Free Will: What Does it Mean and Signify for Moral Responsibility?

[JackDaydream]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

[3017Metaphysician]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

Jack!

It seems strict determinists are put into an untenable position of explaining moral agency. If everything is explained in some sort of predetermined causal loop, we would not be questioning this form of self-awareness in the first place. It would not be necessary because we would not know any difference (not to mention all the other implications). We would simply act exclusively from instinct. Conversely, if animal instinct applies to all of human conscious behavior, then determinism, in principle, might somehow be successful.

Because there is both free will (quantum indeterminism) and determinism in the universe, I would say we have yet another example of both/and, v. either/or dichotomization of reality. As such, exclusive determinism is either an illusion (or vice versa/free will is an illusion), in which case the dichotomization of either one is nonsensical...

[JackDaydream]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

Jack!

It seems strict determinists are put into an untenable position of explaining moral agency. If everything is explained in some sort of predetermined causal loop, we would not be questioning this form of self-awareness in the first place. It would not be necessary because we would not know any difference (not to mention all the other implications). We would simply act exclusively from instinct. Conversely, if animal instinct applies to all of human conscious behavior, then determinism, in principle, might somehow be successful.

Because there is both free will (quantum indeterminism) and determinism in the universe, I would say we have yet another example of both/and, v. either/or dichotomization of reality. As such, exclusive determinism is either an illusion (or vice versa/free will is an illusion), in which case the dichotomization of either one is nonsensical...

It does seem that those who deny consciousness as strict determinists do not allow for the reflective processes. While each of us is acted upon, and not entirely free from influence, there is some scope for creativity of choice. We are not mere robots who react but have some scope of making choices and being the authors of our own destiny. When people rule out choice it is as if moral responsibility is being written out of the picture.

I would probably go for the compatabilist point of view because it does seem that both extremes are rather restrictive. It doesn't seem clear cut because a person is both acted upon and an active agent. The active part, which is likely to be apparent in these discussions is the person who one becomes as a creative designer in the process. Each person has many experiences which influence them, in outer experiences and in conjunction with bodily processes, which are involved in navigating who we become and what we do. It may be that consciousness and narrative identity are formed within this reflective loop. Language as a basis for introspection and conceptual logic may be important here, especially in relation to moral choices. Of course, it is complex because each of us has limitations in thinking and there are behaviour patterns as learned coping mechanisms. However, it may be that understanding and working with these is the art of conscious becoming as persons.

[3017Metaphysician]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

Jack!

It seems strict determinists are put into an untenable position of explaining moral agency. If everything is explained in some sort of predetermined causal loop, we would not be questioning this form of self-awareness in the first place. It would not be necessary because we would not know any difference (not to mention all the other implications). We would simply act exclusively from instinct. Conversely, if animal instinct applies to all of human conscious behavior, then determinism, in principle, might somehow be successful.

Because there is both free will (quantum indeterminism) and determinism in the universe, I would say we have yet another example of both/and, v. either/or dichotomization of reality. As such, exclusive determinism is either an illusion (or vice versa/free will is an illusion), in which case the dichotomization of either one is nonsensical...

It does seem that those who deny consciousness as strict determinists do not allow for the reflective processes. While each of us is acted upon, and not entirely free from influence, there is some scope for creativity of choice. We are not mere robots who react but have some scope of making choices and being the authors of our own destiny. When people rule out choice it is as if moral responsibility is being written out of the picture.

I would probably go for the compatabilist point of view because it does seem that both extremes are rather restrictive. It doesn't seem clear cut because a person is both acted upon and an active agent. The active part, which is likely to be apparent in these discussions is the person who one becomes as a creative designer in the process. Each person has many experiences which influence them, in outer experiences and in conjunction with bodily processes, which are involved in navigating who we become and what we do. It may be that consciousness and narrative identity are formed within this reflective loop. Language as a basis for introspection and conceptual logic may be important here, especially in relation to moral choices. Of course, it is complex because each of us has limitations in thinking and there are behaviour patterns as learned coping mechanisms. However, it may be that understanding and working with these is the art of conscious becoming as persons.

Your reply reminded me of another corresponding mental phenomena. Perhaps a question for cognitive science would be, is one purpose for having two minds, a subconscious and a conscious mind, is that beyond instinct the subconscious mind acts as a determinant feature v. the conscious mind providing for an indeterminate feature.

Perhaps the compatabilist would further interpolate that conscious mind cooresponding to the (free) Will, and the subconscious mind cooresponding to a determinant entity (s), representing the processing of; chance, choice, instinct, as well as indeterminism and determinism respectively...

[JackDaydream]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

Jack!

It seems strict determinists are put into an untenable position of explaining moral agency. If everything is explained in some sort of predetermined causal loop, we would not be questioning this form of self-awareness in the first place. It would not be necessary because we would not know any difference (not to mention all the other implications). We would simply act exclusively from instinct. Conversely, if animal instinct applies to all of human conscious behavior, then determinism, in principle, might somehow be successful.

Because there is both free will (quantum indeterminism) and determinism in the universe, I would say we have yet another example of both/and, v. either/or dichotomization of reality. As such, exclusive determinism is either an illusion (or vice versa/free will is an illusion), in which case the dichotomization of either one is nonsensical...

It does seem that those who deny consciousness as strict determinists do not allow for the reflective processes. While each of us is acted upon, and not entirely free from influence, there is some scope for creativity of choice. We are not mere robots who react but have some scope of making choices and being the authors of our own destiny. When people rule out choice it is as if moral responsibility is being written out of the picture.

I would probably go for the compatabilist point of view because it does seem that both extremes are rather restrictive. It doesn't seem clear cut because a person is both acted upon and an active agent. The active part, which is likely to be apparent in these discussions is the person who one becomes as a creative designer in the process. Each person has many experiences which influence them, in outer experiences and in conjunction with bodily processes, which are involved in navigating who we become and what we do. It may be that consciousness and narrative identity are formed within this reflective loop. Language as a basis for introspection and conceptual logic may be important here, especially in relation to moral choices. Of course, it is complex because each of us has limitations in thinking and there are behaviour patterns as learned coping mechanisms. However, it may be that understanding and working with these is the art of conscious becoming as persons.

Your reply reminded me of another corresponding mental phenomena. Perhaps a question for cognitive science would be, is one purpose for having two minds, a subconscious and a conscious mind, is that beyond instinct the subconscious mind acts as a determinant feature v. the conscious mind providing for an indeterminate feature.

Perhaps the compatabilist would further interpolate that conscious mind cooresponding to the (free) Will, and the subconscious mind cooresponding to a determinant entity (s), representing the processing of; chance, choice, instinct, as well as indeterminism and determinism respectively...

The subconscious mind, or the subliminal mind may have a bearing on the nature of unpredictability. It could go as far as being like Jekyll and Hyde. The two sides may be at odds with each other and one writer who touches on this is Joseph Conrad in his depiction of people having a dark side. It is the topic of psychoanalysis with Freud and Jung showing the shadow aspects of existence. However, many do dismiss the idea of the subconscious as being unscientific, but this may simply be because it is hard to measure scientifically.

Schopenhauer's idea of will is important and it does probably relate to the area of instinct and how this fits into the various functions of mind according to different models. Even though many dismiss the role of the subconscious the cognitive behaviourists, as one of the mainstream psychology models do suggest that automatic thoughts, which lie behind emotions are significant and various approaches, including neurologinguistic programming, do suggest deep seated aspects of intention. It may be that some people have little awareness of their own blindspots and aspects of themselves may almost appear from nowhere. For example, some people become prone to violence after drinking alcohol, or other behaviours that they would not engage in, while sober.

I wonder if the art of bringing opposites together through greater reflection is a joint endeavour of psychology and philosophy. However, it is likely that those who adhere to materialist determinism would not see the relevance of this within philosophy. In many ways, determinism can be a grim view of human nature, as not seeing potential empowerment and the possibility of higher goals, such as those on the higher rungs of Maslow's hierarchy. Also, through denial of empowerment in the deterministic picture the idea of slave morality, as spoken of by Nietzsche, may be promoted, as in BF Skinner's model of human nature in 'Beyond Freedom and Dignity', which is a potential model for control.

[ernestm]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

If you want to apply the mind you have to real philosophy, you really need to put popsicles like Sam Harris aside and grow up.

While there were many varying and interesting ideas of morality prior to the last century, modern philosophy considers morality a personal issue in the domain of religion, not philosophy. Modern philosophy instead considers ethics. If you want the current answer to the issue of ethical responsibility, the first thing is to decide whether you follow normative ethics or descriptive ethics. According to current definitions in modern philosophy, if you can't make that distinction, then you are called 'naive,' which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but rather precludes any sensible discussion until you learn something about what you are trying to say.

[Marvin_Edwards]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

Let's take Morality first. A moral person seeks to improve good and reduce harm for others as well as for themselves. Moral judgment considers the most likely benefits and harms of a rule, or a course of action, and compares that to the benefits and harms of a second rule, or a second course of action. It sides with the the best benefit and least harm for everyone. That's the simple issue of morality. The complexity of morality comes from trying to determine what is beneficial and what is harmful, and finding ways to quantify and compare them.

Societies form for their mutual benefit. They decide what rights they wish to respect and protect for each other. They pass laws against behavior that injures these rights. Those individuals who injure other people and their rights are held responsible for their deliberate actions. And that is where the notion of "free will" enters the picture.

If the offender deliberately chose to benefit themselves by harming others, then society will feel morally justified in taking action to prevent further harm. Because justice is concerned with everyone's rights, a just penalty would naturally include (a) repairing the harm to the victim if possible, (b) correcting the offender's future behavior if corrigible, (c) securing the offender to protect others until his behavior is corrected, and (d) doing no more harm to the offender or his rights than is reasonably required to accomplish (a), (b), and (c).

Free will is an event in which a person decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence (for example, significant mental illness, manipulation, authoritative command, or any other extraordinary influence that effectively removes a person's control of their choice).

It is important to identify the nature of the cause in order to select the appropriate method of correction. If the cause is coercion, as when the bank robber points a gun at the bank teller and demands she hand over the money, then all we need do to correct the bank teller is to remove the threat.

If the cause of the behavior is a significant mental illness, then correction would require medical and psychiatric treatment in a secure mental hospital.

If the cause of the behavior is a deliberate choice, where the offender simply chooses to harm others in order to benefit themselves, then the method would be a spell in prison where rehabilitation programs might change the offender's thinking about these choices in the future.

So, that's a summary of the relationship between free will and moral responsibility.

The next question you raise is neuroscience. Does the relation of conscious and unconscious processes change anything? No, not really. Neuroscience suggests that conscious awareness is supported by layers of unconscious processing that may precede our awareness of having made a choice. While this is interesting as to how the brain works, it really changes nothing as to what free will is about and how it works.

A person walks into a restaurant, browses the menu, and places his order. The waiter brings him his dinner, and the bill, holding him responsible for his deliberate act. That's a simple example of how free will and personal responsibility work.

It doesn't really matter how much of the customer's mental activity involved unconscious processing and how much involved conscious awareness. The person, as a person, chose a dinner from the menu, and that person, as a person, is expected to pay the bill for that dinner. Neuroscience has not changed this scenario, it simply explains in more detail the many underlying mechanisms involved in decision-making.

[LuckyR]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

I suppose some Determinists look at it that way, though I run into more that believe that the exact brain architecture and chemistry at the moment of decision making determines the outcome. Regardless since none of us knows any details of the workings of decision making, it is functionally a Black Box whose input and output are identical statistically to Free Will existing as an entity. Of course legally, secondary issues of coercion, mental illness and incapacity etc do exist, everyone is in agreement there. But IMO those secondary issues do not reside at the intersection of Free Will vs Determinism, rather downstream from there at a legal/societal arena.

I do agree with ernest that moral codes, while important for the individual, are far less relevant than ethical standards in cases such as the one you cited.

[GE Morton]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

Actually, they have everything to do with free will --- in the only sensible construal of that term.

In law, an act done "of one's own free will" just means that it was not coerced --- no one had a gun pointed at your head when you decided to commit the act. That understanding makes no reference to any "metaphysical" or even neurological construals of "free will."

There is no conflict between determinism and free will in that sense of "free will." The "metaphysical" construal, per which there is such a conflict, only occurs because that construal is misguided, a relic of Platonism.

Decisions are made by neural networks in the brain. That decision-making process, or its result, is represented in the "phenomenal self-model" the brain creates (which constitutes consciousness), and is experienced as a conscious decision, or "will." That phenomenal "will" doesn't decide anything; it merely represents, mirrors, a neural process, much like a status light on a control panel indicates whether a valve is open or closed. The light indicates the state of the valve, but doesn't cause the valve to change states. That neural process can be very complex; many factors --- current stimuli, memories of past experiences, long- and short-term goals, physical constraints, may be weighed and injected into the calculation, much of it carried out non-consciously. Finally a decision is reached and "bubbles up" into a conscious "willed" decision. The process is fully deterministic.

That entire process is carried out entirely within the organism's brain. Hence that organism is fully morally responsible for the resulting act --- as long as there was no duress --- no gun to the head --- being applied by other moral agents.

[3017Metaphysician]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

Actually, they have everything to do with free will --- in the only sensible construal of that term.

In law, an act done "of one's own free will" just means that it was not coerced --- no one had a gun pointed at your head when you decided to commit the act. That understanding makes no reference to any "metaphysical" or even neurological construals of "free will."

There is no conflict between determinism and free will in that sense of "free will." The "metaphysical" construal, per which there is such a conflict, only occurs because that construal is misguided, a relic of Platonism.

Decisions are made by neural networks in the brain. That decision-making process, or its result, is represented in the "phenomenal self-model" the brain creates (which constitutes consciousness), and is experienced as a conscious decision, or "will." That phenomenal "will" doesn't decide anything; it merely represents, mirrors, a neural process, much like a status light on a control panel indicates whether a valve is open or closed. The light indicates the state of the valve, but doesn't cause the valve to change states. That neural process can be very complex; many factors --- current stimuli, memories of past experiences, long- and short-term goals, physical constraints, may be weighed and injected into the calculation, much of it carried out non-consciously. Finally a decision is reached and "bubbles up" into a conscious "willed" decision. The process is fully deterministic.

That entire process is carried out entirely within the organism's brain. Hence that organism is fully morally responsible for the resulting act --- as long as there was no duress --- no gun to the head --- being applied by other moral agents.

Wrong GE! One's own will is that which causes the behavior in the first place. The distinction between freedom, and Will, is the mind dependent metaphysical thingie. But has little to do with Platonism as you seem to suggest. Unless of course you wish to argue that the Will is an abstract property of the mind, the Will takes primacy in all human behavior regardless of whether its determined or indetermined. Remember?

Aren't you still in time-out?

[GE Morton]

Wrong GE! One's own will is that which causes the behavior in the first place.

A plethora of evidence decisively shows otherwise.

The distinction between freedom, and Will, is the mind dependent metaphysical thingie.

You need to discard all those "metaphysical thingies." They are spurious, invented entities with no explanatory utility, like gods, demons, angels, and spirits. All products of intellectual immaturity.

"The mind" is a collective term for the contents of phenomenal consciousness. The experienced "will" is one of those contents, all of which are products of neural processes.

[JackDaydream]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

If you want to apply the mind you have to real philosophy, you really need to put popsicles like Sam Harris aside and grow up.

While there were many varying and interesting ideas of morality prior to the last century, modern philosophy considers morality a personal issue in the domain of religion, not philosophy. Modern philosophy instead considers ethics. If you want the current answer to the issue of ethical responsibility, the first thing is to decide whether you follow normative ethics or descriptive ethics. According to current definitions in modern philosophy, if you can't make that distinction, then you are called 'naive,' which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but rather precludes any sensible discussion until you learn something about what you are trying to say.

You dismiss Sam Harris rather swiftly when he is simply pointing to the connection between free will and moral responsibility. Philosophy is not just about separate boxes of ideas like ethics disconnected from ideas about metaphysics and science. There are overlaps between all these areas. I am not suggesting that normative and descriptive ethics aren't important and that is not the area which I am pursuing. In real life decision making as opposed to theoretical philosophy the processes involve many factors in a person's conscious and unconscious processes of decisions in making choices It is more of an issue of practical ethics and also involves the psychology of moral action.

[JackDaydream]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

Let's take Morality first. A moral person seeks to improve good and reduce harm for others as well as for themselves. Moral judgment considers the most likely benefits and harms of a rule, or a course of action, and compares that to the benefits and harms of a second rule, or a second course of action. It sides with the the best benefit and least harm for everyone. That's the simple issue of morality. The complexity of morality comes from trying to determine what is beneficial and what is harmful, and finding ways to quantify and compare them.

Societies form for their mutual benefit. They decide what rights they wish to respect and protect for each other. They pass laws against behavior that injures these rights. Those individuals who injure other people and their rights are held responsible for their deliberate actions. And that is where the notion of "free will" enters the picture.

If the offender deliberately chose to benefit themselves by harming others, then society will feel morally justified in taking action to prevent further harm. Because justice is concerned with everyone's rights, a just penalty would naturally include (a) repairing the harm to the victim if possible, (b) correcting the offender's future behavior if corrigible, (c) securing the offender to protect others until his behavior is corrected, and (d) doing no more harm to the offender or his rights than is reasonably required to accomplish (a), (b), and (c).

Free will is an event in which a person decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence (for example, significant mental illness, manipulation, authoritative command, or any other extraordinary influence that effectively removes a person's control of their choice).

It is important to identify the nature of the cause in order to select the appropriate method of correction. If the cause is coercion, as when the bank robber points a gun at the bank teller and demands she hand over the money, then all we need do to correct the bank teller is to remove the threat.

If the cause of the behavior is a significant mental illness, then correction would require medical and psychiatric treatment in a secure mental hospital.

If the cause of the behavior is a deliberate choice, where the offender simply chooses to harm others in order to benefit themselves, then the method would be a spell in prison where rehabilitation programs might change the offender's thinking about these choices in the future.

So, that's a summary of the relationship between free will and moral responsibility.

The next question you raise is neuroscience. Does the relation of conscious and unconscious processes change anything? No, not really. Neuroscience suggests that conscious awareness is supported by layers of unconscious processing that may precede our awareness of having made a choice. While this is interesting as to how the brain works, it really changes nothing as to what free will is about and how it works.

A person walks into a restaurant, browses the menu, and places his order. The waiter brings him his dinner, and the bill, holding him responsible for his deliberate act. That's a simple example of how free will and personal responsibility work.

It doesn't really matter how much of the customer's mental activity involved unconscious processing and how much involved conscious awareness. The person, as a person, chose a dinner from the menu, and that person, as a person, is expected to pay the bill for that dinner. Neuroscience has not changed this scenario, it simply explains in more detail the many underlying mechanisms involved in decision-making.

You make some important points, especially in breaking the issue of moral responsibility down to the practical and pragmatic aspects of decisions and brain processes. Of course, it is true that certain behaviour may be seen as linked to mental illness, especially psychosis would be a distinct factor, as would organic mental disorders. Where it gets complicated is in the issue of personality disorders, especially antisocial personality disorder. However, there can be a mixture of the two, which leads into the territory of whether a person is 'mad' or 'bad', even amongst professionals, because I have sat in such discussions while working in mental health care.

In some ways, it could be seen that the social sciences place so much emphasis on the mitigating circumstances, like broken families and a history of sexual abuse. A person may be seen as needing therapy rather than simply punishment. It is also about a person's values and some have more deviant ones. Also, it may be that a person acting in the heat of a moment of anger is different from planned action..

One book which springs to my mind as being relevant is 'The Outsider' by Camus. He doesn't look at free will specifically but he does narrate a character, after his mother's death, sleeping with a woman and going on to kill a man. It involves a kind of emotional numbing and loss of conscience. In thinking about moral choices conscience, as internalised codes of ethics, is important alongside reason and consideration of the consequences of action and the various others' wellbeing.

[JackDaydream]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

So, I am wondering about the connection between free will and moral agency. I am posting it in the general philosophy section because it is about free will rather than simply about ethics and morality. The issue of free will is complex and Harris argues that it is abstract, saying,
'In the philosophical literature, one finds three approaches. Both determinism and libertarianism hold that if our behaviour is fully determined by background causes, free will is an illusion....Determinists believe that we live in such a world, while libertarians(no relation to the political philosophy that goes by its name) imagine that human agency can rise above the plane of physical causation'.

I find this issue difficult in terms of the nature of reflective agency and where the issue of moral responsibility fits into this. On one hand, it may be hard to see human beings as victims of circumstances but it is complex, because human agency arises in the context of those circumstances and the mental states which correspond. Any thoughts?

I suppose some Determinists look at it that way, though I run into more that believe that the exact brain architecture and chemistry at the moment of decision making determines the outcome. Regardless since none of us knows any details of the workings of decision making, it is functionally a Black Box whose input and output are identical statistically to Free Will existing as an entity. Of course legally, secondary issues of coercion, mental illness and incapacity etc do exist, everyone is in agreement there. But IMO those secondary issues do not reside at the intersection of Free Will vs Determinism, rather downstream from there at a legal/societal arena.

I do agree with ernest that moral codes, while important for the individual, are far less relevant than ethical standards in cases such as the one you cited.

It is the specifics of decision making than I am thinking of. A person may have certain beliefs about ethics. However, the ideas which a person has are not always adhered to. That may be about human weakness and difficulty adhering to principles in practice in life, in relation to self-mastery. A person may also act better than they expected in certain situations, such as spontaneous kindness or compassion. It involves the moments of reflection in action and how factors are juxtaposed. In this way, knowing oneself may be about the way one has acted rather than how they imagine or wish to act in certain circumstances.

[JackDaydream]

I have often wondered about this ever since I wrote an essay at school on the question, are criminals born or made? To some extent, it involves the nature vs nurture debate alongside the issue of free will. Genes may be significant and hormones, alongside psychosocial aspects of life. Certain experiences, like trauma may lead to post traumatic stress disorder, as some 'damage.

However, the question of free will fits into this and, I have been reflecting on this after reading, 'Free Will', by Sam Harris (2012). He states,
'There is no question what human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. and losing this would greatly diminish this. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present while a person plans and acts_ and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his his behaviour. However, these factors have nothing to do with free will.'
This strikes me as a tricky area of how to view moral action?

Actually, they have everything to do with free will --- in the only sensible construal of that term.

In law, an act done "of one's own free will" just means that it was not coerced --- no one had a gun pointed at your head when you decided to commit the act. That understanding makes no reference to any "metaphysical" or even neurological construals of "free will."

There is no conflict between determinism and free will in that sense of "free will." The "metaphysical" construal, per which there is such a conflict, only occurs because that construal is misguided, a relic of Platonism.

Decisions are made by neural networks in the brain. That decision-making process, or its result, is represented in the "phenomenal self-model" the brain creates (which constitutes consciousness), and is experienced as a conscious decision, or "will." That phenomenal "will" doesn't decide anything; it merely represents, mirrors, a neural process, much like a status light on a control panel indicates whether a valve is open or closed. The light indicates the state of the valve, but doesn't cause the valve to change states. That neural process can be very complex; many factors --- current stimuli, memories of past experiences, long- and short-term goals, physical constraints, may be weighed and injected into the calculation, much of it carried out non-consciously. Finally a decision is reached and "bubbles up" into a conscious "willed" decision. The process is fully deterministic.

That entire process is carried out entirely within the organism's brain. Hence that organism is fully morally responsible for the resulting act --- as long as there was no duress --- no gun to the head --- being applied by other moral agents.

I am not sure that free will simply is about being coerced, as in having a gun placed against one's head. Where it gets complicated is the balance between self interest and concern for others. Of course, this involves the various aspects of neuroscience, but it is also about understanding of ideas and ideals, as well as self-awareness. A person may not always be completely aware of their own motivation and there may be 'blindspots' as well as learned behaviour patterns. The cognitive behaviourists speak of the way in which people develop patterns of coping and, in a way, greater consciousness of these can lead a person to be more mindful in decision making. Self knowledge may give rise to greater reflection in making choices, including the understanding of one's emotions and rational ideas about ethics.