for and against free will

[OldTrees]

1) I was referring to someone that lived well into adulthood without any contact with another. You claim that without society this individual would be unable to discover the concepts of logic and ought? That they would never be able to ask "what ought I do?" without being introduced to that by society? You claim they will be forever stuck at "what will I do?". What is your reasoning for this claim?

2)Let us examine both of these cases twice. Once with either extreme of the concept of Free Will.
Strong Free Will: (not the actual name)
The environment influences the decisions but only as much as a light breeze influences my ability to move my arm left or right. In this case both individuals have the same options [Kill or don't kill]
Weak Free Will:
The environment greatly influences decisions but not enough to eliminate all alternatives. In this case the choices are not the same. Bob Smith would have two options based upon some other detail of the encounter. (kill would probably not make the list) Perhaps between saying "Hi" or "Hello". I (in this example) on the other hand would have a distinctly different choice between using the sharp or dull end of my spear.

Free Will is the claim that a choice exists. Not the claim that all options are possible.
3)Good point.

4) I have a very empty set that I use for my Moral Code. In an isolated society my set would be even more empty. But my aversion to norms is caused by my encounters with my community.

5) Yes we are both engaged in description. You are describing that a Deterministic world could still have Responsibility. I am clarifying that it can have type I Responsibility but no evidence has been provided that type II Responsibility would be compatible with Deterministic reality.
Thank you for confirming that you meant a descriptive evolutionary take.
Indeed the memes are smaller than Norms. Persistent memes can sometimes cause otherwise deleterious Norms to persist. (see the meme of belief in Free Will)

[Belthus]

1) I was referring to someone that lived well into adulthood without any contact with another. You claim that without society this individual would be unable to discover the concepts of logic and ought? That they would never be able to ask "what ought I do?" without being introduced to that by society? You claim they will be forever stuck at "what will I do?". What is your reasoning for this claim?

I think that a feral adult would frequently act inappropriately, out of sheer ignorance if nothing else. Being a moral person requires knowledge of how the world works, and that includes the social world. Someone who does not know a society's standards can't help but to offend, hurt, and burden others. He/she would also likely be ignorant of the physical world. Who knew that pointing a gun and pulling the trigger can kill people? One has to have a certain level of knowledge to be morally competent.

Feral children often act like wild animals. Even after years of being found and reintroduced to human society, the ones who grew up with dogs will still occasionally revert to running around on all fours and barking. They are unable to master language. So I turn the question around on you. What makes you think that moral reasoning might be going on in their heads? What would such a thought sound like? Certainly nothing like "if everyone did X, the world would be hell, so X is wrong." Maybe something along the lines of good dog, bad dog. I would respect that in its own right because I think that all social species have norms that regulate group functioning, but it would fall far short of the internal dialogue of an average human adult.

A good answer to your question would require at least a few months of reading on developmental psychology. I will attempt a bare bones outline. Cognitive and social development unfold along predictable paths from a rough roadmap provided by human biology. However, cognitive and social abilities must be activated by an environment with varied stimuli and opportunities for interaction, experimentation, and exploration. Early childhood is a critical period for this activation. We are born with a great deal of plasticity. But this plasticity doesn't last long. The wet plastic dries and hardens. We can still change after the critical period, but with greater difficulty, and we are unlikely to completely revise the results of early childhood development.

From Wikipedia's entry on social deprivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_deprivation):

Social deprivation in early childhood development can also cause neurocognitive deficits in the brain. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans reveal drastic reductions in areas such as the prefrontal cortex, temporal lobe, amygdala, hippocampus, and orbitofrontal gyrus of socially deprived children. These areas are associated with higher order cognitive processing such as memory, emotion, thinking, and rationalization.[6] Further damage occurs in the white matter of the uncinate fasciculus. This structure is responsible for providing a major pathway of communication between areas for higher cognitive and emotional functioning, such as the amygdala and frontal lobe.[7] Having damage to these specific structures and their connections decreases cortical activity, thus inhibiting the ability to properly interact and relate to others.

Research also suggests that socially deprived children have imbalances with hormones associated with affiliative and positive social behaviour, specifically oxytocin and vasopressin. Institutionalized children showed a marked decrease in vasopressin and oxytocin levels while interacting with their caregiver compared to controls. Failure to receive proper social interaction at a young age disrupts normal neuroendocrine system developments that mediate social behaviour.[8]

Free Will is the claim that a choice exists. Not the claim that all options are possible.

When most people bring up free will, they are implicitly referring to a mind-body dualism, wherein at least some part of the mind is not subject to cause-and-effect — a first cause, an unmoved mover. I believe that the classical position is that free will and causal determinism are opposite and mutually exclusive, but many modern philosophers define free will in the context of a deterministic world. Given the potential for confusion, I would prefer to stick to the classical definition.

4) I have a very empty set that I use for my Moral Code. In an isolated society my set would be even more empty. But my aversion to norms is caused by my encounters with my community.

OK. Let me rephrase the question: Can you give me an example of a norm that (1) a person who believes in Type II moral responsibility would prescribe and (2) is believed by that person to be, on balance, detrimental to any group that practices it? Or if the "norm" part is objectionable, substitute "virtue" or "guiding principle."

5) Yes we are both engaged in description. You are describing that a Deterministic world could still have Responsibility. I am clarifying that it can have type I Responsibility but no evidence has been provided that type II Responsibility would be compatible with Deterministic reality.

Don't people hold others responsible in a Type II way (i.e., tell each other about what they should and shouldn't do and internalize those claims)? And doesn't the world in which these people live appear to be deterministic, so far as we can tell?

[OldTrees]

Wow, long post Belthus. I appreciate the effort you are putting into this discussion.
@ others (see the post directly above. It is to large to quote)

1)  "One has to have a certain level of knowledge to be morally competent."
True. But moral competency (the ability to know what is right and wrong) is not a necessary condition of being a moral agent (something that can be moral or immoral).
I do not know the true objective moral code (if there is one) so I am sure that I make many mistakes (maybe running is immoral?). However my epistemological beliefs do not prevent me from having morality II claims that I try to follow.

If the symptoms of early social deprivation are extensive enough to prevent internal language, then you would be right. From your most recent evidence it seems at least reasonably possible. I would be surprised if internal language was tied to social interaction but the internal language could be a symptom of trying to communicate to others.

3) Even an uncaused cause can be channeled. As long as it independently decides between at least 2 options it can be considered an uncaused cause. Free Will never claimed that one could decide to fly without first having the capacity. The examples I gave both assumed a mind body dualism with the choice being independently determined by an uncaused cause. They just differed in where the Mind transmitted to the Body in that interaction.
Soft determinism (which is the belief of Free Will & Determinism) is different and we both agree about it. (meaning we both disbelieve it)

4) Self sacrifice/True Altruism (none of that fake altruism like non human animals exhibit) as a community wide belief. It is believed to be personally harmful and morally II good to do. [This is commonly prescribed by believes in a Morality II (despite their different beliefs about it). However not all prescribe it. (did you want a universal declaration or is a single common instance good enough?)]

5) People claim that others have a Responsibility II but that does not entail that their claim is true. In a deterministic world, based on the Ought implies Can principle, it is impossible to do an immoral II action. As such there is no evidence that any claims of Responsibility II would be true in a deterministic world.

[Belthus]

1)  "One has to have a certain level of knowledge to be morally competent."
True. But moral competency (the ability to know what is right and wrong) is not a necessary condition of being a moral agent (something that can be moral or immoral).
I do not know the true objective moral code (if there is one) so I am sure that I make many mistakes (maybe running is immoral?). However my epistemological beliefs do not prevent me from having morality II claims that I try to follow.

I disagree. Moral competency is necessary for moral agency. Legal systems treat people who don't know right from wrong differently from those who do. Those who don't know right from wrong are considered mentally deficient (because of mental illness, subnormal intelligence, or young age). If a toddler burns a house down by accident, most people consider a vengeful punishment to be inappropriate, but measures to prevent the toddler from causing harm in the future would be taken.

Also, you didn't address the importance of knowing the effects of our actions. We aren't expected to be completely prescient, but the average adult is expected to know a lot that is unlikely to be learned through trial and error on one's own. Passing on that knowledge is part of socialization.

Judging against a "true objective moral code" would be folly. However, you and I and everyone are judged by the standards of the society we live in. Those standards are not perfect, and they change over time with feedback. These standards can be stated explicitly so that people of normal cognitive capacity can understand them.

4) Self sacrifice/True Altruism (none of that fake altruism like non human animals exhibit) as a community wide belief. It is believed to be personally harmful and morally II good to do. [This is commonly prescribed by believes in a Morality II (despite their different beliefs about it). However not all prescribe it. (did you want a universal declaration or is a single common instance good enough?)]

That's not what I requested. I want an example of a moral principle that hurts the group. In fact, most moral injunctions require sacrifice of an individual for the group. What I want is: "I say that we should do X, even though I believe that X will destroy us (as a group, not a few individuals)." Such standards do occur occasionally, but if they truly are detrimental to the group, they self-destruct and become a curious historical footnote, instead of a vital part of how people live their lives.

[OldTrees]

1)
Moral Competency: The ability to know moral from immoral.
Moral Agency: The ability to do moral or immoral actions.
Based upon the disagreement in Morality II claims people make, I doubt anyone (much less most adults) fits the rigorous definition of Moral Competency above.
However we both agree that adult humans are Moral Agents.
Therefore you must be using a less rigorous definition of moral competency.

If the Morality II claim that "Burning down a house is immoral" was true, then anyone that was capable of either burning down a house or not would be a moral agent. (even a toddler) However that does not imply that "vengeance in response to burning down a house is moral" is true.

Perhaps you did not understand what I meant when I referred to the unknown true moral code that judges us. We do not judge others by it. It is a characteristic of what is done that judges what is done as what ought/ought not be done.

4) Sorry, i was referring to extreme self sacrifice. However a better example for your question would be pacifism.

[Belthus]

Moral Competency: The ability to know moral from immoral.
Moral Agency: The ability to do moral or immoral actions.
Based upon the disagreement in Morality II claims people make, I doubt anyone (much less most adults) fits the rigorous definition of Moral Competency above.
However we both agree that adult humans are Moral Agents.
Therefore you must be using a less rigorous definition of moral competency.

Moral knowledge is something that is tentative and incomplete, just as physics and biology knowledge are. Nevertheless, in a society, we must implement a moral consensus, with the understanding that the consensus may change. Moral competence has to be judged by the standards of the time and the society. That is why we can look back at exceptional individuals of ages past and admire them, despite their being slave owners. It's not that the wrongness of holding slaves changed over time, but our collective moral knowledge advanced. When we judge someone to be morally competent, we are saying that he/she knows the moral standards of the time and the society. (There is also the wrinkle of those who believe that their society is wrong on some point, but people like Thoreau and Gandhi have covered that ground well.)

Just as with the scientific disciplines, there is much that remains consistent over the millennia in moral standards. We can look at Hammurabi's Code or the Old Testament laws, and though we may find many particulars objectionable, we see an overall framework that is recognizable. When we learn about societies very different from our own, we can still see large overlap in moral sensibilities.

If the Morality II claim that "Burning down a house is immoral" was true, then anyone that was capable of either burning down a house or not would be a moral agent. (even a toddler) However that does not imply that "vengeance in response to burning down a house is moral" is true.

Moral agency doesn't refer to actions alone. If we were talking about group regulation in ants, the prosocial behaviors are genetically hard-wired. In humans, however, the internal state is important. We must use our higher cognitive abilities to deal with the complexity of acting morally in particular situations. We also distinguish differences in motives. Someone can obey all the rules for now, in order to be in a better position to betray later. We benefit from insight into others' enduring personal motivations and traits (e.g., honesty).

Perhaps you did not understand what I meant when I referred to the unknown true moral code that judges us. We do not judge others by it. It is a characteristic of what is done that judges what is done as what ought/ought not be done.

That statement is ambiguous. It could fit the system I have laid out, in which the rightness or wrongness of rules (i.e., which will cause many people to act in certain ways repeatedly) have consequences that are not fully known, in the same way that other empirically studied subjects are not fully known. I assume you have something else in mind.

4) Sorry, i was referring to extreme self sacrifice. However a better example for your question would be pacifism.

Has any society been consistently pacifist? I think that Gandhi advocated that, but I am not aware of any autonomous polity being pacifist across the board. I mention autonomous polity because smaller groups advocate pacifism within a larger society that takes care of military matters. The smaller groups are dissidents who have been unsuccessful in implementing pacifism as a consistent policy at the level where it matters. Personally, I see non-violent resistance and satyagraha as tactics and principles useful in many but not all situations.

[OldTrees]

Moral knowledge is something that is tentative and incomplete, just as physics and biology knowledge are. Nevertheless, in a society, we must implement a moral consensus, with the understanding that the consensus may change. Moral competence has to be judged by the standards of the time and the society. That is why we can look back at exceptional individuals of ages past and admire them, despite their being slave owners. It's not that the wrongness of holding slaves changed over time, but our collective moral knowledge advanced. When we judge someone to be morally competent, we are saying that he/she knows the moral standards of the time and the society. (There is also the wrinkle of those who believe that their society is wrong on some point, but people like Thoreau and Gandhi have covered that ground well.)

Just as with the scientific disciplines, there is much that remains consistent over the millennia in moral standards. We can look at Hammurabi's Code or the Old Testament laws, and though we may find many particulars objectionable, we see an overall framework that is recognizable. When we learn about societies very different from our own, we can still see large overlap in moral sensibilities.

So you define Moral Competency as knowledge of the current consensus on what we believe the true Moral code?
What connection does that have with Moral Agency?

Moral agency doesn't refer to actions alone. If we were talking about group regulation in ants, the prosocial behaviors are genetically hard-wired. In humans, however, the internal state is important. We must use our higher cognitive abilities to deal with the complexity of acting morally in particular situations. We also distinguish differences in motives. Someone can obey all the rules for now, in order to be in a better position to betray later. We benefit from insight into others' enduring personal motivations and traits (e.g., honesty).

Moral Agency refers to the ability to be moral or immoral. It is true that I phrased it in terms of Actions rather than Intention or Consequences for simplicity since we were talking in reference to Free Will.

That statement is ambiguous. It could fit the system I have laid out, in which the rightness or wrongness of rules (i.e., which will cause many people to act in certain ways repeatedly) have consequences that are not fully known, in the same way that other empirically studied subjects are not fully known. I assume you have something else in mind.

I was referring to when you indicated that I thought we try to judge individuals by the true moral code. We don't, it does.

Has any society been consistently pacifist? I think that Gandhi advocated that, but I am not aware of any autonomous polity being pacifist across the board. I mention autonomous polity because smaller groups advocate pacifism within a larger society that takes care of military matters. The smaller groups are dissidents who have been unsuccessful in implementing pacifism as a consistent policy at the level where it matters. Personally, I see non-violent resistance and satyagraha as tactics and principles useful in many but not all situations.

Define Society. Like Culture, different definitions use different required scales. I was using a scale as small as 3 people or as large as the edge of communication.

[Belthus]

So you define Moral Competency as knowledge of the current consensus on what we believe the true Moral code?
What connection does that have with Moral Agency?

Moral agency has to involve some level of knowing right and wrong. You keep invoking "the true moral code," but that is a useless standard. We have to use what is available to us. Just because we don't have perfect moral knowledge doesn't mean we know nothing. The Egyptians didn't wait until they achieved perfect engineering knowledge before building the pyramids.

Define Society. Like Culture, different definitions use different required scales. I was using a scale as small as 3 people or as large as the edge of communication.

I agree that society has that wide range of sizes, and which one we mean will depend on the context. In the context of pacifism as a possibly self-negating norm, it makes most sense to talk about nation-states. If a country will never defend itself militarily under any conditions, and no one else will do it, then it will be vulnerable to conquest. India used pacifism to gain independence from the UK, but I doubt such a strategy would have worked against Nazi Germany.

[Neopergoss]

I am not aware of any autonomous polity being pacifist across the board.

Costa Rica has no military. Does that count? I bet there are a few other countries like that, too. My suspicion is that outside of clear-cut wars of self-defense, pacifism is probably good for a society, at least culturally. But it's true that warmaking increases a society's likelihood to persist, especially in comparison to others. That's probably a big reason why there is so much war.

[OldTrees]

Moral agency has to involve some level of knowing right and wrong. You keep invoking "the true moral code," but that is a useless standard. We have to use what is available to us. Just because we don't have perfect moral knowledge doesn't mean we know nothing. The Egyptians didn't wait until they achieved perfect engineering knowledge before building the pyramids.

We are not the judges of moral codes. The correct answer to the question "What ought one do?", referenced as the "true moral code", defines what is moral and immoral. Just like Gravity defines why matter clumps and antimatter expands. Matter clumped before we knew it did and likewise the "true moral code" determines the moral character of our intent/actions/consequences before we know it.

Example: Murder is half defined in philosophy as "Wrongful killing" for convenience in argumentation. If a society ignorantly believed a type of killing that was murder was not murder then knowledge of the society's consensus would be irrelevant to being moral in regards to the topic of killing. Hence knowledge of society's consensus sometimes inhibits being moral. If Moral Competency is defined as knowing society's consensus then it is dissociated from Moral Agency.

I agree that society has that wide range of sizes, and which one we mean will depend on the context. In the context of pacifism as a possibly self-negating norm, it makes most sense to talk about nation-states. If a country will never defend itself militarily under any conditions, and no one else will do it, then it will be vulnerable to conquest. India used pacifism to gain independence from the UK, but I doubt such a strategy would have worked against Nazi Germany.

No completely pacifistic nation state has survived to the modern era. Yet the meme survives.

The Moriori, of the Chatham Islands, practiced pacifism by order of their ancestor Nunuku-whenua. This enabled the Moriori to preserve what limited resources they had in their harsh climate, avoiding waste through warfare. In turn, this led to their almost complete annihilation in 1835 by invading Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama Māori from the Taranaki region of the North Island of New Zealand. The invading Māori killed, enslaved and cannibalised the Moriori.

[Belthus]

We are not the judges of moral codes. The correct answer to the question "What ought one do?", referenced as the "true moral code", defines what is moral and immoral. Just like Gravity defines why matter clumps and antimatter expands. Matter clumped before we knew it did and likewise the "true moral code" determines the moral character of our intent/actions/consequences before we know it.

Example: Murder is half defined in philosophy as "Wrongful killing" for convenience in argumentation. If a society ignorantly believed a type of killing that was murder was not murder then knowledge of the society's consensus would be irrelevant to being moral in regards to the topic of killing. Hence knowledge of society's consensus sometimes inhibits being moral. If Moral Competency is defined as knowing society's consensus then it is dissociated from Moral Agency.

If "we are not the judges of moral codes," then who is? You refer to "the question 'What ought one do?'" but the person asking that question is apparently not you, I, or any other human. The universe as a whole is not, as far we know, a sentient being capable of asking questions. So who is asking this question, if not human beings?

You continue to assert that it is possible to be a moral agent without knowing the difference between right and wrong. You refuse to acknowledge a continuum of moral competence - with zero competence evident in non-social species and substantial (though not perfect) competence in most adult humans. If we are all completely 100% morally incompetent, how can any of us be held accountable for our decisions? If moral competence is all or nothing, with all being unattainable perfect knowledge, then it has no practical use to us.

I think that the Wikipedia definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency) (which cites a Webster dictionary) is more useful:

A Moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong"[1]

No completely pacifistic nation state has survived to the modern era. Yet the meme survives.

I have already said that non-violence is appropriate and useful under many but not all conditions. The pacifism meme together with other memes can be useful. When it is implemented unconditionally, it is harmful to the society that uses it. Not being sensitive to limiting conditions can make almost any practice disastrous.

[Neopergoss]

I've never understood what is meant by the "true moral code." It sounds completely inaccessible and poorly defined, like trying to talk about the way atoms really look or something. I have my own understanding of objective morality independent from perception but (more) clearly defined by what our moral instincts compel us to do. Granted, a lot of morality comes from society, but I think that the way that people instinctively empathise with each other predisposes us to certain kinds of moral beliefs, which is why there is so much consistency across different societies.

I agree with Belthus that morality based on societal sustainability is a good standard to use. I do find the existence of war and environmental degradation as a serious problem with this standard. Throughout civilization, the societies to most effectively exploit environmental resources and make war in order to meet short-term goals have dominated. Granted, they have all perished, but this ultimately destructive tactic has not. Perhaps this standard will improve with time as war may one day be abolished, but perhaps not.