for and against free will

[Neopergoss]

Our choices are determined by a lot of different factors that we have no control over. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for our actions.

Not to sidetrack the conversation, but why do you say that? I agree with you, but I don't understand your reasons (other than the fact that society falls apart if we don't hold people responsible).

Good question. Basically it comes down to social agreement based on instinct.

[nerd1]

truthfully, even if we shouldn't be responsible for our actions, as what we do is only because something happened because something happened because... we should still have a law enforcement system, as that way, more people remain happy, so it basically equals to lock someone up to prevent them from causing pain to two other people as 2>1.

[Neopergoss]

truthfully, even if we shouldn't be responsible for our actions, as what we do is only because something happened because something happened because... we should still have a law enforcement system, as that way, more people remain happy, so it basically equals to lock someone up to prevent them from causing pain to two other people as 2>1.

Exactly. This is why we have these instincts.

[Belthus]

Look at morality from a systems perspective. Some species are social. Others are not. Is living in society an advantage? It depends on how individuals in the society behave. If individuals behave in certain ways, living in society provides many benefits. If they behave in other ways, society will fall apart or be dysfunctional. Humans distinguish between pro-social and anti-social with rules.

A very simple system of rules could reward good outcomes and punish bad outcomes. Warren Buffett gives a million dollars to charity. Good. An ill person requires support from others to survive. Bad. What the simple system misses is that not every person is in the same situation. Warren Buffett could give billions without changing his lifestyle, whereas the ill person is incapable of even achieving a positive balance in economic terms. Thus, a more sophisticated system sets the bar higher or lower, depending on many factors that cannot be changed or overcome with an individual's effort. These adjustment factors are judgments of responsibility. A rule system with responsibility is likely to provide better incentives for people to behave pro-socially and not punish those who produce bad outcomes because their situation overwhelms whatever abilities they have. There is no need to invoke free will, the uncaused cause. Instead, the rule makers count on the fact that the rule system can influence behavior toward pro-social ends and away from anti-social ends.

[OldTrees]

Look at morality from a systems perspective. Some species are social. Others are not. Is living in society an advantage? It depends on how individuals in the society behave. If individuals behave in certain ways, living in society provides many benefits. If they behave in other ways, society will fall apart or be dysfunctional. Humans distinguish between pro-social and anti-social with rules.

A very simple system of rules could reward good outcomes and punish bad outcomes. Warren Buffett gives a million dollars to charity. Good. An ill person requires support from others to survive. Bad. What the simple system misses is that not every person is in the same situation. Warren Buffett could give billions without changing his lifestyle, whereas the ill person is incapable of even achieving a positive balance in economic terms. Thus, a more sophisticated system sets the bar higher or lower, depending on many factors that cannot be changed or overcome with an individual's effort. These adjustment factors are judgments of responsibility. A rule system with responsibility is likely to provide better incentives for people to behave pro-socially and not punish those who produce bad outcomes because their situation overwhelms whatever abilities they have. There is no need to invoke free will, the uncaused cause. Instead, the rule makers count on the fact that the rule system can influence behavior toward pro-social ends and away from anti-social ends.

Very good explanation for Responsibility (type I) if defined as who is blamed or where blame would naturally fall in a pro-social community.
However I typically find Responsibility (type II) defined in a Normative manner as who ought/deserves to be blamed.
Type II is relevant to morality being normative in nature. Type I is descriptive and thus not directly applicable to Morality.

[Belthus]

Very good explanation for Responsibility (type I) if defined as who is blamed or where blame would naturally fall in a pro-social community.
However I typically find Responsibility (type II) defined in a Normative manner as who ought/deserves to be blamed.
Type II is relevant to morality being normative in nature. Type I is descriptive and thus not directly applicable to Morality.

I am glad you recognize what I describe. So what is "Type II Responsibility"? And why do you claim that Type I Responsibility has nothing to do with morality - a word that has the same root as "mores"? Or if you prefer the word "ethics," that comes from "ethos," also a reference to socially derived standards.

[OldTrees]

Very good explanation for Responsibility (type I) if defined as who is blamed or where blame would naturally fall in a pro-social community.
However I typically find Responsibility (type II) defined in a Normative manner as who ought/deserves to be blamed.
Type II is relevant to morality being normative in nature. Type I is descriptive and thus not directly applicable to Morality.

I am glad you recognize what I describe. So what is "Type II Responsibility"? And why do you claim that Type I Responsibility has nothing to do with morality - a word that has the same root as "mores"? Or if you prefer the word "ethics," that comes from "ethos," also a reference to socially derived standards.

Previously the Normative version of Morality was invoked. I assumed you were using the Normative and not the Descriptive definition of Morality. (especially because the colloquial usage is the Normative not the Descriptive version)

Morality (descriptive): Beliefs held about what separates right from wrong
If I say Person A believes ... then I have made a Descriptive Moral claim.
Type I responsibility is when you say "The community will be hold Person A responsible for event X."

Morality (normative): The concept and beliefs about of right and wrong
These are attempts to answer the question: "What ought/ought not to be done?" and are not (usually) derived from society.
If I say people ought to .... then I have made a Normative Moral claim.
Type II responsibility is when you say "Person A should be held responsible for event X."

Do you believe in a strictly descriptive reality?

[Belthus]

Morality (normative): The concept and beliefs about of right and wrong
These are attempts to answer the question: "What ought/ought not to be done?" and are not (usually) derived from society.
If I say people ought to .... then I have made a Normative Moral claim.
Type II responsibility is when you say "Person A should be held responsible for event X."

Do you believe in a strictly descriptive reality?

I say that people should be held responsible for the foreseeable and controllable effects of their actions.

How can normative morality not be socially derived? Norms are social. The capacity to participate in moral judgment doesn't exist without socialization. Feral children and children who are isolated from social interaction don't grow up to be philosophers. It may be true that once you have achieved cultural competence within a particular society's norms, you may be able to think beyond them, criticize them, think of better norms, etc. But you need that initial grounding in a particular society to have the moral competence of even an average citizen.

A particular society's norms can be wrong, and if you reread my previous post, you will see the criterion I provide, functionality. However, the first step must always be socialization. Only after socialization can a human be able to make higher judgments about the goodness or badness of a society's norms.

[OldTrees]

Morality (normative): The concept and beliefs about of right and wrong
These are attempts to answer the question: "What ought/ought not to be done?" and are not (usually) derived from society.
If I say people ought to .... then I have made a Normative Moral claim.
Type II responsibility is when you say "Person A should be held responsible for event X."

Do you believe in a strictly descriptive reality?

I say that people should be held responsible for the foreseeable and controllable effects of their actions.

How can normative morality not be socially derived? Norms are social. The capacity to participate in moral judgment doesn't exist without socialization. Feral children and children who are isolated from social interaction don't grow up to be philosophers. It may be true that once you have achieved cultural competence within a particular society's norms, you may be able to think beyond them, criticize them, think of better norms, etc. But you need that initial grounding in a particular society to have the moral competence of even an average citizen.

A particular society's norms can be wrong, and if you reread my previous post, you will see the criterion I provide, functionality. However, the first step must always be socialization. Only after socialization can a human be able to make higher judgments about the goodness or badness of a society's norms.

Philosophy requires 2 things: A curiosity about the fundamental questions and the capacity to reason. Neither is exclusive to society. Additionally most moral theories would claim that feral adults would be sufficiently qualified to be moral agents just like civilized adults.
Societies form around people who share the same Normative beliefs. These beliefs become Norms of the society. The causality arrow is reversed. The concept of better norms implies that norms come from normative claims not vice versa. (otherwise there would be no metric to compare norms)

[Belthus]

Philosophy requires 2 things: A curiosity about the fundamental questions and the capacity to reason. Neither is exclusive to society. Additionally most moral theories would claim that feral adults would be sufficiently qualified to be moral agents just like civilized adults.

There are known cases of children who were abandoned at an early age and lived with wild dogs or wolves for years. A short summary from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child#Reality):

In reality, feral children lack the basic social skills which are normally learned in the process of enculturation. For example, they may be unable to learn to use a toilet, have trouble learning to walk upright and display a complete lack of interest in the human activity around them. They often seem mentally impaired and have almost insurmountable trouble learning a human language.

There are also known cases of children who were isolated from human contact other than to provide physical necessities. The outcomes are similar.

The problem with free will is that who you are is a product of social and biological forces. Change the environment you grew up in, and you would be a different person. Change your biology in certain ways, and you would be a different person.

Societies form around people who share the same Normative beliefs.

Can you give me examples? It's hard to believe that prehistoric hunter-gatherer bands formed based on shared normative beliefs. They were natural groups of closely related people. Being together came first, and norms came from that shared experience, within boundaries of human nature.

It's also hard to believe that you chose your parents. I assume that you were born to parents who were culturally competent and embedded in a society. If you had been born to parents who lived in an isolated tribe that practiced cannibalism, you would probably be a cannibal and think that is perfectly fine.

These beliefs become Norms of the society. The causality arrow is reversed. The concept of better norms implies that norms come from normative claims not vice versa. (otherwise there would be no metric to compare norms)

Norms changing for the better is an iterative process. Some way of doing things has negative results, so it is changed. Some rule inflicts harm on a part of that population, and it protests, perhaps even with violence. It's also possible for societies with self-destructive practices to disappear or lose autonomy to make their own rules. Intellectuals can stand back and analyze this iterative process from a distance, but that isn't necessary for norms to adapt based on how well they do their job of keeping society functioning.

[OldTrees]

Philosophy requires 2 things: A curiosity about the fundamental questions and the capacity to reason. Neither is exclusive to society. Additionally most moral theories would claim that feral adults would be sufficiently qualified to be moral agents just like civilized adults.

There are known cases of children who were abandoned at an early age and lived with wild dogs or wolves for years. A short summary from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child#Reality):

In reality, feral children lack the basic social skills which are normally learned in the process of enculturation. For example, they may be unable to learn to use a toilet, have trouble learning to walk upright and display a complete lack of interest in the human activity around them. They often seem mentally impaired and have almost insurmountable trouble learning a human language.

There are also known cases of children who were isolated from human contact other than to provide physical necessities. The outcomes are similar.

The problem with free will is that who you are is a product of social and biological forces. Change the environment you grew up in, and you would be a different person. Change your biology in certain ways, and you would be a different person.

Societies form around people who share the same Normative beliefs.

Can you give me examples? It's hard to believe that prehistoric hunter-gatherer bands formed based on shared normative beliefs. They were natural groups of closely related people. Being together came first, and norms came from that shared experience, within boundaries of human nature.

It's also hard to believe that you chose your parents. I assume that you were born to parents who were culturally competent and embedded in a society. If you had been born to parents who lived in an isolated tribe that practiced cannibalism, you would probably be a cannibal and think that is perfectly fine.

These beliefs become Norms of the society. The causality arrow is reversed. The concept of better norms implies that norms come from normative claims not vice versa. (otherwise there would be no metric to compare norms)

Norms changing for the better is an iterative process. Some way of doing things has negative results, so it is changed. Some rule inflicts harm on a part of that population, and it protests, perhaps even with violence. It's also possible for societies with self-destructive practices to disappear or lose autonomy to make their own rules. Intellectuals can stand back and analyze this iterative process from a distance, but that isn't necessary for norms to adapt based on how well they do their job of keeping society functioning.

1a=1) Feral individuals (note you continue to cite only feral children) might very well have trouble translating our concepts into their mental language. This is especially the case if they have no intermediate language for communication to others. However none of the conditions wikipedia listed seems to indicate lack of the ability to reason or investigate questions like.
1b=2) Free Will does not make the claim that your ability to choose would free you from all consequences of the environment. It only claims that there were at least 2 possible options that could have happen depending on your free choice.
2a=3) My claim: People who believe Normative claim X form communities. My examples (look at the rational individuals): Politics, Religion [this could be expanded to people with the same beliefs form communities]
2b=4)I assume that you are implying that by living in a society that rejects cannibalism I would find it morally wrong? Sorry, but I was and do not. However I may be an exception to your rule because my parents raised me to try to derive right and wrong from reality not from prior opinions.
5) The underlined section contains a Normative claim (in bold). You are claiming that functionality is good. That is a normative claim. If you meant to be applying an Evolutionary perspective you need to refrain from using value judgement because Evolution is Descriptive not Normative. More likely to persist is not better just because it is more likely to persist it is only better at persisting.
However the theory of evolution works more accurately when you follow the gene not the host. The evolution of the Normative belief memes causes the evolution of the societal Norms not vice versa.

[Belthus]

1a=1) Feral individuals (note you continue to cite only feral children) might very well have trouble translating our concepts into their mental language. This is especially the case if they have no intermediate language for communication to others. However none of the conditions wikipedia listed seems to indicate lack of the ability to reason or investigate questions like.

I mention feral children because a crucial developmental process must take place in the early years for a child to become a competent member of society. I don't know what you mean by "feral adult." If you mean someone who grew up in society and later became a hermit, then yes, that person could make moral decisions, so long as socialization occurred. If you are talking about someone who was deprived of human society at a young age and continued to live apart from society all the way into adulthood, then no, such a person would not be likely to be engaging in moral reasoning. The person may be as morally competent as a dog — capable of affection and loyalty and perhaps able to comply with simple rules. Or he/she might be quasi-autistic from the social deprivation, as some cases were.

1b=2) Free Will does not make the claim that your ability to choose would free you from all consequences of the environment. It only claims that there were at least 2 possible options that could have happen depending on your free choice.

Let's say that you grow up in a society that is isolated from the rest of the world. In your society, the common belief is that redheaded people are the spawn of demons and must be killed to prevent the destruction of the world. Redheaded people are hunted and killed all the time. Your parents tell you bedtime stories about heroes who kill redheads. Your childhood games involve smashing objects that are made to resemble redheads. Your coming-of-age involves killing 20 redheaded infants and making their skulls into a totem pole. What will you do to the next redhead you meet? Will you kill him or her, or not? At least two options possible.

Compare your situation to the situation of Bob Smith, who grows up in a different society, in which redheads are treated like everyone else and hair color believed to be a trivial feature. Bob Smith also has at least two options upon meeting a redhead: kill or not kill. According to your definition, both you and Bob Smith have free will and are morally responsible for the decisions regarding redheads. However, you would be likely to kill the redhead and would have to oppose your society's norms not to do so. For Bob Smith, not killing the redhead is the norm. The same action is possible for both you and Bob Smith, but one of you would be swimming upstream. It is certainly possible that you can reject the teachings of your society and refuse to kill redheads, and perhaps even help them. After all, every society has its deviants. But the person you are and the person Bob Smith is are shaped, in part, by the socialization received. There are other shaping factors (e.g., biological tendencies), which may oppose or reinforce socialization.

2a=3) My claim: People who believe Normative claim X form communities. My examples (look at the rational individuals): Politics, Religion [this could be expanded to people with the same beliefs form communities]

Yes, people can and do form voluntary communities, especially in this modern age. However, our formative experiences must happen in social settings we did not choose. There is no way around it. And although people can leave a community they didn't choose, they often don't leave, even when it imposes significant disadvantages (e.g., a stigmatized religion).

2b=4)I assume that you are implying that by living in a society that rejects cannibalism I would find it morally wrong? Sorry, but I was and do not. However I may be an exception to your rule because my parents raised me to try to derive right and wrong from reality not from prior opinions.

You left out an assumption, which was living in an isolated society. When you live in a society that is aware of other societies' practices, it weakens the hold from almost insurmountable to very strong. (The isolation is put in to magnify the effect in my thought experiment.) And yes, you are a product of socialization, though I suspect you overstate your rationality and underestimate other factors.

5) The underlined section contains a Normative claim (in bold). You are claiming that functionality is good. That is a normative claim. If you meant to be applying an Evolutionary perspective you need to refrain from using value judgement because Evolution is Descriptive not Normative. More likely to persist is not better just because it is more likely to persist it is only better at persisting.
However the theory of evolution works more accurately when you follow the gene not the host. The evolution of the Normative belief memes causes the evolution of the societal Norms not vice versa.

Are we not both engaged in description? When you say people have free will and can make rational choices, you are describing them. I think that my description is a better fit for the world as we know it.

What I do is start from norms as observed in human societies and look for causes. The result is that I think that these norms can be parsimoniously understood as enhancing group functioning, though different norms vary as to how well they do this. Norms that enhance group functioning are more likely to persist than norms that impair group functioning.

Is it possible to prefer a norm that undermines the conditions for its continuation? Certainly. But then it will contribute to its own demise, and perhaps the demise of the group. Can you give me an example of a norm that (1) you prescribe and (2) is, on balance, detrimental to any group that practices it?

If a meme is a smaller unit than a norm, then I have no objection to that part of your statement. A particular norm might not work, but some, if not all, of its underlying memes might be accommodated in a different norm that works better. I focus on norms because that's where the rubber meets the road, but breaking down norms into constituent memes may help the analysis.