reasoning behind that statement.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

No one has said what the first prisoner should have done.

 

[Baron Max]

No one has said what the first prisoner should have done.

That's because one can't make that choice without using a perspective of all of those involved ....from what viewpoint? From the view of the first prisoner? The second prisoner? The guard? Uninvolved observers? God? The trees? The fence?

Perspective is all-important or an answer is nothing but hot air ...or worse.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

That's because one can't make that choice without using a perspective of all of those involved ....from what viewpoint? From the view of the first prisoner? The second prisoner? The guard? Uninvolved observers? God? The trees? The fence?

Perspective is all-important or an answer is nothing but hot air ...or worse.

Baron Max

From the perspective of the first prisoner.

In his place what would you have done?

(I'm going to add this to the first post)

 

[Baron Max]

From the perspective of the first prisoner.

Well, Sam, he saved his own life .....from his perspective, that has to be a good thing, a moral thing. ...else he'd not have done it.

In his place what would you have done?

Sam, I have no idea. And I don't think anyone else can say for sure what they'd do in such circumstances ....in those situations one does what he feels at the time, perhaps regretting it later. No, no one can say with any certainty. It's like diving on a live grenade in combat ...no one would ever say that he'd do that, yet there have been many who did.

Baron Max

 

[(Q)]

Some religions would attempt to define what the prisoner should have done, while our own inherent morals would have us doing something different, attempting not to do harm to others.

What happens in the spur of the moment under extreme circumstances is something totally different only to be debated afterwards.

Only yesterday as I strolled along the beach, a pitbull being taunted by a child suddenly went after the child. Without thinking I ran towards the dog pulling my pocket knife out all the while yelling and growling at the dog. My intent was to kill the dog if he managed to get hold of the child. It never dawned on me that the pitbull could have easily killed me.

 

[Dinosaur]

Ethics and morality are difficult to define in the context of life threatening circumstances.

 

[Baron Max]

Ethics and morality are difficult to define in the context of life threatening circumstances.

I agree. I think, for example, that each of us can vaguely define it FOR OURSELVES only ...and even that can be tough. But to take into account all of the people, in all of the conditions possible, in all of the world is virtually impossible.

Even something as simple as "Harm no one" sound great until one comes up with a simple little exercise like; "Should you not harm a person who was murdering a little child?" See? Just that one example is enough to fuck up the "Harm no one" ethic/morality.

Can't be define ...it's as simple as that.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

, a pitbull being taunted by a child suddenly went after the child. Without thinking I ran towards the dog pulling my pocket knife out all the while yelling and growling at the dog. My intent was to kill the dog if he managed to get hold of the child.

And yet, later, you might have discovered that the pitbull was a devoted guardian of the little kid, and was attempting to save the kid from being harmed by something that you couldn't see or know.

See? Life ain't always what we see or how we interpret it.

A woman fighting off an attacker in a parking lot ...you rush to help and knock the man down. The woman thanks you profusely, then gets into the car and drives off. After the cops show up, you find out that it was the man's car and the woman was stealing it! ...and you helped her steal it!

Baron Max

 

[TimeTraveler]

Even at the expense of others? Say, a thousand people? Or perhaps at the expense of your wife and all your children?

I'd like to read your reasoning behind that statement.

Baron Max

Morality depends on the situation. While it is obviously unethical to kill your wife and kids, there are situations where it could be them or you, and then you'd only have the option to choose who dies first. Most people would not die for their wife or husband, but some would die for their kids.

 

[TimeTraveler]

I agree. I think, for example, that each of us can vaguely define it FOR OURSELVES only ...and even that can be tough. But to take into account all of the people, in all of the conditions possible, in all of the world is virtually impossible.

Even something as simple as "Harm no one" sound great until one comes up with a simple little exercise like; "Should you not harm a person who was murdering a little child?" See? Just that one example is enough to fuck up the "Harm no one" ethic/morality.

Can't be define ...it's as simple as that.

Baron Max

No, it does not fuck up the mimimal harm ethic. What it shows is that you don't get to choose who and when you harm someone, as sometimes the only solutions that exist are harmful. Sometimes people put you in situations where you have to choose who lives and who dies, and when. If you are in this situation, you don't get to choose if someone gets harmed or not, you only get to choose who.

Ideally, you might not want to harm anyone, but if someone is going to harm you, you'll harm them.

 

[Roman]

(Based on the recommendation of glaucon in the Determinism thread)

Free will, or the capacity to choose from a set of available alternatives, is an integral part of the concept of selfhood and personal moral responsibility.

But what is free will? And how would you define morality as a consequence of free will?

From the thread on Determinism:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58417&page=1&pp=10



What do you think?

In his place what would you have done?

It was justified.