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

[JackDaydream]

Free Will and Determinism do not change a thing.
They have no relevance to moral responsibility.

Determinists punish the person to deter, and incarcerate to cause change and seek solutions to recidivism.

Free will believers punish and incarcerate people who willfully and free chose to become criminals, to keep them from their liberty.

The only difference might be that determinists believe in causation and therefore rehabilitation and "correctionalism"; whereas free willers are more likely to consider criminals as willfully unreformable.

While I am a believer in the existence of free will as reflective consciousness I don't see this as meaning that people should be punished necessarily because it won't really solve the problems. Even though people may have responsibility for the choices they make there is no denying that the cards in life are loaded differently and unfairly. Even remorse in the form of guilt may be more negative than positive and understanding of reasons behind behaviour may be more useful than simply of moral reform. In many instances, punishment may be based on ideas of revenge rather than compassion.

I do see why the idea of free will could be seen as an ideology favouring punishment and it may have been used in this way in certain cultures and at points in history. Equally, the idea that there is no free will can be used as an ideology for disempowerment in making people feel victims and powerless. This can be a basis for enslavement and control. To some extent both the arguments for or against free will can be used and abused for political ends.

[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?

At the risk of redundancy, this vid not only offers the 101, but briefly describes the materialist/determinist nonsense about molecules having Agency. I think GE subscribes to that nonsense, as somehow, he thinks neurons are determined 'thingies' causing all human behavior. Certainly, as physicist Carrol alludes, the metaphysical qualities of the Will itself, is much more than simply a collection of atoms and molecules... !!

It is possible that many people gloss over the nature of will in itself as the underlying aspect of motivation and purpose. It is interconnected with consciousness in its expression on the level of instinct in many sentient forms of life. The greater the degree of consciousness may give rise to a greater level of free will. Of course, the human being is not separate from other aspects of life and the environment but consciousness gives rise to reflective awareness which means having a more active role in the causal processes.

Julian Jaynes in his understanding points to visual representations initially, and language as significant in the development of culture and consciousness. Even though Dennett may not admit to the role of reflective consciousness he does point to the role of language in thinking. As far as I see, it is language which gives the potential for understanding and knowledge of one's own will and motivation, including aspects of subconscious choices.

The idea of the conscious and the subconscious are often ignored in favour of neuroscience. This may be because it is easier to measure these physically than the constituents of other models of the mind. Even though neurons involve chemical messages in the brain these are parts within systems. They may be altered by medication and are also influenced by how people interpret experiences in emotional life.

The cognitive behavioral psychologists recognise the role of beliefs in emotional experiences and behaviour. CBT in its approach recognises the potential to understand aspects of thinking which allows for modification of experience and a greater sense of agency The understanding of motivation and aspects is interconnected with intentionality, Cognitive behavioral science may come together with the phenomenological tradition of perception. Somehow, all these approaches, including physics may be blended together in understanding of how systems work and how human beings exist as parts of larger systems, but with a greater freedom of agency of influence through self awareness based on reflection.

Indeed neural activity does not correspond to neurons having self-awareness. Self-organization yes, self-awareness no. Hence the questions about where, how, who, when and why the information narrative exists as only being part of a matter narrative. Considering things that are innate and a priori like intuition and instinct, the answer is surely all part of that binary system (physical/metaphysical, conscious/subconscious, left brain/right brain, etc.). A complex binary system of two opposing things (Carrol reiterates that) yet dependent on each other for its existence.

So we are left with both/and, not either/or. All we can parse is its primacy. Accordingly, within the framework of living life, and cause and effect, we know that the qualitative properties of the (perceived freedom of) Will takes primacy. It causes us to do stuff. And those properties are both quantitative (material) and qualitative (immaterial). Afterall, the concept of the Will or even freedom itself is not something we can exclusively quantify. To this end, ala Carrol, I wonder which takes primacy, indeterminate forces or determinate one's? Which specification dominates or governs the behavior of things? Perhaps its situational depending upon its purpose...

Thinking about the either/or primacy of free will it may depend on the varying strengths of influences and how these impact on choices. These would include environmental factors as well as the various aspects of will and its understanding. One thing which I find is that when I focus on a goal some seem so easy to achieve and some so difficult. Often, this seems disproportionate to the nature of the goals. Sometimes, this may be about aspects of subconscious motives. I have found that if I follow a course of action such as based on a sense of 'ought' it does not go very well. For example, when I tried to do a job which I really disliked for a month, at the end of the month, the feedback I got was not good.

Apart from the subconscious aspects of will there are the varying aspects of the environment, ranging from what is going on in the world and other people. Often choices in life are negotiated and dependent on other minds. For example, if a person wishes to have a friendship or relationship with another it does depend on the feeling being mutual in order for it to happen.

I am not sure that people often think so much about the various limits of choice in discussion of free will, but, considered conceptually it involves the duality of both will and freedom as two parts. So, it is about knowing one's intentions and about possibilities which exist for making conscious choices. The choices which exist are based on past ones. For example, if one wishes to follow a certain career as a doctor or a teacher they will need to have studied and passed certain exam subjects. Some choices depend on finance and others on social factors. The amount of freedom one has involves all these variables. The moral aspects involve fair play in achieving the desired ends.

What I am suggesting is that the experiential living of free will, as opposed to simply theory, involves so many influences of varying strengths. Based on this, I think that any philosophy or theory the primacy of or against free will may be problematic. In other words, some choices may involve more free will than others, and the more conscious awareness of all these factors may enable more navigation of free will within one's own personal circumstances.

[GE Morton]

While I am a believer in the existence of free will as reflective consciousness I don't see this as meaning that people should be punished necessarily because it won't really solve the problems.

Well, that depends upon what you consider "punishment" to be, and on what problems you're trying to solve.

One can interpret "punishment" to be 1) infliction of pain or other discomfort on someone in order to "pay them back" for inflicting pain or loss or discomfort on someone else, or 2) a constraint forcibly imposed on someone who has inflicted pain or discomfort, in order to prevent them from inflicting further pain or discomfort. While, per 2), the punished person may suffer discomfort from the constraint, that suffering is not the objective of the constraints.

Presumably, the problem to be solved with both interpretations of "punishment" is reducing the frequency of crimes, or other destructive or otherwise undesirable behaviors. The purpose of the punishment, per the first interpretation, being to deter bad behavior by instilling a fear of future unpleasant consequences. Per the 2nd interpretation, it is just to deny the offender any future opportunity to commit further evils by removing him from the social setting.

In the US penological theory has oscillated between the "punishment model," which holds that inflicting sufficiently unpleasant consequences on offenders will deter them from future criminal acts, and the "rehabilitation model," which aims to discern the "causes" for criminal behaviors and address those causes by offering offenders various counseling, "treatment," and training opportunities.

Neither of those approaches has demonstrated any significant success: in the US 83% of inmates released annually from federal or state prisons are arrested for new crimes within 9 years, 68% within the first 3 years, even though most of them have participated in some sort of "rehabilitation" program. That figure, of course, understates the true recidivism rate, since not all of those who commit new crimes during those periods are caught.

On the other hand, if you consider the problem to be, not rehabilitating or reforming criminals but protecting the public from them, then there is a solution --- remove them from the streets and keep them off.

Even though people may have responsibility for the choices they make there is no denying that the cards in life are loaded differently and unfairly. Even remorse in the form of guilt may be more negative than positive and understanding of reasons behind behaviour may be more useful than simply of moral reform. In many instances, punishment may be based on ideas of revenge rather than compassion.

Compassion for whom --- for the offender, or his past and future victims? Sorry, but fretting about how "the cards in life are loaded differently and unfairly" is just a rationale for not holding criminals responsible for their actions.

[3017Metaphysician]

At the risk of redundancy, this vid not only offers the 101, but briefly describes the materialist/determinist nonsense about molecules having Agency. I think GE subscribes to that nonsense, as somehow, he thinks neurons are determined 'thingies' causing all human behavior. Certainly, as physicist Carrol alludes, the metaphysical qualities of the Will itself, is much more than simply a collection of atoms and molecules... !!

It is possible that many people gloss over the nature of will in itself as the underlying aspect of motivation and purpose. It is interconnected with consciousness in its expression on the level of instinct in many sentient forms of life. The greater the degree of consciousness may give rise to a greater level of free will. Of course, the human being is not separate from other aspects of life and the environment but consciousness gives rise to reflective awareness which means having a more active role in the causal processes.

Julian Jaynes in his understanding points to visual representations initially, and language as significant in the development of culture and consciousness. Even though Dennett may not admit to the role of reflective consciousness he does point to the role of language in thinking. As far as I see, it is language which gives the potential for understanding and knowledge of one's own will and motivation, including aspects of subconscious choices.

The idea of the conscious and the subconscious are often ignored in favour of neuroscience. This may be because it is easier to measure these physically than the constituents of other models of the mind. Even though neurons involve chemical messages in the brain these are parts within systems. They may be altered by medication and are also influenced by how people interpret experiences in emotional life.

The cognitive behavioral psychologists recognise the role of beliefs in emotional experiences and behaviour. CBT in its approach recognises the potential to understand aspects of thinking which allows for modification of experience and a greater sense of agency The understanding of motivation and aspects is interconnected with intentionality, Cognitive behavioral science may come together with the phenomenological tradition of perception. Somehow, all these approaches, including physics may be blended together in understanding of how systems work and how human beings exist as parts of larger systems, but with a greater freedom of agency of influence through self awareness based on reflection.

Indeed neural activity does not correspond to neurons having self-awareness. Self-organization yes, self-awareness no. Hence the questions about where, how, who, when and why the information narrative exists as only being part of a matter narrative. Considering things that are innate and a priori like intuition and instinct, the answer is surely all part of that binary system (physical/metaphysical, conscious/subconscious, left brain/right brain, etc.). A complex binary system of two opposing things (Carrol reiterates that) yet dependent on each other for its existence.

So we are left with both/and, not either/or. All we can parse is its primacy. Accordingly, within the framework of living life, and cause and effect, we know that the qualitative properties of the (perceived freedom of) Will takes primacy. It causes us to do stuff. And those properties are both quantitative (material) and qualitative (immaterial). Afterall, the concept of the Will or even freedom itself is not something we can exclusively quantify. To this end, ala Carrol, I wonder which takes primacy, indeterminate forces or determinate one's? Which specification dominates or governs the behavior of things? Perhaps its situational depending upon its purpose...

Thinking about the either/or primacy of free will it may depend on the varying strengths of influences and how these impact on choices. These would include environmental factors as well as the various aspects of will and its understanding. One thing which I find is that when I focus on a goal some seem so easy to achieve and some so difficult. Often, this seems disproportionate to the nature of the goals. Sometimes, this may be about aspects of subconscious motives. I have found that if I follow a course of action such as based on a sense of 'ought' it does not go very well. For example, when I tried to do a job which I really disliked for a month, at the end of the month, the feedback I got was not good.

Apart from the subconscious aspects of will there are the varying aspects of the environment, ranging from what is going on in the world and other people. Often choices in life are negotiated and dependent on other minds. For example, if a person wishes to have a friendship or relationship with another it does depend on the feeling being mutual in order for it to happen.

I am not sure that people often think so much about the various limits of choice in discussion of free will, but, considered conceptually it involves the duality of both will and freedom as two parts. So, it is about knowing one's intentions and about possibilities which exist for making conscious choices. The choices which exist are based on past ones. For example, if one wishes to follow a certain career as a doctor or a teacher they will need to have studied and passed certain exam subjects. Some choices depend on finance and others on social factors. The amount of freedom one has involves all these variables. The moral aspects involve fair play in achieving the desired ends.

What I am suggesting is that the experiential living of free will, as opposed to simply theory, involves so many influences of varying strengths. Based on this, I think that any philosophy or theory the primacy of or against free will may be problematic. In other words, some choices may involve more free will than others, and the more conscious awareness of all these factors may enable more navigation of free will within one's own personal circumstances.

Sure! There is always a balancing act going on with, once again, two opposing forces which not only occurs in nature, but also within the framework of human behavior or the human condition. Awareness is key. Or should I say self-awareness is key.

To that end, cognitive science teaches us that life is about both Being and becoming. Or, both a discovery and uncovery of Being. Meaning. we are predisposed to do certain things, while other things appear to be more 'free' or chosen in such a way that random choices can impact different outcomes. For instance, you mentioned a kind of square-peg round-hole scenario that was not the right fit. As such, there are some things we wish to be, but realize our natural talents don't match the desire or Will to do so. We can either abandoned the activity in favor of another, or recognize more energy is required to achieve the same effect.

In either case, the Will itself has causal power to effect purpose, whatever anthropic purpose presents itself. Accordingly, it gives the Will primacy in human action, Being and becoming. The freedom of the Will causes stuff to happen. And the Will, in this context, is that thing that provides instruction to other parts of the body. As opposed to quantitative stuff, these things are that which involve one's own quality of life. It relates to Teleology or purposeful existence. Hence the metaphysical differences.

[JackDaydream]

While I am a believer in the existence of free will as reflective consciousness I don't see this as meaning that people should be punished necessarily because it won't really solve the problems.

Well, that depends upon what you consider "punishment" to be, and on what problems you're trying to solve.

One can interpret "punishment" to be 1) infliction of pain or other discomfort on someone in order to "pay them back" for inflicting pain or loss or discomfort on someone else, or 2) a constraint forcibly imposed on someone who has inflicted pain or discomfort, in order to prevent them from inflicting further pain or discomfort. While, per 2), the punished person may suffer discomfort from the constraint, that suffering is not the objective of the constraints.

Presumably, the problem to be solved with both interpretations of "punishment" is reducing the frequency of crimes, or other destructive or otherwise undesirable behaviors. The purpose of the punishment, per the first interpretation, being to deter bad behavior by instilling a fear of future unpleasant consequences. Per the 2nd interpretation, it is just to deny the offender any future opportunity to commit further evils by removing him from the social setting.

In the US penological theory has oscillated between the "punishment model," which holds that inflicting sufficiently unpleasant consequences on offenders will deter them from future criminal acts, and the "rehabilitation model," which aims to discern the "causes" for criminal behaviors and address those causes by offering offenders various counseling, "treatment," and training opportunities.

Neither of those approaches has demonstrated any significant success: in the US 83% of inmates released annually from federal or state prisons are arrested for new crimes within 9 years, 68% within the first 3 years, even though most of them have participated in some sort of "rehabilitation" program. That figure, of course, understates the true recidivism rate, since not all of those who commit new crimes during those periods are caught.

On the other hand, if you consider the problem to be, not rehabilitating or reforming criminals but protecting the public from them, then there is a solution --- remove them from the streets and keep them off.

Even though people may have responsibility for the choices they make there is no denying that the cards in life are loaded differently and unfairly. Even remorse in the form of guilt may be more negative than positive and understanding of reasons behind behaviour may be more useful than simply of moral reform. In many instances, punishment may be based on ideas of revenge rather than compassion.

Compassion for whom --- for the offender, or his past and future victims? Sorry, but fretting about how "the cards in life are loaded differently and unfairly" is just a rationale for not holding criminals responsible for their actions.

I apologise for not responding on this thread for a couple of days, because I have been thinking in other directions. I do see what you mean about the query of whether it is the criminal or victim who should be the source for concern. It may be that the biggest concern is about keeping the criminal off the streets.

However, getting back to the question of whether people having a different set of cards handed out in life is more complex in relation to the issue of free will and moral responsibilities. I am not trying to suggest excuses but as far as differential circumstances as factors it may come down to metaphorical thinking as to whether one fell or was one pushed? That is because some people are faced with such horrendous material circumstances, such as caring for others amidst poverty. Also, there may be conflicts of duty and each person may begin from self interest and an immediate circle of significant others. It raises questions about freedom, choice and how this is navigated, such as whether it is ever acceptable to break the law and in what circumstances? Also, what is inner strength or weakness in the basis of free choice?

[GE Morton]

However, getting back to the question of whether people having a different set of cards handed out in life is more complex in relation to the issue of free will and moral responsibilities. I am not trying to suggest excuses but as far as differential circumstances as factors it may come down to metaphorical thinking as to whether one fell or was one pushed?

Well, that very metaphor, "pushed," aims to relieve the perpetrator of responsibility for his acts.

That is because some people are faced with such horrendous material circumstances, such as caring for others amidst poverty.

Yet many other people in the same circumstances do not prey on other people.

It raises questions about freedom, choice and how this is navigated, such as whether it is ever acceptable to break the law and in what circumstances?

Breaking a law is not per se a moral issue --- there are many laws which one may break with solid moral justification. The moral questions concern acts which inflict harms or losses on other moral agents, whether legal or not.

Also, what is inner strength or weakness in the basis of free choice?

A choice is "free" if not coerced by another moral agent. That an agent must choose in difficult circumstances, when options are few, doesn't render the choice unfree.

[JackDaydream]

However, getting back to the question of whether people having a different set of cards handed out in life is more complex in relation to the issue of free will and moral responsibilities. I am not trying to suggest excuses but as far as differential circumstances as factors it may come down to metaphorical thinking as to whether one fell or was one pushed?

Well, that very metaphor, "pushed," aims to relieve the perpetrator of responsibility for his acts.

That is because some people are faced with such horrendous material circumstances, such as caring for others amidst poverty.

Yet many other people in the same circumstances do not prey on other people.

It raises questions about freedom, choice and how this is navigated, such as whether it is ever acceptable to break the law and in what circumstances?

Breaking a law is not per se a moral issue --- there are many laws which one may break with solid moral justification. The moral questions concern acts which inflict harms or losses on other moral agents, whether legal or not.

Also, what is inner strength or weakness in the basis of free choice?

A choice is "free" if not coerced by another moral agent. That an agent must choose in difficult circumstances, when options are few, doesn't render the choice unfree.

I am not trying to suggest that lack of morality is justifiable on the basis of the lack of fairness in life, although an argument against free will could be used in this way potentially. Each person has to live and work with the principles of morality like every other aspect of life and the law itself is a way of sanctioning of this officially. The extent which I would go to in the metaphor of a person being pushed rather than falling is more for a underlying approach of non judgmentalness. It could involve the idea of condemning moral actions as opposed to the individuals who have committed acts. Of course, it is a spectrum and it is harder to avoid judging those who have committed the most serious crimes, such as rape and murder.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Free will and moral responsibility are conceptions of the privileged in the first world.

Truthfully, we are survivalists amidst a natural order of maniacal flesh-eating beasts.

If humans have individual free will and moral responsibility, why wouldn't the animals of nature? Do animals such as fish have any capacity for individual self-direction at all what-so-ever?

Nay, I say! It makes no sense. What, did the Neanderthals that lived tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago possess individual free will and self-responsibility? Absurd!

We are all robots automated by the robot prophecy. It's all very clear.

[JackDaydream]

Free will and moral responsibility are conceptions of the privileged in the first world.

Truthfully, we are survivalists amidst a natural order of maniacal flesh-eating beasts.

If humans have individual free will and moral responsibility, why wouldn't the animals of nature? Do animals such as fish have any capacity for individual self-direction at all what-so-ever?

Nay, I say! It makes no sense. What, did the Neanderthals that lived tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago possess individual free will and self-responsibility? Absurd!

We are all robots automated by the robot prophecy. It's all very clear.

One aspect which I see as unclear is to what extent human beings were 'primitive' because there were ancient civilisations, such as Egypt, which were extremely advanced. So, the development of consciousness may be more complicated than people realise. What makes human beings so different from animals is the existence of language which is central to choices. I know that many people are determinists but even at the quantum level this is what Heisenberg describes as the uncertainty principle. Human beings are acted upon and act on the basis of reflective awareness which gives them the capability to wake up from the slumber of consciousness and be anything but mere robots.

[Dlaw]

I think "Free Will" was Harris' weakest book.

I find it instructive to flip the question around. What if, instead of the old "do we really have Free Will" we posit that not only do we have it, we must have it. What if Free Will developed with the brain itself, throughout the Evolution of complex nervous systems.

Suddenly everything changes and, in my view, gets much clearer. Simple animals like, maybe sea slugs or the old platyhelminthes get input from their primitive sensors and then their "brains" must choose: do I move towards the light or away from the light? They choose not because they want to but because they have to. The input has to be reacted to in some way and Evolution will push them into novel situations where they will have to choose what reaction to favor.

What if brains are nothing more than choosing machines?

[JackDaydream]

I think "Free Will" was Harris' weakest book.

I find it instructive to flip the question around. What if, instead of the old "do we really have Free Will" we posit that not only do we have it, we must have it. What if Free Will developed with the brain itself, throughout the Evolution of complex nervous systems.

Suddenly everything changes and, in my view, gets much clearer. Simple animals like, maybe sea slugs or the old platyhelminthes get input from their primitive sensors and then their "brains" must choose: do I move towards the light or away from the light? They choose not because they want to but because they have to. The input has to be reacted to in some way and Evolution will push them into novel situations where they will have to choose what reaction to favor.

What if brains are nothing more than choosing machines?

Harris's book on free will was the only book I have read by him. I found it better than I imagined it would be. The idea of brains as choosing machines may be the way many do see the issue of free will, as a kind of choice but almost a mechanical one. I am not opposed to a the deterministic approach entirely but I am inclined to think that it goes hand in hand with the evolution of consciousness.

Recently, I read that Eckhart Tolle maintains that suffering enables a waking up process. This is an idea which I have thought about for a long time. It is not the same as increased intelligence but more about going deeper in reflective understanding and being more knowledgeable of one's own inner world, motives and freedom of thought and choices. Part of the reason why I would argue this is based on the view that those who have been through a lot of suffering. If they are able to endure without breaking down in a completely devastating way for the long term they seem to have a greater level of perception and insight than many who have not endured great difficulties. But I would add that there is a need to not overgeneralise completely here.

[Bahman]

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?

This is an interesting topic. Free will by definition is the ability to choose between at least two actions unimpeded. Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of an action. Well, you are determined if you follow morality in a situation yet you are still free. So there is no relation between morality and free will.

[GE Morton]

This is an interesting topic. Free will by definition is the ability to choose between at least two actions unimpeded. Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of an action. Well, you are determined if you follow morality in a situation yet you are still free. So there is no relation between morality and free will.

That is not the common understanding of determinism, which means being determined by factors outside your control. You're not "determined" if you follow a morality you have freely adopted.

[Bahman]

This is an interesting topic. Free will by definition is the ability to choose between at least two actions unimpeded. Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of an action. Well, you are determined if you follow morality in a situation yet you are still free. So there is no relation between morality and free will.

That is not the common understanding of determinism, which means being determined by factors outside your control.

I didn't mean that a human being is a deterministic entity when I used the word determined. Your decision however can be predicted unless you make a free decision since each person is inclined toward an option more than another one for whatever reason whether it is morality, preference, taste, etc.

You're not "determined" if you follow a morality you have freely adopted.

That is true that you are free to adopt any form of morality but you decide according to the form of morality you accepted afterward.

[LuckyR]

This is an interesting topic. Free will by definition is the ability to choose between at least two actions unimpeded. Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of an action. Well, you are determined if you follow morality in a situation yet you are still free. So there is no relation between morality and free will.

That is not the common understanding of determinism, which means being determined by factors outside your control.

I didn't mean that a human being is a deterministic entity when I used the word determined. Your decision however can be predicted unless you make a free decision since each person is inclined toward an option more than another one for whatever reason whether it is morality, preference, taste, etc.

You're not "determined" if you follow a morality you have freely adopted.

That is true that you are free to adopt any form of morality but you decide according to the form of morality you accepted afterward.

Not true. Morality is only one of numerous possible decision making factors. Thus decisions are NOT predictable (even if the moral code of the person is known).