I did not use the term "simple intentional coercion" that I recall. There are a good many kinds of coercion, including psychological coercion which is not intentional, like the compulsion to steal (kleptomania) or a heavy drug addiction. But causation is not, necessarily compulsion, for only certain causes compel. For instance, when I go to see a film because I admire the main actor in the film, I am not being compelled to see the film, although, of course, I am (partly) caused to see the film by my admiration of the actor.

Seems to me that boagie is refering to 'free-will' as making 'choices' in accordance with one's own nature.
And that he is saying that 'morality' is part of many Perspectives, and for them, that it influences some of those 'free-will' decisions.
Further I hear him saying that if one imbibes one's 'morality' from 'external sources', like the community/society at large, the 'freeness' of that 'will' becomes, to the extent of the imbibition of 'external' morality, lessened; diametrically opposed.
Thats how I see it, anyway.
Close boagie?

I don't want to be a bother, but I really don't see why we'd want free will the way you speak of. I'm happy the way I make my actions, how I come about intentions. This discussion is so vague that whatever we gain from it will be useless for helping other liberty deprived nations from gaining freedom.

Not all causes compel, but all compulsions have causes.


We judge
Examine how one makes a decision (at least how we think one makes a decision). We consider the situation, the costs and benefits, and we choose a course of action that fulfills our values the most. We choose the action that we perceive to be more satisfying than all of the rest. Now this means we can sacrifice ourselves for another or we can screw the other over, as long as we now perceive either one to be more satisfactory.
what will be more satisfactory through our values. While I sincerely doubt that one actually goes through the process of weighing all possible actions against these values (rather it is much more of a unconscious mental process that is just triggered at some point, possibly long before all values are truly registered), but I consider it a pretty decent model.

So we establish that decision making is a reaction to our values; surely without these values and calculations of satisfaction, we would be either inactive or arbitrary automatons, neither of which lends themselves to free will.

So where do these values come from? Obviously we have formed values throughout our lives as we will not see children exhibiting the same values as they enter adulthood. So we have acquired these values, which must have come about in three manners:

A) they are innate to our biology or ingrained through society, and thus out of our control

B) they are chosen by us without consideration for what we already prefer, and thus are arbitrary and random.

C) they were weighed against present values and decided to be acceptable, which sends us in a reductionist free fall back to A)

There is no other possible way for us to acquire values, and none of these permit us to be in ultimate control of our values, either they are arbitrary, or they are based upon values that were never chosen by us.

Ultimately, the forces that lead us to action, our intentions, our decisions, our compulsions to act, are never of our own making.

There is no free will.

Freewill and morality are mutually exclusive. Let me qualify that, freewill and a social morality system are mutually exclusive.

That is right. We come to a decision by deliberation. And deliberation about what to do is not (I am sure you realize) not the same think as impulsive or compulsive behavior. When we deliberated and come to a decision, unless something unusual has occurred, that is what is called coming to a choice freely. However, when we are under duress, and we are compelled to make a decision, that is when we are not acting freely. To say that "forces" lead us to action is to use a misleading metaphor. Sometimes we are forced to act, but that is unusual. Considerations about where our interests lie, or where the interests of others who concern us lie, are not "forces". We are no compelled to do anything by them. We can choose otherwise if we want to do so. You misdescribe the process by which we ordinarily come to a decision (say) of choosing one restaurant over another restaurant. We consider issues of price, food, atmosphere, distance, service, and many other factors. To say that we were "forced" to go to a restaurant as a consequence of such deliberations is simply an abuse of the term, "forced". And, when we are not forced to do some action, we do it of our own free will.

One more thing: just the fact that we did not (usually) choose the values we have, and which are the basis on which we make the decisions we make, does not show that we were forced to make the decisions we made. For even given those values, we could have make different decisions. I could have chosen a different restaurant under the same set of values; for one thing, I could have weighed those values differently. You seem to believe that a person could only act freely if he were born without any genes, and never had an enrironment to interact with. So that his decision would have to be arrived at ex nihilo. But what would be the use of setting up the conditions for freedom in this way so that in effect it would be impossible for there to be freedom of the will? And why, on earth, would anyone even want to have that kind of freedom of the will? No one has ever thought of freedom of the will in the way you set it up, and it is a strawman of philosophers and theologians.

I don't want to be a bother, but I really don't see why we'd want free will the way you speak of. I'm happy the way I make my actions, how I come about intentions. This discussion is so vague that whatever we gain from it will be useless for helping other liberty deprived nations from gaining freedom.

Yeah I see your point, and I scored idealist on that philosophy test that was posted here a while ago. I thought I was an existentialist but oh well.

And you sound like a romanticist saying that stuff. And a "recursivist". lol. I'm sorry but I am young so I'm trying to figure out reality first and them work on my own ideology which would lead to spreading it; perhaps.

And I'm with you on moral philosophy, that is generally the way I take it.

Save your trouble. Idealogies, organizations, and essholes all go together in this world. Stay clear of all of them. Freedom is an idea to, but it is a very heathy form of relationship. You don't have to force anyone to be more free than they want. Just carry it around, and allow the freedom you expect.

Idealogues and idealists needn't force anyone. A great many simply wish to educate others on what they feel to be correct, and if their ideas are good, its all the better for them.

I say be an idealist or an idealogue, just be sure to entertain the sentiments of others.

I say be an idealist or an idealogue, just be sure to entertain the sentiments of others.

It is an unfortunate fact, often proved, that human beings cannot form ideas capable of actually modeling social systems upon. It is the worst possible mistake, to take ideas, which are forms, and concepts, which we all use to think with, and instead use them to think for us. We forget that when we set up the best of systems they are as soon taken over by the criminal, the lazy, and the political. Since all our forms are forms of relationship anyway, the worst, with the best; why not just figure out how to build strong relationships, and minimize the form, and the formality. The forms of society should be as alive and vital as the people in them; but you see that when societies die, it is their own forms which have destroyed them. Look at our Society.

America is divided and so weakened. Is it possible to believe that because we seem to have this great invincible military that the division does not run straight through it? No doubt, people in the military want to be patriotic. What will they be when they see that they are put in harm's way for no good and much profit? If we have a dictatorship in this country it will be imposed by the military. The sad fact is that the officer corp is as distant from the troops, and as near its own class as in any feudal society. Many, if not most of the officer class are steeped in evangelical religion, more true to its faith than to the people of this country. So, where is the benefit to us? If this class takes over will they be inclined to give this nation justice, or to even make us a nation as nations are, of one people? Not likely.

Look at history. As the forms of society grow powerful the people grow weaker, and it is formal societies that are swept away by time, and, the the barbarians. And don't think we are not in the middle of a barbarian invasion of sorts; and even though it could work out for the best, with America a microcosm of the world, knowing all, and at peace with all; again, not likely.

So don't be an idealogue. Study relationships, why they work and why they do not. All relationships have their forms and formality, but the best are seemingly informal. And ask what are the needs of all people that forms and relationships serve. And remember, that as generations age and die their forms become brittle and self serving. It is natural to replace forms, and it is the key to human progress; but, the ideal of any form of relationship is not the form at all, but is the relationship. Keep that healthy and the beast lives. Suck the life out of the relationship, and the form dies too. Best. Fido

And that, of course, would be your decision.

And that, of course, would be your decision.

I don't choose what I believe.

To do so would undermine the concept of truth.

Is this system likely to serve, or is one likely to end up serving the system. Come over to the darkside, that is the individual serving a system longterm, he becomes somewhat less of a man, a worm like creature. Lukes father in star wars, Dart Vader. The essence of what matters to one, as well as what does not matter to one, is a matter of relationship/s, its always about your relation to something.