FREE WILL AND CHOICE

What prompt interlocutors I have! Tom objects to my refutation of (what I took to be) his utilitarianism by pointing out that

He attacks my *individual* morality by adding other agents to the equation, when the absence of other agents was clearly stipulated in my post. Does Nathanael perhaps think that morality has no meaning except in a social environment?

Okay, I missed that. Yes, I think morality, and even humanity, has no meaning except in a social environment. Not that other people are physically present at a given time, but that one's life is shaped by relationships with other people (or possibly, in their absence, with God alone, but I'm not sure about that.) That makes Tom's line of argument more interesting.

In response to Nato, I guess to some extent I was trying to "bracket the question of cognition," though, to me, the questions of cognition and morality overlap quite a bit. But I would not dismiss cognitive neuroscience in toto on the suspicion of faulty epistemology, on the contrary I might learn much from it, even possibly something about morality, though probably things either marginal, or which simply deepen or expand what I already believe rather than introducing anything new. Reasoning introduced from other disciplines (economics, for example, which I know much better) can yield some insights about ethics, but tends to be extremely and absurdly naive in certain particular ways, and is a poor substitute, as best I can judge, for moral reasoning per se.

On free will, Nato is right that he and I differ on definitions. It is true, of course, that if I ask "did so-and-so do such-and-such of his own free will," I am talking about coercion and not about philosophical determinism, (though in other cases, e.g. "did he cry out of his own free will [or was it a reflex?]", they are asking whether this was by volition or not.) I would submit that this is merely the usual artful imprecision of language, and also that the reason for this usage is that everyone assumes that we have free will by nature, that this belief is "built-in." The first reaction to the assertion that our choices are determined by molecular interactions is a shocked and defiant "But in that case nobody is responsible for anything!" Whether this reaction, or the "compatibilist" complacency that may later be induced by certain philosophies, is more proper, I don't know and don't care all that much, since I believe in real, or let us say non-deterministic, free will. Moreover, I think that's what people who earnestly embark on the question of free will typically have in mind, too.

Not that free will means "uncaused cause." I can have plenty of causes. To continue the pattern of gratuitously violent examples, suppose I punch a man in the nose, am hauled in to the police station, and asked "Why did you do that?" I am not at a loss to answer. I might say:

"Because he implied that my wife is a slut!"
"Because sometimes that cocky grin on his face just drives me crazy!"
"Because he acts all tough, but really he's a wimp!"
"Because sometimes you just have to draw the line!"

Can all of these be true? Yes! Each is a "cause" of my action, and there are a million other causes, too. There are even material "causes," too, e.g.:

"Because my fingers clenched into a fist, and accelerated in the direction of his lousy good-for-nothing face, leading up to a collision in the exact center of his noses, causing structural strain on the cartilage which resulted in a great effusion of blood."
"Because I was in his vicinity, and have a good deal of muscular strength in my right arm."

or even:

"Because I was drunk."

The material causes would not impress the police much, because they know their question had nothing to with material causes, but rather with causes relating to volition. That aside, though, the material causes are "causes" in the same sense that the mental causes are. Free will does not imply the absence of causation by any means; and yet, even in the presence of all these causes, I could have refrained from punching him in the nose. That is choice.

This is becoming a marathon debate! Must work now, but that's all I planned to say on the philosophical side. I have some remarks left, however, on the history side, which is more my area of expertise.