Can free will exist without morality?

[Parasol]

Take note: This discussion has nothing to do with theology.
Note once more: This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with theology.
And one final note: The topic at question is not whether free will exists but whether it can exist under the mentioned circumstances.

My friend and I shared a discussion on the topic of free will, and within that discussion we attempted to merely define its concept. Initially we settled on free will being defined as "the ability to make decisions of one's own individual will." That is, for the most part, the universal definition of the term. Later we asked ourselves if free will does indeed pertain to our reality, and if so, what its compositions are. Our viewpoints differed when we threw morality into the mix.

His argument was that free will is empty of any individual choice if the choice of morality is not in play. If we were programmed to be only good or evil (and thus, in effect without the other, neutral) but could still choose to drink a Coca Cola over a Pepsi, he argues we would still have no free choice. He argued that all choices made in life can be categorized as either good, neutral, or evil, and thus "if morality is stripped from our choices, those choices become simply neutral, or in other words, simply nothing."

I, however, view morality as its own choice and not a choice type, and I argued that a reality absent from morality could still, potentially, incorporate free will. My main argument on the matter was as follows: "Jake, I very much would like to morph my own body into a unicorn. Now, I would very much like to, but unfortunately, I cannot, because that choice is not available to me in this reality. But because I am deprived of that one choice, surely that doesn't mean I am deprived of free will entirely.

"On the same principle, if the choice of being good over evil was absent from my reality, but I could still choose to take the back roads to work rather than the freeway, or to watch drama rather than comedy, or to whistle rather than sing, I argue that I would still have the sense of free will about me." My argument stems from the idea that morality is a specific choice in itself, while his argument stems from the idea that morality is a function which defines the type of choices made.

So here are a couple of questions to get discussion flowing:
1) Is morality better defined as its own choice or as a category for all choices made?
2) If I tried hard enough, could I morph myself into a pretty unicorn?
and ultimately,
2) Can free will exist without morality?

 

[rvkevin]

You can pretty much determine how moral someone is by how much empathy they have. The people who are more moral would fall on the more empathic side of the scale and those who are less moral would fall on the more sadist side of the scale. These tendencies could be described as your emotional reaction to others in pain or similarly unpleasant circumstances. Those who are moral want to relieve the victim of the suffering while the psychopath wants it to continue. These are merely preferences, no more complex than your preference for Coke over Pepsi. And, yes, if empathy was absent from reality, you can still have other preferences so you could have free will without moral people (although morality would still exist).

As to whether these programmed preferences constitute free will depends on the definition. Given the one you provided, I would say that, yes, it constitutes free will. This is simply because the predispositions are now part of the individual and hence part of the individual's will. There is nothing free about it in the sense of being free from physical constraints but it simply means that the decision wasn't impacted by a third party. This semantic decision is basically the difference between determinists and compatibilists. Compatibilists define free will like you have done while determinists reserve the term for dualistic free will. They believe the same thing but choose to use different terms.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

To me free will has nothing to do with morality, for free will is about the decision process of the mind. Morality is, whether one believes in a "good" or a "bad", describes conduct of living, and how to live well. Removing the capability of conduct deliberation would basically be tantamount to being a zombie (in other words, definitely no free will). Determinism and deliberating conduct can, of course, coexist.

 

[GwJ]

I'm with Holder. I don't see the relevance of morality's existence in regards to free will.

 

[Alphicans]

He argued that all choices made in life can be categorized as either good, neutral, or evil, and thus "if morality is stripped from our choices, those choices become simply neutral, or in other words, simply nothing."

Tell your friend he cannot just say this. It's one thing to "argue" it and another thing to show that it's a sound argument. If it's just his opinion then it's just meaningless, which is exactly what this is :/. How can a choice between pepsi and coke be "nothing?" Clearly there is a choice being made, and it's not clear that it's good or evil. To say there is no choice being made is absurd.

 

[Ussi]

People make decisions based on experience and morals. If you take morals out, then only experience remains to make decisions. Essentially the world would run on positive and negative reinforcement. (As morals would make a person withstand hardship to some degree)

I am assuming values are included in morals meaning people won't be acting on "what they think is right" but instead "how much trouble will i get if i do this?"

 

[Claire Diviner]

Whether or not morality is added into the equation is irrelevant, as even without morals, people would still think about possible repercussions for their actions should they choose to do so.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That is still a form of conduct though, so I again say that technically without the concept of morality, there is simply nothing left. Every decision we make is out of how we wish to live, whether there is "evil" or "good" in each decision is immaterial. The punishment-reward mentality is also considered a part of morality, and would be totally gone.

 

[Alphicans]

Choosing between pop is a moral decision? This needs some qualifying.

 

[Claire Diviner]

That is still a form of conduct though, so I again say that technically without the concept of morality, there is simply nothing left. Every decision we make is out of how we wish to live, whether there is "evil" or "good" in each decision is immaterial. The punishment-reward mentality is also considered a part of morality, and would be totally gone.

So then by this logic, it's impossible for morals to disappear, because human beings are always thinking of the outcome of their decisions.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Pop has nothing to do with good or evil, but that does not mean it is outside of the realm of conduct. If ethics were merely deliberations on good and evil, then a lot of my ethics books next to me are all inappropriately labeled nor are their authors truly ethicists. They call moral philosophy the practical philosophy for a reason, it has to do with living well or the way we live. If it was just about good and evil, I would have been bored of the topic a long time ago.

While I don't believe, like Parasol's friend does, that all things are either good, evil, or neutral, I do agree that everything is within the scope of ethics because everything is a part of the way we live. I was merely putting up that interpretation of the argument.

And Sol you understand precisely what I mean, there is never a circumstance of deliberation that is separate from conduct.

 

[Ussi]

So is it safe to say we can't imagine life without thinking about what our actions will bring? (Whether thinking about self gain or how others are affected) People will still be judgemental about others as well.

 

[prisonchild]

it would be interesting to hear what people think free will would be based on, if not morality.

 

[GwJ]

It would depend how, exactly, you define free will.

 

[Alphicans]

Free will has an accepted definition. It's simply the idea that you have choices in life that you can actually make at least some of the time.

To base free will off of morality you commit yourself to saying that every decision is a moral one. To me this sounds like confusing what morality is. Furthermore it seems like you could be an emotivist (morals do not exist) and still believe in free will. For someone arguing that free will requires morality to exist, you must also tell an emotivist why they are wrong.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I thought that emotivism was morals through emotions, or at least, that's what my Introduction to Ethics told me. Sounds like what you mean is nihilism, though even moral nihilism recognizes that morals exist but simply as a psychological and/or society construct to achieve a benefit. That's why, even by moral nihilism standards, to say without conduct (basically that there is a right way to do something, implying an end, manifesting an ought) you can do anything doesn't make sense. But like I've said before, that isn't precisely what free will is about, free will isn't about the options, it's about the way they are selected.

 

[Alphicans]

Emotivism is that any moral statement is simply emotion, thus it holds no truth value. Nihilism is the idea that moral statements have truth values but that they are all false. The end result of both of them is the same, but the arguments against them differ substantially. Emotivism, imo, is the stronger position so I chose that one.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well emotivism kind of posits, I think, that the truth value is derived from the emotions. Granted, there are awful and just plain dumb logical consequences that come from that, but that's its belief.

Also, what do you mean nihilism posits that there are truth values but they are all false? To my understanding, and even what Nietzsche says (again, to my understanding) says that such ideas as aim, unity, and TRUTH don't exist. The only thing that sounds like that to me is that it is through positing truth then destroying it when we discover its folly do we realize that there is no meaning to the concept.

 

[prisonchild]

the debate is about whether or not free will can exist without morality. since decisions are based on something, what would they be based on if not morality? i don't see why we keep straying so far away from the topic at hand.

... talking about moral nihilism isn't going to get us very far, i believe.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I see why. It's because primarily we've already wrapped up it up. That, and the question "can free will exist without morality" has two terms that are apparently equivocal and as a result defining what is meant by those terms are kind of important.

 

[Alphicans]

Basically quoted right from A.J. Ayer, the "inventor" of contemporary emotivism, he says that when a moral utterance is mentioned, it is neither true nor false, meerely an emotional utterance. The equivalent of saying "you did the right thing" would just mean "you did something!!!" and the "!!!" is just emphasis in some positive way.

From J.L. Mackie, strong supporter of contemporary moral scepticism, basically states that moral properties do not exist, and because of this any moral utterance is false because it does not represent the way the world is.

I think you're confusing the difference between meta-ethics and normative ethics. Somewhere Mackie does say that these utterances are useful for society, but he never admits there is any true truth value in any utterance. To admit they are useful is an example of normative ethics, but if we want to talk about free will in relation to ethics we must keep this purely meta-ethical.

If you want to read the articles I mention, they're called Language, Truth and Logic by A.J. Ayer
and, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong by J.L. Mackie. I would love for you to tell me whatever it is you're reading or where you've derived these notions of emotivism and moral scepticism, because maybe we can show that we're talking about the same thing, you're just being normative about it.

EDIT: Prisonchild, how is this off topic. The question is if free will can exist without morals. I posed a counter question saying that it seems we can conceive of free will and also have the belief that morals do not exist, are these people mistaken in their own beliefs? It's absolutely crucial for anyone attempting to answer the initial question to answer this one if we want a satisfying result.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well you may be right that I'm just confused. The only emotivism I've read was G.E. Moore's criticism of it, and it to me seemed like a form of moral relativism with an emotional basis. Kind of similar to what you say, Moore basically said that it turns the statement, "This is good," into, "I feel this way". And when someone says that they disagree with you, they're saying, "I feel this way", and as a result, they aren't actually negating each other because both propositions are true at the same time. Therefore they are both right and wrong at the same time. I suppose that assumes that truth value is being implied then, and what you mean to say is that emotivists simply prescribe that people act through their emotions morally regardless of the lack of truth value?

I like what you say about moral skepticism, though that still leaves me confused as to how they view there is truth value while at the same time see that they are all false (as in having no truth value?) So moral skeptics see no truth value in meta-ethics but they call still describe normative ethics, similar as you say to emotivism, but instead the moral nihilist doesn't necessarily say that you then use emotion to guide you through your normative ethics., but both say there is no truth-value in moral judgments.

Again, I could be confused, still early in the stages of the subject. Thank you for the article recommendations! If I can locate them I'll read them. ^^

 

[Alphicans]

Moore's criticism is based directly off of Ayer's article. I've read both. Once you read both you'll probably understand more clearly.

Truth value doesn't mean the statement is true, it means there is a possibility of it being true or false.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Okay, but if all moral judgments are considered false (not as in, "All of the provided ethical statements are false", but "Any ethical statement provided will be false"), doesn't that mean there is no possibility of them being true? I then say that it seems to imply "non-cognitivism" in that they can't be true or false because, according to it, ethical statements don't properly describe reality and have no truth value. That's basically the reasoning applied by nihilists who say that all ethical values are false because they don't accurately describe reality. I know that's what Nietzsche says.

 

[prisonchild]

EDIT: Prisonchild, how is this off topic. The question is if free will can exist without morals. I posed a counter question saying that it seems we can conceive of free will and also have the belief that morals do not exist, are these people mistaken in their own beliefs? It's absolutely crucial for anyone attempting to answer the initial question to answer this one if we want a satisfying result.

the question is if free will can exist without morality, not morals. there is a difference. also, if someone doesn't believe in morality it does not mean they don't make their decisions based off it. it just means they think they are making their choices for other reasons

 

[Alphicans]

Okay, but if all moral judgments are considered false (not as in, "All of the provided ethical statements are false", but "Any ethical statement provided will be false"), doesn't that mean there is no possibility of them being true? I then say that it seems to imply "non-cognitivism" in that they can't be true or false because, according to it, ethical statements don't properly describe reality and have no truth value. That's basically the reasoning applied by nihilists who say that all ethical values are false because they don't accurately describe reality. I know that's what Nietzsche says.

I know it sounds like they're non-cognitivist, but there is a fine line that makes all the difference. Emotivists are non-cognitivists because they believe any moral statement has no meaning whatsoever. A moral statement is a statement that can never be determined to be true or false, it's just an utterance of words and "emotion." A moral sceptic thinks moral statements describe something, but they all describe it in a way that is false.

the question is if free will can exist without morality, not morals. there is a difference. also, if someone doesn't believe in morality it does not mean they don't make their decisions based off it. it just means they think they are making their choices for other reasons

Explain your distinction between morals and morality. Remember that both definitions cannot involve the other or else you've just derived one from the other.

 

[prisonchild]

Explain your distinction between morals and morality. Remember that both definitions cannot involve the other or else you've just derived one from the other.

one is derived from the other but that doesn't mean you can use them interchangeably.


it's these kinds of little things that truly distract a debate.

 

[Alphicans]

Why can't I use them interchangeably?

EDIT: Aside from any grammar semantics

 

[prisonchild]

because they aren't the exact same thing?

 

[Alphicans]

I'll be very direct about my question:

You say the question is if free will can exist without morality, and then say not morals. In what way is there a meaningful difference between the two. There is something you are hiding from me that is apparently very important in regards to the difference, and I would like to know.

 

[prisonchild]

morality is an idea, morals are the application (for lack of better term) of the idea. the question doesn't ask if free will can exist without the application of morality but without the idea itself.


now look how far away we are from the topic

 

[Ussi]

Humans are unoriginal and so the only answer is we'll be like animals as that's the only thing we've seen without morality sotospeak.

 

[Dre89]

morality is an idea, morals are the application (for lack of better term) of the idea. the question doesn't ask if free will can exist without the application of morality but without the idea itself.


now look how far away we are from the topic

Well that really depends on how you define morality. I think the concept of morality is just a glorification of the altruism that we've evolved. Therefore I don't think morality is unique to humans, as other animals exhibit altruism as well (albeit to a lesser extent most of the time).

You could have free will without moral ideas in creatures that didn't evolve social relations and instead go solo. They'd be less likely to have brains that generate 'moral' ideas because altruism is of no benefit to them.

 

[Muhti]

Humans are unoriginal and so the only answer is we'll be like animals as that's the only thing we've seen without morality sotospeak.

Aren't humans animals in the first place? We survive by searching for food, water, and sheter. Like all other animals do. So we are already are animals.