Is free will necessary for moral judgments to take place?

[an anarchist]

If there is no free will, then does it stand to reason that there is no right or wrong?

Absent of free will, can it be said that a murderer had no choice in the matter?

Without free will, is it fair to judge people as moral or immoral?

 

[Eddi]

The legal system as we know it is founded on the notion that we all have free will

Try murdering someone and then trying to get away with it by arguing that you have no free will

If there was no free will then it would be necessary to invent it as society is held together by people being accountable for their actions

 

[LuisDantas]

Nope. There isn't any connection between the two subject matters.

Free will, IMO, is illusory at best. But ethical judgements are not only possible but all-out necessary if not unavoidable altogether.

It can even be argued that it is because we have to judge the merits of courses of action that we neither have nor want free will as such.

 

[LuisDantas]

The legal system as we know it is founded on the notion that we all have free will

Try murdering someone and then trying to get away with it by arguing that you have no free will

If there was no free will then it would be necessary to invent it as society is held together by people being accountable for their actions

I don't know about that.

The legal system is meant to establish what a society (by way of its authorities) accepts and rejects and to which degree and with which consequences.

It is often mistaken for something capable and willing to make judgements of ethical merits, but that is really not very easy or very suitable for that system.

It is really all about encouragements, forbiddances and punishments instead.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If there is no free will, then does it stand to reason that there is no right or wrong?

Absent of free will, can it be said that a murderer had no choice in the matter?

Without free will, is it fair to judge people as moral or immoral?

Free will is an imaginary term made up by creationists.

The fact you can't to anything and everything you want is proof of that.

Best to get that ridiculous term out of your vocabulary and head because its completely useless.

 

[an anarchist]

If there was no free will then it would be necessary to invent it as society is held together by people being accountable for their actions

Absent of free will, a “moral agent” would still exist and act ”morally”. They would cast perceived judgement on let’s say a murderer.

Free will is not necessary for our current society to be existent. We can be currently living in a state of no free will IMO.

 

[Eddi]

I don't know about that.

The legal system is meant to establish what a society (by way of its authorities) accepts and rejects and to which degree and with which consequences.

It is often mistaken for something capable and willing to make judgements of ethical merits, but that is really not very easy or very suitable for that system.

It is really all about encouragements, forbiddances and punishments instead.

But it is based on people being rational actors

Which is why you can get away with a lot by claiming "diminished responsibility" or some kind of insanity defence

If you kill someone but have diminished responsibility you won't be locked up as a punishment, more for treatment or to keep others safe

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Free will does exist. We all make our choices and decide who we want to be, with the cards that life has dealt us. We're not robots following a program.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If there is no free will, then does it stand to reason that there is no right or wrong?

Absent of free will, can it be said that a murderer had no choice in the matter?

Without free will, is it fair to judge people as moral or immoral?

Free will is an imaginary term made up by creationists.

The fact you can't to anything and everything you want is proof of that.

Best to get that ridiculous term out of your vocabulary and head because its completely useless.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The fact you can't to anything and everything you want is proof of that.

No, it isn't. That's not an argument against anything.

 

[LuisDantas]

But it is based on people being rational actors

Which is why you can get away with a lot by claiming "diminished responsibility" or some kind of insanity defence

If you kill someone but have diminished responsibility you won't be locked up as a punishment, more for treatment or to keep others safe

Sorry. I am just not seeing that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, it isn't. That's not an argument against anything.

It's proof free will is nonsense.

 

[Eddi]

Absent of free will, a “moral agent” would still exist and act ”morally”. They would cast perceived judgement on let’s say a murderer.

Free will is not necessary for our current society to be existent. We can be currently living in a state of no free will IMO.

I very much believe in free will

I have a friend who thinks he's Jesus and he thinks that he's the only person on Earth who has free will and that everyone else are "Non-Player Characters"

I don't much want to go down that road.......

As far as I care I have constrained free-will, that's the way it feels so that's what I'm going to go with even though I could be mistaken

 

[Eddi]

Sorry. I am just not seeing that.

My observation was that if you are a defendant and can prove to the court that you are not a rational actor then your punishment will be much lighter - e.g. an insanity defence

Which would be consistent with the idea that the purpose of there being laws and a criminal justice system is to change peoples behaviours by making breaking the law less eligible than following it - which would require people to be rational actors

For deference to work on someone that person needs to be rational, or else deference won't deter

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's proof free will is nonsense.

How is that proof of anything? Of course you can't do everything or anything you dream of. The universe would be total chaos. But doesn't mean you can't make your own decisions, direct your life, achieve your own goals, etc. You have a mind and a personal will.

 

[an anarchist]

so that's what I'm going to go with even though I could be mistaken

Hmm.

Well I understand the choice of accepting you may not get an answer on a particular issue.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How is that proof of anything? Of course you can't do everything or anything you dream of. The universe would be total chaos. But doesn't mean you can't make your own decisions, direct your life, achieve your own goals, etc. You have a mind and a personal will.

I like that term much better.

"Personal will"

Much more accurate and truthful.

More people ought to use it.

 

[wellwisher]

Free will is an imaginary term made up by creationists.

The fact you can't to anything and everything you want is proof of that.

Best to get that ridiculous term out of your vocabulary and head because its completely useless.

Not being able to do what you want, does not imply lack of free will. Having to make a forced choice, not to do something, because of social consequences, requires free will; control our self. If we all completely lacked free will, people would act on impulse and would constantly suffer the consequences, since they could will to divert from impulse. Everyone would take the easy low road, rather than use free will to climb to the high road.

An animal does not have free will since they are under instincts which thinks for them. The lion cannot will to become a sheep. Humans can pretend not be to human or their natural sex due to will and choice. Humans, developed a secondary center of consciousness, about 6-10K years ago, that was not exactly connected to the natural instinctive program of previous humanity.

We developed will and choice apart from the instincts of natural man, allowing us to become unnatural to the earth; mess up the earth. Culture, through knowledge of good and evil and law, sets rules that do not allow our will and choice, to go down the tubes. This adaptation against our own inertia, requires will and choice, assisted by the legal carrot and stick.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If there is no free will, then does it stand to reason that there is no right or wrong?

Absent of free will, can it be said that a murderer had no choice in the matter?

Without free will, is it fair to judge people as moral or immoral?

No I do not think that, and I think whether you are predestined to be evil or good makes no difference to the topic of what is good. Good is still good, and evil is still evil. What matters to me is the ability to know good from evil. If you can do that, then you can at least try to do good.

Absent of free will (by which you mean the ability to make choices), yes it can be said the murderer might have no choice. Nevertheless they are murdering. It often happens that History judges people more harshly than the times in which they live. A man born into a nation of warriors and believing in war is not really free to stop killing, but he is a killer and is doing evil. It is evil not because of what he believes about it but because of what it is. We do not harshly judge ignorant children, yet they are ignorant. We don't blame idiots for being stupid, but they are stupid. That they wish to be intelligent or believe themselves to be does not create intelligence.

Suppose as in your final query that someone has no free will: such as a fox which eats a baby bunny. The fox is driven purely by instinct. Nevertheless that fox is a killer, and it kills baby bunnies. If that is good, then the fox is good. If that is bad, then the fox is bad. The fox's will has nothing to do with it. My point is not to ponder whether baby bunnies are evil but to establish that the fox's will cannot change the evil of its action or the good of its action. The poor fox, then has no choice but to follow its instincts whether they are good or evil. We can judge the fox. If the rabbits are eating all the farms, then the fox is doing us a favor. If not, then not. The fox's will does not change whether its actions are good. The context determines it: the big picture which the fox cannot see or understand. What if the fox could understand the big picture? It still would not change whether the act of killing was good or bad.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not being able to do what you want, does not imply lack of free will. Having to make a forced choice, not to do something, because of social consequences, requires free will; control our self. If we all completely lacked free will, people would act on impulse and would constantly suffer the consequences, since they could will to divert from impulse. Everyone would take the easy low road, rather than use free will to climb to the high road.

An animal does not have free will since they are under instincts which thinks for them. The lion cannot will to become a sheep. Humans can pretend not be to human or their natural sex due to will and choice. Humans, developed a secondary center of consciousness, about 6-10K years ago, that was not exactly connected to the natural instinctive program of previous humanity.

We developed will and choice apart from the instincts of natural man, allowing us to become unnatural to the earth; mess up the earth. Culture, through knowledge of good and evil and law, sets rules that do not allow our will and choice, to go down the tubes. This adaptation against our own inertia, requires will and choice, assisted by the legal carrot and stick.

That would fall under @Saint Frankenstein 's description on personal will.

A really good and excellent way to put it , so much so, I'm going to place the term in my own vocabulary whenever this stuff crops up.