Free Will

Broken Bulwark · 09-01-2006, 05:59 PM

What are you folk's thoughts on free will? Are we simply a product of our environment and genetics, or do we have some quality that is under our personal control?

I'd rather not turn this into a theological argument so lets keep God out of the mix as best we can.

JPR, please don't say..."well don't you think that you have free will?", or any of that garbage.

Mens Rea · 09-01-2006, 06:06 PM

Nature and nurture. Nothing else.

Astroboy · 09-01-2006, 06:07 PM

yes you have free will, you can eat what you want when you want, kill if you want, drive a car if you want.... do what ever the hell you want when you want. Sounds like you have freedom of choice to me.

Broken Bulwark · 09-01-2006, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astroboy

yes you have free will, you can eat what you want when you want, kill if you want, drive a car if you want.... do what ever the hell you want when you want. Sounds like you have freedom of choice to me.

Yes, but your decisions are all products of your environment and your internal psychological make-up. You may think you eat where you want, but it is determined by many factors.

Broken Bulwark · 09-01-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mens Rea

Nature and nurture. Nothing else.

Yeah, I know. I was going somewhere here, but I realize it was a stupid question. My eventual goal was a question on moral relativism, but I realize that I should have just opened the topic with that.

Mens Rea · 09-01-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broken Bulwark

Yeah, I know. I was going somewhere here, but I realize it was a stupid question. My eventual goal was a question on moral relativism, but I realize that I should have just opened the topic with that.

I didn't see my answer as a conversation stopper.

What's your view on moral relativism?

Sniffkin · 09-01-2006, 06:25 PM

Are there any absolutes?

Broken Bulwark · 09-01-2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mens Rea

I didn't see my answer as a conversation stopper.

What's your view on moral relativism?

Basically this, currently.

Dogmatic relativism is flawed in the sense that if someone truly believes that one opinion is just as right as another, then relativism falls into the same category as being an opinion that is just as potentially right as another. The only way to determine what is right from a moral perspective is to have an objective viewpoint. However, no one has an objective viewpoint. So the answer is to realize that not everyone is equally right, but to understand that any one perspective could be wrong.

I'm taking a class in it currently, but it has just started.

Broken Bulwark · 09-01-2006, 06:41 PM

Here is my response to part of our reading that describes what I'm talking about in more detail. You can see at the end why I mentioned the free will bit (there was a lot of responses that said that initially our consciences were formed by our parents, but they develop over time). Hopefully it is clear and you don't have to see the reading to get what I'm saying.

Response:

Since people will probably beat the relativism bit to death, I will reflect on something that was also addressed but was more on the fringes and wasn’t directly discussed—dogmatic absolutism. Contrary to relativism, absolutists hold that not only do they think that they’re right and proceeding as best they can; they truly and whole heartedly believe that they are right, and that any position held contrary to their own is wrong. Sadly it seems as though this mindset is not all that uncommon, and seems to breed the most dangerous ideological fanatics. It is this sort of person that develops into the most radical religious extremism, racism, and nationalism to the point where they are often willing to both die and kill for their beliefs.

I also this it is not entirely difficult to see the appeal of absolutism. The apparent “uncertainty” relativism hold is viewed by some as uncomfortably unstable to some, and repulsively tentative in others. To use a religious example, there is something very comforting in not just hoping, but KNOWING that you will go to heaven, or that there is a benevolent God watching over you, or somehow your good actions are being recorded. Others find relativism weak, seeing it as a way to slide out of taking a stand, and viewing the apparent uncertainly as a lack of conviction.

Starting this book, I felt that relativism (particularly in the moral sense) was the way to go. Now I feel that I have altered my position at least slightly. I think the way to avoid being trapped in the contradiction of recognizing differing value systems across cultures (whether one agrees with them or not), and still maintaining a personal value system of one’s own, is not necessarily an acceptance of relativism, but a rejection of absolutism.

P.S. Just reading through earlier responses/reflections it seems like a common vein of thinking is that while our conscience is developed by our parent’s teachings early in life, but as we mature and grow older our conscience is becomes a thing that we decide for ourselves. But if you accept that your conscience was initially formed on your parents’ teachings, why do you not believe that your current conscience is not being shaped currently? Perhaps not by your parents, but by your friends, your experiences, and your teachers all can do likewise. And these too are products of one’s environment, not by “the individual”. I don’t want to jump into the whole free will debate, because that is a whole other can of worms. Just thought I’d mention this.

Y@}{000 · 09-01-2006, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broken Bulwark

Yes, but your decisions are all products of your environment and your internal psychological make-up. You may think you eat where you want, but it is determined by many factors.

One needs to ask themself, who am I? If you can get to the "i" and then ask YOURSELF where you want to eat, then it is actually YOU deciding where you want to eat.