Free will however is ability to choose an option regardless of any constraint. — bahman
This is a rather contentious definition of free will. It certainly doesn't fit the conceptions of compatibilists. I don't think even most libertarian incompatibilists would be happy with such a definition. Most philosophers agree to distinguish between broadly external and internal constraints on agency and practical deliberation. External constraints limit the options that are open to you in any particular deliberative context while internal 'constraints', including the constraints of rationality and character, enable you to take ownership of the deliberative process. — Pierre-Normand
Compatibilists, unlike libertarians, believe even the internal constraints are deterministic. It is true that some libertarians believe that whatever someone actually does freely, he or she ought to have been able to refrain from doing it (or to do something else) in the exact same circumstances regardless of the antecedent constraints on the action being internal or external to the process of deliberation and decision. This is the strongest possible version of the so called 'principle of alternative possibilities' (PAP). But that is a rather minority positions against defenders of the possibility of free will. — Pierre-Normand
To me constraint just limit options whether they are external or internal. You cannot do that because of shame then one option is gone. You cannot do that because of shortage of money then one option is gone. — bahman
By rational I mean we act or decide based on reason in a situation. — bahman
A rational decision is defined as a decision which the agent always choose the best option. — bahman
Free will however is ability to choose an option regardless of any constraint. — bahman
That claim can be doubted...with evidence to turn doubt into actual negation. Psychological evidence, neurological evidence, evidence from behavioural economics...We can without doubt agree that we are rational agents. — bahman
Reason is not the way we have been shown to make decisions, either in practice or in experiment. Decisions are emotional in their origins, which are typically considered to not be a source of the "rational". Reason is the vehicle to express emotion.By rational I mean we act or decide based on reason in a situation. — bahman
What exactly "prioritizes" the options? Reason can provide options...but emotion is what prioritzes them.Rationality is important when it comes to decision in a situation which is defined as a set of prioritized options. — bahman
I once thought I understood what "free will" was, but have long since given up thinking it has an actual definition from anyone, professional or layperson. In my view, the idea of free will can't even be wrong since it is a conceptual reification created in Iron Age philosophy to describe phenomena which were unknown and inscrutable at the time. The term should be consigned to the dustbin of philosophical history as, in my opinion, it is a conceptual dud that derails and suppresses progess in philosophical thought.Free will however is ability to choose an option regardless of any constraint. — bahman
it is a conceptual dud that derails and suppresses progess in philosophical thought. — Uneducated Pleb
I see. But lets back to our discussion. Do you believe that we could live the best if we always choose rationally, pick up the best, rather than choosing freely, pick up the worst? — bahman
By rational I mean we act or decide based on reason in a situation.
— bahman
I have no idea what it means to act rationally. People act in many ways motivated by experiences and possibilities. — Rich
A rational decision is defined as a decision which the agent always choose the best option.
— bahman
I can someone know the best option? There are just possible actions with unknown effects (hence the well known Daoist story of the father and his son). — Rich
Free will however is ability to choose an option regardless of any constraint.
— bahman
Actions are subject to constraints but we choose to try to move in a certain direction. Humans have Choice in the direction we wish to try to take action. This is Will or Intention.
Humans have the ability to make Choices in Direction. We are Navigators in Life where nothing is certain or determined.
Choice permits novelty, creation, and evolution. — Rich
We can without doubt agree that we are rational agents.
— bahman
That claim can be doubted...with evidence to turn doubt into actual negation. Psychological evidence, neurological evidence, evidence from behavioural economics...
By rational I mean we act or decide based on reason in a situation.
— bahman
Reason is not the way we have been shown to make decisions, either in practice or in experiment. Decisions are emotional in their origins, which are typically considered to not be a source of the "rational". Reason is the vehicle to express emotion. — Uneducated Pleb
Rationality is important when it comes to decision in a situation which is defined as a set of prioritized options.
— bahman
What exactly "prioritizes" the options? Reason can provide options...but emotion is what prioritzes them. — Uneducated Pleb
Free will however is ability to choose an option regardless of any constraint.
— bahman
I once thought I understood what "free will" was, but have long since given up thinking it has an actual definition from anyone, professional or layperson. In my view, the idea of free will can't even be wrong since it is a conceptual reification created in Iron Age philosophy to describe phenomena which were unknown and inscrutable at the time. The term should be consigned to the dustbin of philosophical history as, in my opinion, it is a conceptual dud that derails and suppresses progess in philosophical thought. — Uneducated Pleb
I see. But lets back to our discussion. Do you believe that we could live the best if we always choose rationally, pick up the best, rather than choosing freely, pick up the worst?
— bahman
This rather amounts to asking if our being less rationally or morally fallible would make us more or less free. I don't think there is a categorical answer to this question. There is an interesting conundrum that arises from comparing Aristotle's to Kant's idea of moral praiseworthiness. According to Aristotle's conception of a virtuous agent, someone who refrains effortlessly from acting selfishly, say, is more praiseworthy than someone who must make an effort since the first one is manifesting a more virtuous character. Kant, on the other hand, holds that the person who must overcome the most strongly felt temptation in order to refrain from acting selfishly is more praiseworthy since she displays a superior ability to have her reason control her passions. So, your question is rather similar to the question whether someone is freer accordingly whether she displays moral praiseworthiness in accordance to Aristotle's or to Kant's account of moral praiseworthiness.
I think there is a way to reconcile Aristotle's and Kant's intuitions, and this consists in construing moral praiseworthiness not as a metaphysical (intrinsic) attribute of an agent but rather as the normative dimension of a social reactive attitude the function of which is to scaffold moral growth. We praise the person who act virtuously (and/or rationally) effortlessly because she is an exemplar model of virtue (or wisdom or intelligence). And we also praise someone who effortfully emulates acts of virtue because such efforts promote moral (or intellectual) growth. In both case, the aim is the same -- virtuous action and dispositions -- and the achievement of this aim also is what constitutes the ability to act freely and responsibly. — Pierre-Normand
The issue that I am raising is that free will is the only ability that allows us to do the worst, so what is point of having it. — bahman
There is not better or worse. There is only a choice to move in a particular direction. Consequences are always unpredictable and changing as things evolve.
What Choice allows is evolution of Mind. We create, experiment, learn, and evolve. It is fundamental to existence. — Rich
There are of course better or worse options. I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate one. — bahman
n a subjective way, you have preferences in taste. However, in a practical manner, you might choose a vanilla in some ice cream store that has an absolutely horrible taste to you, which you don't know until you actually taste it. Possibly the chocolate might have tasted better. Consequences of any choice is always unpredictable, but we do choose and then learn. This is the process of human evolution. — Rich
If I recall correctly, Aristotle was writing to and for a class of gentleman in Athens society, if so, then his position is not unexpected, and I think Kant's moral works were framed more towards the general public (poor people) of his time. I think their thoughts need to have modern interpretation. — Cavacava
This is a rather contentious definition of free will. It certainly doesn't fit the conceptions of compatibilists. — Pierre-Normand
It is exactly that offered by compatibilists, except that the emphasis is different. To compatibilism free will is the ability to act determinedly in the absence of constraints. — charleton
But the way you constructed your post, was not incompatible with compatibilism. — charleton
If you are asking what is the use of Free Will, then I would respond that we see humans are constrained in our choices, but the choices we make are the essence of Life. From these choices we learn and evolve. This is Life. — Rich
I am asking what is the using free will considering the fact that it always allows us to choose the worst. — bahman
So the question is what is the use of free will when we, rational agents, can always choose the best option? — bahman
I should point out that I haven't read all of the responses in this thread, so if my response has already been addressed, feel free to ignore this post or copy and paste the relevant response. — czahar
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.