ethics without free will

[bjs]

Let us assume for this thread that free will is an illusion.

Do ethics have any meaning without free will?

If we are not morally free then do words like “good� and “evil� have any substance?

[LiamOS]

Even assuming that we are free, concepts such as 'good' and 'evil' are meaningless anyway, or so it would seem.
I've seen numerous attempts to demonstrate that objective morals or objectively good pieces of art exist, but all fall a long way short of the mark.


Naturally, given the discussion, I guess I'll have to request a definition of 'good'. I'm sure we'd all agree that 'bad' is the inverse or negation of 'good'.
I don't expect any definition that is entirely consistent, but feel free to surprise me, everybody.

[fewwillfindit]

Let us assume for this thread that free will is an illusion.

Do ethics have any meaning without free will?

If we are not morally free then do words like “good� and “evil� have any substance?

I think that depends on if you are looking at it from a Biblical perspective or not. Moral free will can coexist with soteriological cumpulsion while not conflicting with the dilemma posited in the OP. However, I agree that if there is no free will to do right and wrong, then words like moral, ethical, right and wrong lose their meaning.

[Grumpy]

fewwillfindit

However, I agree that if there is no free will to do right and wrong, then words like moral, ethical, right and wrong lose their meaning.

I disagree, morals, ethics, right and wrong still have meaning, it's just that the meaning is one we give to them, not standards handed down from on high.

And what is it about free will, it is all that does or can exist(within the bounds of what is physically possible, of course). The uncertainty of the Quantum ultimately destroys a clockwork existence and, since god(s) are not evident to have any design or framework to restrict our will within, all that CAN exist is free will.

Grumpy

[ChaosBorders]

Let us assume for this thread that free will is an illusion.

Do ethics have any meaning without free will?

Yes. At a minimum on a subjective level. It doesn't matter whether someone is freely trying to steal or rape or kill you. If someone is doing these actions, it is preferable to put into place systems that will prevent, deter, or stop them by appealing to their own psychology or the psychology of others. These systems are generally grounded in ethics of some kind of other, and without them society would be unable to function.

Objectively it's a lot more questionable regardless of whether we have free will or not. But if we are in a deterministic system caused by a deity, then I would say ethics are just as meaningful to us as they are to the characters in a good story that involves moral conflicts. The story wouldn't be nearly as meaningful without ethics as part of it, but that doesn't mean the characters actually have free will to choose their actions.

If we are not morally free then do words like “good� and “evil� have any substance?

Think of the most evil fictional character you can possibly imagine. Does the character having merely been written to fulfill its role as the villain negate the despicable acts that it committed in the story?

Certainly an acknowledgment that someone's actions are not free can make it easier to understand or forgive their actions. For me personally, it makes it easier to love or at least pity those I once hated as 'pathetic filth.' But that does not change the underlying nature of their actions. Psychopaths are born with a genetic abnormality that makes them incapable of any real empathy or love, and for that I truly pity them. But that doesn't make them any less dangerous to everyone around them.

What is objectively good or evil (imo merely a lack of good) is something I think only God (if God exists and is all-knowing) can know. But on a subjective level, words like good and evil can still be pretty useful descriptors regardless of whether there is free will or not.

[McCulloch]

Let us assume for this thread that free will is an illusion.

Do ethics have any meaning without free will?

If we are not morally free then do words like “good� and “evil� have any substance?

Sure they do. Good acts are those which improve overall well-being. Evil ones are those which reduce general well-being. This is independent of free will.

[Miles]

Let us assume for this thread that free will is an illusion.

Do ethics have any meaning without free will?

No. There can be no should or should not when there is no choice to do or not do.

If we are not morally free then do words like “good� and “evil� have any substance?

Good? yes. Good will be anything we are caused to appreciate. As for evil, this depends on which definition one uses. If it has to do morals, then no. If it's simply the opposite of good, bad, in effect, then yes. Evil in this case would be anything we are caused to not appreciate

[Filthy Tugboat]

Let us assume for this thread that free will is an illusion.

Do ethics have any meaning without free will?

If we are not morally free then do words like “good� and “evil� have any substance?

First we must address the issue of the terms 'good' and 'evil'. Do these words hold any substance with free will? They do on an individual or personal level. Someone can view an action as good while others will view it as evil. Is there any actual meaning tied to the words good and evil? People have posted on this thread that anything that improves general wellbeing is good and obviously evil/bad is the inverse of that. However they have to take into account the perspective of those declaring good or evil.

Husbrandy and the general treatment of animals on farms is detrimental to the animals on the farms, for the best possible outcome for humans (cheap, efficient products from the animals) the animals would be treated terribly, they would be kept in confined spaces with large numbers of their kin. They would be used to obtain their products in captivity serving the farmers whim. The less we give them the less it costs us and the more product we can receive. So given this does occur and although it has been getting better, is saving more human lives or giving more humans food more ethical than treating animals with dignity and giving them the same level of care we would expect in any condition we would live in? If we treated them as equals the entire business would run out of money or the prices for meat and animals products would be drastically increased. Is it immoral to treat them with the disregard we currently do?

So basically what we consider good the animals being treated so poorly likely do not, and even if they don't care, empathetic people do not think the process as good. Everything is based on opinion and inherently words like good and evil have no objective meaning. Presuming that these words have no substance with free will, if free will did not exist then I believe that these words would maintain their lack of substance.

[Cathar1950]

Let us assume for this thread that free will is an illusion.

Do ethics have any meaning without free will?

If we are not morally free then do words like “good� and “evil� have any substance?

First we must address the issue of the terms 'good' and 'evil'. Do these words hold any substance with free will? They do on an individual or personal level. Someone can view an action as good while others will view it as evil. Is there any actual meaning tied to the words good and evil? People have posted on this thread that anything that improves general wellbeing is good and obviously evil/bad is the inverse of that. However they have to take into account the perspective of those declaring good or evil.

Husbrandy and the general treatment of animals on farms is detrimental to the animals on the farms, for the best possible outcome for humans (cheap, efficient products from the animals) the animals would be treated terribly, they would be kept in confined spaces with large numbers of their kin. They would be used to obtain their products in captivity serving the farmers whim. The less we give them the less it costs us and the more product we can receive. So given this does occur and although it has been getting better, is saving more human lives or giving more humans food more ethical than treating animals with dignity and giving them the same level of care we would expect in any condition we would live in? If we treated them as equals the entire business would run out of money or the prices for meat and animals products would be drastically increased. Is it immoral to treat them with the disregard we currently do?

So basically what we consider good the animals being treated so poorly likely do not, and even if they don't care, empathetic people do not think the process as good. Everything is based on opinion and inherently words like good and evil have no objective meaning. Presuming that these words have no substance with free will, if free will did not exist then I believe that these words would maintain their lack of substance.

We are not the only creatures on earth that have empathy. But you do raise some interesting notions.
I was reading that we didn't sacrifice animals when we were hunter-gatherers and it wasn't until we domesticated animals that we began sacrificing them for various reasons and rituals. Animal sacrifice doesn't seem to have replaced human sacrifice as human sacrifices came later and were seen as more valuable.

Social animals have bonds and share sympathies.

Good and evil are value judgments about events and consequences. We all seem to desire the good and dislike what is conceived or felt as evil.
Good seems to be more like what works, fits its purpose, meets a need , produces satisfactions, beauty, order, is reasonable and does what it is suppose to do while evil would be what doesn't work, what doesn't fit in, defeats or lacks purpose, is unreasonable, ugly, meaningless, causes suffering and on and on, but the point is they are values we place upon the results of responses, acts experiences and events. They are our feed back.
We don't have some kind of free will as much as we have a range of responses which are subject to feedback systems.
If it were not that the universe was determined our feed back and response systems would have no meaning or use. But fortunately eventually natural selection will let even the seemly worse fit just because the species survives accidentally and related to the past and present conditions.
Dynamic determined systems need feed back and good and evil are values in judging the feed back.
I was reading today that our longer childhood not only helps us live longer but also more complex social and cultural meanings which the longer childhood gives us.

Free will looks more like feed back systems and responses.

[Filthy Tugboat]

We are not the only creatures on earth that have empathy. But you do raise some interesting notions.
I was reading that we didn't sacrifice animals when we were hunter-gatherers and it wasn't until we domesticated animals that we began sacrificing them for various reasons and rituals. Animal sacrifice doesn't seem to have replaced human sacrifice as human sacrifices came later and were seen as more valuable.

Social animals have bonds and share sympathies.

Good and evil are value judgments about events and consequences. We all seem to desire the good and dislike what is conceived or felt as evil.
Good seems to be more like what works, fits its purpose, meets a need , produces satisfactions, beauty, order, is reasonable and does what it is suppose to do while evil would be what doesn't work, what doesn't fit in, defeats or lacks purpose, is unreasonable, ugly, meaningless, causes suffering and on and on, but the point is they are values we place upon the results of responses, acts experiences and events. They are our feed back.
We don't have some kind of free will as much as we have a range of responses which are subject to feedback systems.
If it were not that the universe was determined our feed back and response systems would have no meaning or use. But fortunately eventually natural selection will let even the seemly worse fit just because the species survives accidentally and related to the past and present conditions.
Dynamic determined systems need feed back and good and evil are values in judging the feed back.
I was reading today that our longer childhood not only helps us live longer but also more complex social and cultural meanings which the longer childhood gives us.

Free will looks more like feed back systems and responses.

I agree and I do know that other animals can be empathatiec, I was just using humans as the prime example as they control the groups that are both for and against the unequal treatment of animals. Regarding the more common claims of good and evil, they are generally attributed to different societies and different timeframes. Ritual human sacrifice with the Aztecs was seen as moral as the action was believed to rise the sun for the day or something of the sort. The action was one of utmost importance and was preobably one of the most moral things one could do (according to the culture). We on the whole view it as archaic, stupid and pretty dman evil. Imagine 2,000 years from now. The future people will say the same of us and war (presuming world peace... lol) ignoring the incredibly unlikely chances of world peace we can't be sure what of this age will be looked down upon as stupid archaic and evil. Morality is in the eye of the beholder and unless you invoke some kind of objective ruler then moral relativism is really the only realistic position to hold.