Is free will an illusion, yet necessary for ethics?

[complexcontext]

Slowly but surely, we find that every "choice" we make can be represented by some interaction of chemicals in the brain.

I am wondering how this relates to ethics, and if "free will", however illusory, is a required component of ethics.

-complexcontext

 

[Soapy Sam]

We rarely discuss the ethics of gas molecules or pool balls. They go where they must.

If people don't make choices, then people are amoral.

A drunk driver may have no choice about hitting a pedestrian, because chemicals in his brain destroyed his coordination- but the person driving the car is identifiably the same person who, when sober, chose to get drunk while knowing he would drive home.

To use "I was drunk" as an excuse is to admit that the person driving the car was a different person to the one on trial.

Which then should have access to his bank account?

 

[willhaven]

If people don't make choices, then people are amoral.

Morality has to do with group behavior. If the behavior is generally seen as detrimental to the group, the behavior is usually seen as immoral. I'd go as far as saying that decisions themselves are neither moral or immoral until the resulting behaviors are judged by others.

Even if the process of deciding whether or not to drive home after drinking is entirely deterministic with no free will, it is still a conscious decision. If you make the wrong decision and kill an innocent person, you have to be punished because you can't simply be allowed to repeat the behavior again. If the threat of punishment doesn't give one pause to rethink their behavior, the punishment itself may modify future behavior.

I can't even conceptualize a scenario where, given the same identical situation, I would make two different decisions. But I guess it depends on how you define free will.

 

[Aepervius]

SOapy, but the neurotransmitter and neuron interraction brought him to drink. Basically if you imply *choice* you have to demonstrate where that choice is really occuring and which entity does it. Basically it is all turtle all the way down. Neurotransmitter, impulse , change the level of neuron, which above a certain level trigger their own impulse. Hormon can also change that level. I have *yet* to see a mechanism which differs from that very rough description. And yet in such mechanism it is apparent there is no choice.

I can't tell for the other people here , but as an individual it does not matter to me that is no free will. I don't care about it as much as I don't care about not having a soul.

The society OTOH cannot let the individuals have bad actrion free of consequence for stability reason mostly. Therefore society act as if there was a free will and choice, and act as if. Mind you that information on the punishment, enter our brain , and change the level of groups of neuron, making the output/action less likely to be one of those bad one. So the punishment of the robot, make the other robot be better.

 

[Aepervius]

I can't even conceptualize a scenario where, given the same identical situation, I would make two different decisions. But I guess it depends on how you define free will.

The usual definition I use is this one : "The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will". So the thought experience of putting a person in the same situation always and always, with always resetting the person to the inital state, and expecting different results. The only way i could see different results coming up, is that if a set of neuron in the decision pathway is very very near the trigger level (I am not a biologist so forgive me if I see that as a very simple), and the situation is *NOT* identical at the molecular level on the thermodynamic distribution of the neurotransmetter, sometimes reaching and sometimes not reaching. Otherwise if the situation is reproduced with 100% fidelity, there is no reason whatsoever to have a change at any point. In other word, if all external constraint are left the same, in this hypothetical situation, I see NO entity allowing for a different choice. Therefore by that definition of free will in bold, there is no different outcome possible therefore no free will

 

[Leif Roar]

Is free will an illusion, yet necessary for ethics?

You just had to ask, didn't you?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Slowly but surely, we find that every "choice" we make can be represented by some interaction of chemicals in the brain.

I am wondering how this relates to ethics, and if "free will", however illusory, is a required component of ethics.

To exhibit ethics, you need to have some sort of entity capable of considering the moral implications of actions as an input to carrying out a plan of initiating the actions.

As definitions of the term varies, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by free will. I'm equally unsure how having such entities entails that there are choices that are not due to brain chemicals.

 

[willhaven]

In other word, if all external constraint are left the same, in this hypothetical situation, I see NO entity allowing for a different choice. Therefore by that definition of free will in bold, there is no different outcome possible therefore no free will

Determinism.

Many will argue that determinism and our concept of morality don't work together. But what would the alternative be? Actions that harm another can't be allowed to be repeated, so we restrain those actions in order to protect one another. If the universe and human cognition are deterministic, ethics still need to exist in the society we've evolved.

 

[Her Dark Star]

One problem I always see in Free Will arguments is that it is always presented at two mutually exclusive absolutes. Either we have complete fee will or there is no free will at all. IMHO (I won't claim to be a philosophy expert) there are degrees of free will just as there are degrees of physical/political/cultural freedom. As a human being I am subject to the frailties and chemical reactions of my body, the limits of my perception and cognition, the social programming, but I can learn about these things, take account for them and choose. EG I cannot stop myself from feeling certain things, they are innate chemical reactions but I can choose what I do when I feel them. I am programmed by the society I grew up in and by certain experiences to trust or distrust certain types of people but being aware of this prejudice I have chosen to overcome it on occasions.

The complexity of influences that surround us is staggering and it is difficult to separate out what is programmed (biologically or culturally etc) from what you really think but it can be done. Do I have absolute free will? No, many of my limits cannot be overcome. Do I have absolutely no free will? No, within those limits there is some freedom for me to make choices.

Exercising free will isn't always easy but it can be done. Of course just going along with the consensus, or going with your emotional reaction can also be a choice

 

[Soapy Sam]

Morality has to do with group behavior. If the behavior is generally seen as detrimental to the group, the behavior is usually seen as immoral. I'd go as far as saying that decisions themselves are neither moral or immoral until the resulting behaviors are judged by others.

Oh absolutely. My working definition of morality is "Individual survival behaviour in a herd context". In other words, "when in Rome..."

But an act, moral or not, requires a decision. If the decision, as Benjamin Libet's work suggested is usually made unconsciously, then the whole idea of "free will " goes out the door.

From the POV of the human herd, individuals must be held to account for their actions, or the number flouting social rules increases and chaos ensues. If we hold individual neurons responsible for social decisions, then we should remove them. Through the nose with tweezers.

 

[Aepervius]

One problem I always see in Free Will arguments is that it is always presented at two mutually exclusive absolutes. Either we have complete fee will or there is no free will at all. IMHO (I won't claim to be a philosophy expert) there are degrees of free will just as there are degrees of physical/political/cultural freedom. As a human being I am subject to the frailties and chemical reactions of my body, the limits of my perception and cognition, the social programming, but I can learn about these things, take account for them and choose. EG I cannot stop myself from feeling certain things, they are innate chemical reactions but I can choose what I do when I feel them. I am programmed by the society I grew up in and by certain experiences to trust or distrust certain types of people but being aware of this prejudice I have chosen to overcome it on occasions.

The complexity of influences that surround us is staggering and it is difficult to separate out what is programmed (biologically or culturally etc) from what you really think but it can be done. Do I have absolute free will? No, many of my limits cannot be overcome. Do I have absolutely no free will? No, within those limits there is some freedom for me to make choices.

Exercising free will isn't always easy but it can be done. Of course just going along with the consensus, or going with your emotional reaction can also be a choice

That is simply having a half free will is being half pregnant. Even if you have a very very very limited free will, it is still free will, and still fall in the pit of "what entitygenerate it". The brain might be extremly complex but it is still only obey thermodynamic, chemistry.

 

[Her Dark Star]

That is simply having a half free will is being half pregnant. Even if you have a very very very limited free will, it is still free will, and still fall in the pit of "what entitygenerate it". The brain might be extremly complex but it is still only obey thermodynamic, chemistry.

The half pregnant comparison is kind of my point, I don't characterise it as an either/or question (free will that is, not pregancy lol). Yes if we have limited free will than it is still free will, my point is about that the argument of free will being an illusion tend to use our limits and bio/socio programming etc to say that it doesn't exist. Postulating an on/off answer, like pregnancy, doesn't, for me, get us anywhere. My answer to the OP is that free will isn't entirely an illusion but isn't absolute either.

Whether free will is necessary for ethics is the much harder part. Are ethics chosen? Is there a difference between behaving ethically because you are programmed to do so and choosing to do so?

Edit - Just re-read your post and realised there was the 'what creates free will' question if you accept the existence of even limited free will - my answer - I can't say for sure but I think the fact the brain obeys thermodynamics/chemistry doesn't preclude it from creating an element of free will. Alone, throw a ball straight up in the air. Decide whether to catch it or not. Whichever you do there is at least an element of free will in your action, whether you do or not will not affect anyone else, will not answer any biological need for food/sex/shelter, will not fulfill any social pressure or cultural conditioning, it is simply a choice. Unless I believe in an external entity of some kind influencing my decision I must believe that the choice was made by my brain (crude analogy and not a great answer I realise but I hope it expresses my point a little).

 

[Aepervius]

My point with half pregnant is that there is no such thigns as half pregant. You are EITHER pregnant or not. ETA: you can be pregnant for 1 hour ( a bit of free will) or for 9 month (a lot of free will) but it is an EITHER/OR (free will don't exists/exists). Even the *slightieest* amount of free will would be enough to say free will exists. So it is really an *EITHER* situation, very binary.

All what you cited can be explained by a quasi deterministical brain. MY point still stand. Unless you have an entity behind free will, and you can name this entity, you are just acting on belief or faith.

All those stuff you cited is simply a question of input/output/learning in pathway of the neurone. *NONE* of it is excluded by a quasi deterministic brain. And that is the point. If somebody (whomever) pretend free will exists then they better describe it properly and come up with the experiment to falsify it.

Until then free-will is about as unscientifc as souls.

 

[Her Dark Star]

OK, rather than derail this thread this discussion probably belongs to one of its own. I'd be interested in your input, I'm not sure I understand what you mean but I'd like to! I think that we're also talking at cross purposes about the pregnant analogy lol.

Edit - started a new thread Biology of Free Will, its just a starting point and I'd welcome your input, thanks.

 

[willhaven]

From the POV of the human herd, individuals must be held to account for their actions, or the number flouting social rules increases and chaos ensues. If we hold individual neurons responsible for social decisions, then we should remove them. Through the nose with tweezers.

If we knew what neurons or what sequence of events lead to an immoral behavior, we'd be able to seek out and fix those problems before they happened. In lieu of that, we have to punish the individual responsible in hopes of conditioning better behavior in the future.

I just glanced at the work of Benjamin Libet, BTW. It looks very interesting. Thanks for that.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Slowly but surely, we find that every "choice" we make can be represented by some interaction of chemicals in the brain.

I am wondering how this relates to ethics, and if "free will", however illusory, is a required component of ethics.

-complexcontext

I'm puzzled by what you say here.

Why does " choice" get inverted commas? Are these scare-quotes or something else?

What do you mean by " represented"? Do you mean that choices just are chemical interactions? Or do you mean something else?

What do you think is meant by " free will"? And how is it related to choice?

 

[Nick227]

Slowly but surely, we find that every "choice" we make can be represented by some interaction of chemicals in the brain.

I am wondering how this relates to ethics, and if "free will", however illusory, is a required component of ethics.

-complexcontext

I don't see that it relates to ethics. The fact that, viewed externally, choice does not exist in no way to my mind alters the reality that when you experience a choice so the choosing has to be done. If you experience a choice then you have a choice.

To say "it's all decided anyway" is more to try and escape some of the emotional reality of having to choose, if you ask me.

If you allow your own power to choose to be affected by notions of determinism well, then that is your choice. But IMO such a allowing is just being mediated unconsciously and actually you are afraid to really take up the reins of choice.

There's not an "I" on the planet that really cares about determinism. You have a choice; choose good or suffer the consequences.

Nick

 

[willhaven]

If you allow your own power to choose to be affected by notions of determinism

Determinism wouldn't make one unable to choose, it's just choosing the same path given the same circumstances.

 

[complexcontext]

Oh absolutely. My working definition of morality is "Individual survival behaviour in a herd context". In other words, "when in Rome..."

But an act, moral or not, requires a decision. If the decision, as Benjamin Libet's work suggested is usually made unconsciously, then the whole idea of "free will " goes out the door.

From the POV of the human herd, individuals must be held to account for their actions, or the number flouting social rules increases and chaos ensues. If we hold individual neurons responsible for social decisions, then we should remove them. Through the nose with tweezers.

Excellent summary

By 'individual survival behavior' do you mean Egoism or Enlightened Egoism?

 

[complexcontext]

I'm puzzled by what you say here.

Why does " choice" get inverted commas? Are these scare-quotes or something else?

What do you mean by " represented"? Do you mean that choices just are chemical interactions? Or do you mean something else?

What do you think is meant by " free will"? And how is it related to choice?

I wrote "choice" to avoid making an absolute claim, but essentially the actions of the body and the interactions of the chemicals in the brain are inextricably linked.