What is Free Will?

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;111968 wrote:

I think both views are useful. The deterministic view is what the government should take when deciding how to combat obesity. You can't try to change things by just saying "make better choices".
On the personal level, if you treat people like they have choices, they are more likely to do what they should.

I agree, and humans tend to take turns in acting as if one or the other is true. Why punish a child if not to determine his behavior? Why honor a fireman unless his risk is voluntary?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;111970 wrote:

I agree, and humans tend to take turns in acting as if one or the other is true. Why punish a child if not to determine his behavior? Why honor a fireman unless his risk is voluntary?

Because actions reflect character. The fireman didn't choose to take the risk, but he is still brave. We honor him for the action because it proves the character.

Well, that's why would should. But we do honor people for actions even if their character doesn't match up, because of the belief in free will. I think more emphasis should be placed on character.

Punishing a child may set them on the right course, it can indeed determine their behavior.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;111972 wrote:

Because actions reflect character. The fireman didn't choose to take the risk, but he is still brave. We honor him for the action because it proves the character.
Well, that's why would should. But we do honor people for actions even if their character doesn't match up, because of the belief in free will. I think more emphasis should be placed on character.
Punishing a child may set them on the right course, it can indeed determine their behavior.

Just to make it clear, I think we should honor fireman. It's just that punishment and praise are often evidence of our doublethink on the issue of Free Will. I used to believe in God in a more traditional way, and the Free Will problem was something I thought extremely important. I didn't see how, all things being equal, a soul would choose the wrong path and not the right. I also think that freedom is meaningless without desire or purpose, and that desire and purpose are unfree will.

@fast,

I'm inclined to come up with yet another clever definition of what i believe free will is... So i will! Free will is the ability to have passion for something without any external influences.

@fast,

I knew a lawyer that would do you a free will, but he had better be in it somewhere....

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;111919 wrote:

Yes, she had a choice. It wasn't a good choice, and that is why we (and Aristotle) held that compulsion is one of the main headings of excuses. Ignorance is the other. I think we can learn a lot about free will from studying excuses. The better the excuse, the less the degree of freedom.

Excuses are relevant to our forming of judgements, yes. but how does an excuse made or understood, affect what is occurring in the example ?

By what standard is it determined that an available choice is good or bad ?
Perhaps if the victim had said "Boo!", the gunman would have fainted - or killed her.

I see it as if there are branches of possibliites, and some branching leads back to the same place as other branches end up. You could argue, then obey, or you might not argue, but still the gunman has a heart attack.

There are many choices still available; to get in the car as quickly as possible. to get in a bit more slowly, or more slowly still. To ask for a repeat of the order.
To argue a few words, then obey. To argue longer. To scream. To kick. To run. To get in the car and then lock the door.
The variations are still just about endless, even when some are removed, as possiblilities.

---------- Post added 12-17-2009 at 01:09 AM ----------

Reconstructo;111970 wrote:

I agree, and humans tend to take turns in acting as if one or the other is true. Why punish a child if not to determine his behavior? Why honor a fireman unless his risk is voluntary?

for our own satisfaction.

@memester,

memester;112011 wrote:

for our own satisfaction.

That's part of it, too. I agree. The science of motive is a complicated science.

I would say generally that we are not free, but also that it's doubtful whether or behavior could be predicted exactly. We are not free because we did not choose our basic motives to being with. Whether you steal to eat is one thing. Whether you desire food in the first place is another. Humans are the crash site of their instincts/appetites.

But there is freedom in the practice sense. We experience the burden of choice, even if this choice is from another perspective an illusion. Should we privileged the subjective experience of the burden over the theoretical argument for determinism? Or rather the reverse? This ties into the problem of truth. Is it correspondence, description, belief?

@fast,

memester wrote:

The variations are still just about endless, even when some are removed, as possiblilities.

Once again, no one is saying the woman in your example didn't have other choices. One can have other choices, and still be compelled to choose something. And you find this to be false?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112399 wrote:

Once again, no one is saying the woman in your example didn't have other choices. One can have other choices, and still be compelled to choose something. And you find this to be false?

Yes, I think it's false to say that she was compelled to do something, if she had the choice of not doing it, available to her.

@memester,

memester;112405 wrote:

Yes, I think it's false to say that she was compelled to do something, if she had the choice of not doing it, available to her.

Then you must explain how the two examples located in the Merriam-Webster dictionary are incorrectly using the word.

1.) Hunger compelled him to eat.

In this example, I think we can safely assume this person had other choices that could have been acted on before eating. Such as, but not limited to, sewing, speaking, masturbating, singing, gargling, jumping, murdering, and skinning.

2.) Public opinion compelled her to sign the bill.

In this example, I think we can safely assume she had other choices. In fact, not signing the bill was one of them. Burning down the legislative building she was located in is another.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112407 wrote:

Then you must explain how the two examples located in the Merriam-Webster dictionary are incorrectly using the word.

1.) Hunger compelled him to eat.

In this example, I think we can safely assume this person had other choices that could have been acted on before eating. Such as, but not limited to, sewing, speaking, masturbating, singing, gargling, jumping, murdering, and skinning.

2.) Public opinion compelled her to sign the bill.

In this example, I think we can safely assume she had other choices. In fact, not signing the bill was one of them. Burning down the legislative building she was located in is another.

You see, since there are several definitions of "compel" it depends on context. It can be some application of force, or it can be overwhelming application of force. So that if she was standing beside the car and the gunman shoved her violently enough into the seat, she was overwhelmingly forced inside.

@fast,

memester;112415 wrote:

You see, since there are several definitions of "compel" it depends on context. It can be some application of force, or it can be overwhelming application of force. So that if she was standing beside the car and the gunman shoved her violently enough into the seat, she was overwhelmingly forced inside.

You see, I had already reiterated that here on page 6, post #57:

Zetherin wrote:

It does not necessarily remove choice (please, please, please understand it is not necessarily). You may just be heavily influenced to make the choice, but you may have no other option.

But, in the context of the woman example, it is appropriate to use "compel". You agree it depends on context and that it can refer to some application of force, but then blatantly say:

Quote:

Yes, I think it's false to say that she was compelled to do something, if she had the choice of not doing it, available to her.

So which one is it: Do you think it's false to say that she was compelled, or do you think it was appropriate to say she was compelled since she was heavily influenced?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112419 wrote:

You see, I had already reiterated that here on page 6, post #57:

But, in the context of the woman example, it is appropriate to use "compel". You agree it depends on context, but then blatantly say:

So which one is it: Do you think it's false to say that she was compelled, or do you think it was appropriate to say she was compelled since she was heavily influenced?

In this case, it's definitely FALSE, and to say that I have said otherwise, is FALSE.

@memester,

memester;112421 wrote:

In this case, it's definitely FALSE, and to say that I have said otherwise, is FALSE.

So then explain how it is FALSE with the two examples I posted (which are just as similar in regards to the person being able to make other choices). Or, rather, tell me how the word is inappropriately used in your example and appropriately used in the two examples I posted.

@memester,

memester;112415 wrote:

You see, since there are several definitions of "compel" it depends on context. It can be some application of force, or it can be overwhelming application of force. So that if she was standing beside the car and the gunman shoved her violently enough into the seat, she was overwhelmingly forced inside.

A person is compelled to do something if he intentionally does something he does not want to do. What you mean is that there are several ways to compel someone to do something. Not that there are several definitions of "compel".

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112423 wrote:

So then explain how it is FALSE with the two examples I posted (which are just as similar in regards to the person being able to make other choices). Or, rather, tell me how the word is inappropriately used in your example and appropriately used in the two examples I posted.

Certainly. It's false, as shown using the two examples, and various possible definitions, thusly; both the examples show force applied but you admit that other actions might be taken instead, and that the action need not necessarily even be taken. Some degree of force was applied, and the action was taken, that's all.
However, you personally have given a pre-condition of overwhelming force being a necessary condition in this instance, and so have I, so our agreement is constraining our choice of definition to one.

@memester,

memester;112427 wrote:

Certainly. It's false, as shown using the two examples,

So, then, one of the most renowned dictionaries in the world is incorrectly using the word "compel" in both examples? Yes, or no?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112429 wrote:

So, then, one of the most renowned dictionaries in the world is incorrectly using the word "compel" in both examples? Yes, or no?

No.
...more characters added to make the message long enough to post.

@fast,

So, then, the dictionary has correctly used the word? I think it has.

Explain, now, how this:

"The gun to her head compelled her to get into the car"

is so different from the two examples the dictionary provided, that it would be inappropriate to use "compel" here.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112433 wrote:

So, then, the dictionary has correctly used the word? I think it has.

Explain, now, how this:

"The gun to her head compelled her to get into the car"

is so different from the two examples the dictionary provided, that it would be inappropriate to use "compel" here.

It actually isn't so different as to make it inappropriate to use there.

Philosophy Forum

What is Free Will?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know