Scientific Justification for Free Will?

[Divine Insight]

Is there any scientific justification for the notion of Free Will?

Question #1. If you believe their is, can you please state your scientific evidence for the existence of Free Will.

Question #2. If you believe there is no scientific justification for the notion of Free Will, then please explain how we can have any scientific justification for holding anyone responsible for their actions. In fact, wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?

[Philbert]

I'm only presenting two cases right now to justify personal responsibility and morality.

Ok, I will follow your lead...

One case is there is no supernatural at all. In this scenario, selection would be the paramount principle. Morality, if it even exists, would be secondary to selection

Ok, so setting aside the supernatural, we face the task of explaining to both the individual and the larger society why morality is in their self interest. Does this phrasing work for you, does it lead us in the direction you wish to go?

And if there is no true free will, then there's no basis for objective morality. So, this case cannot coherently embrace free will, morality, and selection in a meaningful way.

Not sure I understand here. If there is no free will then the subject of morality is essentially pointless, given there is no one able to make a moral choice? Am I getting it?

The second case is that there is a supernatural/spiritual world and humans are not merely physical bodies obeying physical laws.

Ok, got it.

In this scenario, morality would trump selection because selection is not what is most important. There would be a free agent that can make free will decisions that is not determinative by physical laws. So, it can be subject to praise and condemnation in decisions that he makes. In this scenario, free will and objective morality would be in a coherent framework.

Ok, a bit of devil's advocate. Wouldn't this scenario elevate selection to the highest possible level? That is, we are being moral to be saved, that is, ensure our eternal existence?

Those with the ability to believe are selected to continue eternally, and those without such ability are discarded by the system. Yes? No?

[Dantalion]

I'm only presenting two cases right now to justify personal responsibility and morality.

Ok, I will follow your lead...

One case is there is no supernatural at all. In this scenario, selection would be the paramount principle. Morality, if it even exists, would be secondary to selection

Ok, so setting aside the supernatural, we face the task of explaining to both the individual and the larger society why morality is in their self interest. Does this phrasing work for you, does it lead us in the direction you wish to go?

And if there is no true free will, then there's no basis for objective morality. So, this case cannot coherently embrace free will, morality, and selection in a meaningful way.

Not sure I understand here. If there is no free will then the subject of morality is essentially pointless, given there is no one able to make a moral choice? Am I getting it?

The second case is that there is a supernatural/spiritual world and humans are not merely physical bodies obeying physical laws.

Ok, got it.

In this scenario, morality would trump selection because selection is not what is most important. There would be a free agent that can make free will decisions that is not determinative by physical laws. So, it can be subject to praise and condemnation in decisions that he makes. In this scenario, free will and objective morality would be in a coherent framework.

Ok, a bit of devil's advocate. Wouldn't this scenario elevate selection to the highest possible level? That is, we are being moral to be saved, that is, ensure our eternal existence?

Those with the ability to believe are selected to continue eternally, and those without such ability are discarded by the system. Yes? No?

Ok, a bit of devil's advocate. Wouldn't this scenario elevate selection to the highest possible level? That is, we are being moral to be saved, that is, ensure our eternal existence?

Good question, now allow me to pull a Philbert on you.

-please provide evidence that your reason is qualified to answer such questions

[Peter]

Fair enough, yes, selection which is essentially survival would supersede morality. If you were part of the Donner party would you cannibalize another to survive or would you refuse on moral grounds and remove your genes from the pool? Most people would choose not to die for their morals. Survival is a very strong motivator and pushes morality around at will. IMO morality appears to be just what we mostly agree on right now.

If selection trumps morality, then there is no justification to say that genocide is wrong.

Genocide is wrong because most humans think it's wrong. Likewise, vomiting all day is bad because most humans think it's bad. Would you similarly argue that because a supernatural free agent hasn't decreed that vomiting all day is bad that there's no justification to say that vomiting all day is bad?

The strongest and most able to adapt survives.

In humans, the most able to adapt yes, the strongest not so much. Physical strength, if that's what you're talking about, is much less important today than in the distant past.

Killing in general would not be morally wrong either since it's just selection in action.

Killing is generally wrong in most situations because most humans think it is but when it comes to selection(survival) killing is frequently thought to be justified by most humans. So yes, killing is not morally wrong in life and death situations. According to the bible even the christian god thinks killing is the right thing to do in some situations.

Again, like most things, morality is fluid. I'm not sure why some people desire everything in life to be black and white because they're going to be disappointed at every turn.

[Philbert]

I'm only presenting two cases right now to justify personal responsibility and morality.

Ok, I will follow your lead...

One case is there is no supernatural at all. In this scenario, selection would be the paramount principle. Morality, if it even exists, would be secondary to selection

Ok, so setting aside the supernatural, we face the task of explaining to both the individual and the larger society why morality is in their self interest. Does this phrasing work for you, does it lead us in the direction you wish to go?

And if there is no true free will, then there's no basis for objective morality. So, this case cannot coherently embrace free will, morality, and selection in a meaningful way.

Not sure I understand here. If there is no free will then the subject of morality is essentially pointless, given there is no one able to make a moral choice? Am I getting it?

The second case is that there is a supernatural/spiritual world and humans are not merely physical bodies obeying physical laws.

Ok, got it.

In this scenario, morality would trump selection because selection is not what is most important. There would be a free agent that can make free will decisions that is not determinative by physical laws. So, it can be subject to praise and condemnation in decisions that he makes. In this scenario, free will and objective morality would be in a coherent framework.

Ok, a bit of devil's advocate. Wouldn't this scenario elevate selection to the highest possible level? That is, we are being moral to be saved, that is, ensure our eternal existence?

Those with the ability to believe are selected to continue eternally, and those without such ability are discarded by the system. Yes? No?

Ok, a bit of devil's advocate. Wouldn't this scenario elevate selection to the highest possible level? That is, we are being moral to be saved, that is, ensure our eternal existence?

Good question, now allow me to pull a Philbert on you.

-please provide evidence that your reason is qualified to answer such questions

Hi Dantalion, I can clog the thread too.

[Divine Insight]

I'm only presenting two cases right now to justify personal responsibility and morality. One case is there is no supernatural at all. In this scenario, selection would be the paramount principle. Morality, if it even exists, would be secondary to selection. And if there is no true free will, then there's no basis for objective morality. So, this case cannot coherently embrace free will, morality, and selection in a meaningful way.

I suggest that your conclusion here is actually incorrect. At least in terms of morality. Or perhaps ethics might be a better term to use.

Without free will a case for personal responsibility cannot be made. I agree with this.

However a case for meaningful ethics (or morals) can be made simply by majority consensus. It would be a subjective-based ethics. But that's ok. There is no need to claim that it needs to be objective in any absolute sense in order to be meaningful.

So you can't really say that morality cannot be meaningful in this context. All you say is that it can't be claimed to be an absolute objective truth of the universe or reality. You simply need to recognize that it is indeed a subjective consensus. In fact this is precisely what we attempt to do through the ideal of democracy.

So this is our reality. Moreover, when we don't have a democracy then we end up with a totalitarian fascism. And all that amounts to is a single person proclaiming what constitutes morality and then enforcing it on everyone else.

In fact, if there exists a being call "God" who creates a moral code and enforces it onto everyone else, then that God itself would represent a totalitarian fascist dictator and that's all God would be.

So I disagree that subjective morality cannot be meaningful. It simply cannot be claimed to be absolute in terms of some ultimate reality. But it doesn't need to be absolute to be meaningful.

Actually, in terms of personal responsibility there's a way to get around this as well. Even if we view humans as nothing more than biological computers, we can conclude that they can think logically. Therefore if a biological computer takes an oath that it will respect and obey the ethical laws of a society, then if it breaks those laws we have full justification for concluding that it is indeed malfunctioning. After all, if it had agreed to respect and uphold those laws and then failed to keep that agreement it's clearly a flawed computer.

We still may not be able to "blame" it for being a malfunctioning computer. But in sense we can hold it responsible for it's actions. And we would do this with a man-made computer. If a man-made computer fails to operate logically we either fix it (i.e. heal it), or we trash it (i.e. kill it).

So we could apply those very same actions and consequences to a biological computer as well in a meaningful way.

The only question would be whether or not we could "blame" the computer for malfunctioning.

The second case is that there is a supernatural/spiritual world and humans are not merely physical bodies obeying physical laws. In this scenario, morality would trump selection because selection is not what is most important. There would be a free agent that can make free will decisions that is not determinative by physical laws. So, it can be subject to praise and condemnation in decisions that he makes. In this scenario, free will and objective morality would be in a coherent framework.

The only problem is that we don't really see this around us. Selection appears to be the rule, whereas behaving in a moral fashion doesn't appear to be of much help in many cases. Selection really does trump.

So where is there any reason to believe that morality trumps selection?

I'm not arguing anything about the God of the Bible yet. At most, it would only show that a supernatural viewpoint is coherent. So, discussions about the flood or Christian teachings would not be relevant at this point.

But you haven't really shown that a supernatural viewpoint is coherent.

Also, coherent with what? And ideal of absolute morality, or that morality trumps selection?

We don't have any reason to believe that there exists any absolute morality, nor do we have any reason to believe that morality trumps selection. On the contrary we have every reason to believe the opposite. When a natural disaster strikes it inflicts pain, injury, and death on both the moral and the immoral without an evidence that these things play any role at all.

Same is true of disease and accidents.

So we have no reason to believe that morality trumps selection in this universe.

Therefore we have no reason to worry about philosophies or religions that would make such a universe coherent. The universe in which we live clearly isn't like that.

Moreover, if you are attempting to imply that a pure secular existence is somehow not coherent that would be wrong. You haven't done that at all.

It may be incoherent with morality trumping selection. But what would be the justification for demanding that morality trumps selection?

For all we know selection trumps morality. That's precisely what we see happening around us in the natural world. We simply don't see examples where morality trumps selection on a regular basis. And in the extremely rare random chances when this does occur we instantly recognize that this is indeed a very rare event and scream, "It's a miracle!"

Why is it considered to be a miracle, well, precisely because it's a very rare event. Our universe does not typically favor morality over selection.

In our universe selection appears to trump morality with absolutely no problem at all.

So our universe actually favors the secular view.

In other words, the secular view is actually more coherent with reality.

[Nilloc James]

What is it about "moral agents" that means they can take blame for something?

[Divine Insight]

What is it about "moral agents" that means they can take blame for something?

Before any entity can take the blame for something it must first have free will.

So that's the first prerequisite.

Only then can it be held responsible for its actions.

Whether or not the actions it takes are considered to be "moral" is a whole other question.

Considered to be moral by whom? That would be the next question in line I suppose.

But before moving on to that question free will must established before any blame can be issued. Same is true of praise as Otseng points out.'

Both blame and praise are meaningless concepts if there is no free will.

[Nilloc James]

How are you definig free will?

[otseng]

Ok, so setting aside the supernatural, we face the task of explaining to both the individual and the larger society why morality is in their self interest. Does this phrasing work for you, does it lead us in the direction you wish to go?

I would think that people don't need convincing that morality is important. But, the issue is what explains morality? What are the justifications for it? And if selection is what drives the development of all of life, then how can one say that morality can trump selection?

And if there is no true free will, then there's no basis for objective morality. So, this case cannot coherently embrace free will, morality, and selection in a meaningful way.

Not sure I understand here. If there is no free will then the subject of morality is essentially pointless, given there is no one able to make a moral choice? Am I getting it?

If there is no free will, then our behavior is determined by physical laws. How can we then say that there's any basis to say someone's behavior is then good or bad? This is the entire point of the thread.

Ok, a bit of devil's advocate. Wouldn't this scenario elevate selection to the highest possible level? That is, we are being moral to be saved, that is, ensure our eternal existence?

It would not fit into evolution. It would require traits to be passed on to the next generation. Being saved does not get passed genetically to the next generation.

[otseng]

Genocide is wrong because most humans think it's wrong.

The majority deciding something would be subjective morality. I wouldn't even really consider it morality, but more like culture and preferences. If you truly believe that what the majority of people consider is right is the determinative factor, then using that logic, believing in a supernatural deity is right since the majority of humans believe in some sort of deity. So, the supernaturalists are the good people and the naturalists are bad.

Also, what group of people determines what is good and bad? Polling everyone on the planet is impossible. So, then it's impossible to state if anything is good or bad. One particular country? One state? One family? How does one draw the line of who counts?

Would you similarly argue that because a supernatural free agent hasn't decreed that vomiting all day is bad that there's no justification to say that vomiting all day is bad?

Too hypothetical of a question to even answer in a meaningful way.

I'll give a better example. The Bible states that divorce is bad. So, even if every marriage ends in divorce, it would still be considered bad.

In humans, the most able to adapt yes, the strongest not so much. Physical strength, if that's what you're talking about, is much less important today than in the distant past.

No, I'm not just talking physical strength. It could be strong as in having better weapons or something besides physical strength.

Killing is generally wrong in most situations because most humans think it is but when it comes to selection(survival) killing is frequently thought to be justified by most humans. So yes, killing is not morally wrong in life and death situations. .

So, if most people think that killing is right, then it's considered morally right?

Again, like most things, morality is fluid. I'm not sure why some people desire everything in life to be black and white because they're going to be disappointed at every turn.

I don't claim that morality is black and white. But, if the test for morality is what the majority accepts, then isn't that a case of black and white? Simply poll the population and the majority answer wins. Cased closed.