Consent

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Lively discussions and much food for .... thought.



I, for one, think that we do get to choose a great many things in life, apart from "gimmie a cuppa joe, black".  

One of the more subtle areas of free will that was hinted at in the above?

We get to choose how we **react** to life itself.   I learned the lessons of your own feelings while training to be a counselor/volunteer for abused kids.

You own your own feelings.

This bit of observational wisdom cannot be stressed enough-- because it's too easy to forget, and to abdicate that ownership to someone else-- several someones.

Since you do own your own feelings, you get to choose how you react in any given situation-- oh, sure, there are examples where this does not seem to be the case, as the feelings involved are overwhelming.  Say, a parent-to-child relationship, or a spouse-to-spouse.

But the fact is?  Even in these, if you think about it carefully and often enough, you can take control of even these, if you find it needful or desirable to.

So that is a kind of free will that we each have-- but not everyone takes advantage of, and not all the time either.

Take or leave this as you wish--

-- free will, again.

[pieces o nine]

"They can always leave" is one of the sticking points in any free-will argument, I think. First, is is physically possible for a person to leave a given place or situation? Usually the answer is yes, but there are real physical barriers in some cases. Second, does the person have access to transportation if "leaving" implies physical movement? Is there some (place/situation) to go to?  Thirdly, will others be negatively affected (e.g.: staying in a very undesirable job or marriage in order to provide for minor children)? Finally, will the pressure from family, friends, the larger culture essentially force the person back in to the original (place/situation)?

Sometimes the available option(s) turns out to be the same (place/situation) with a different face. The more interlocked the society, the more each person's choices are shaped by other people choosing around them, in competition with them, and for them.

That all comes back to education/knowledge and money being essential to accessing a wider variety of choices, and choosing ones that are more likely to be better in any sense of the word.

[Griffin NoName]

Picking up on what En-Route wrote, I think "choice" is entirely different to "free will" in that "free will" is a philosophical concept. Free will implies complete freedom to make any choice but has nothing to do with the actuality of making a choice.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

1. Some things you can do.

2. Some things you could do (but you'll be hard press to do them).

3. Some things you simply can't do.

And there are grey areas in between those three categories. If you have wealth and/or opportunities, you can change your job, or your house, etc. The less wealth, etc, the harder changing those will become. At some point you could do it, but you would incur a significant risk or you would have to pay with a downgrade in your quality of life in one or several aspects. Down that same road there will be a point in which it isn't an option anymore.

It is clear that at 1. you have real choices and the free will to choose among them, and that at 3. you don't have choices and are pretty much forced to endure the situation at hand, the grey area happens in and around 2. where while it is possible to do something it will not be easy, either because of physical or psychological reasons.

Again, 1. and 3. are not in discussion, because we know that in those areas choices can or can't be made. The question is at what point in 2. you lose the ability to choose -both real and perceived-  and how it happens.

[Opsa]

To get back to prostitution, isn't it also known as white slavery? How much freedom does a slave have? I think that at least some street walkers really are in slavery, as they fear bodily harm will be done to them if they try to escape. Often they have gotten into it young, and haven't had education enough (as Zono implies) to have the skills to escape. Also, if they are addicted to drugs, they are a slave to the substance.

Say you ran away when you were thirteen, to escape abusive parents. You ran to the city where you thought you could somehow hide out. A person who seems nice takes you in, feeds you, gives you a place to sleep and free drugs to ease your pain. Then this person expects you to pay him back for those drugs, once you're hooked. Are you choosing prostitution? As I understand it, this scenario is unfortunately quite common.

For a while I lived in a shady part of town (low rent, I was a freelance artist) and it took me a while to realize that streetwalkers often had casts on their legs. I mean, it was so normal that I realized how creepy it was. I think someone was hurting them.

For some reason I remember a time when my sister and I were riding through a rough part of Washington, D.C. Two young hookers were standing on a corner, and my sister stared at them (she later said she was checking out their daring fashions). One of them yelled at her  angrily, "What are you looking at, whore?" and scared the heck out of her.  Luckily, the light changed and we were out of there. It is strange that she used her profession as an insult to my sister.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I get your point although white slavery is more referred to women that are literally locked, without option to leave, supposedly paying with their work for their food/shelter plus the move from their original countries (I've read of cases like those for Latin American women in Spain, Russian women in Germany and the Nederlands, and Chinese/Asian women in the US). Happening yes, although IIRC the overall percentage is in single digits compared to the total of women in the business.

A woman in the street may be under psychological duress (plus the duress of addiction) even if she can take her things an leave at any given moment. I would consider the situation a dark grey, but not black as occasionally options appear from both social workers and non-for-profits/churches trying to get them out of the streets in most countries.

[En_Route]

1. Some things you can do.

2. Some things you could do (but you'll be hard press to do them).

3. Some things you simply can't do.

And there are grey areas in between those three categories. If you have wealth and/or opportunities, you can change your job, or your house, etc. The less wealth, etc, the harder changing those will become. At some point you could do it, but you would incur a significant risk or you would have to pay with a downgrade in your quality of life in one or several aspects. Down that same road there will be a point in which it isn't an option anymore.

It is clear that at 1. you have real choices and the free will to choose among them, and that at 3. you don't have choices and are pretty much forced to endure the situation at hand, the grey area happens in and around 2. where while it is possible to do something it will not be easy, either because of physical or psychological reasons.

Again, 1. and 3. are not in discussion, because we know that in those areas choices can or can't be made. The question is at what point in 2. you lose the ability to choose -both real and perceived-  and how it happens.

For some of us, it is equally clear. that at 1 you have real choices but no free will in the sense of being truly accountable for the choice you make ( for reasons already explained)

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm not entirely certain, are you saying that if I'm driving my car, choose to run a red light and as a consequence I cause an accident I'm not accountable for it?

[En_Route]

I'm not entirely certain, are you saying that if I'm driving my car, choose to run a red light and as a consequence I cause an accident I'm not accountable for it?

Yes, in the sense that you bear no  "moral" responsibility; either its something you were bound to do as a result of factors ( principally genes, early environment)  over which you had no control,  or else it was completely arbitrary. You will have  legal accountability of course, which will be factored into most people's decision- making with the consequence they  will probably not jump red lights.

[pieces o nine]

Yes, in the sense that you bear no  "moral" responsibility; either its something you were bound to do as a result of factors ( principally genes, early environment)  over which you had no control,  or else it was completely arbitrary.

I'm not sure I follow the second part of this?

[Griffin NoName]

I know we are supposed to be humble and tolerant here at the TFM, but I can't suspend judgement that skipping a red light is immoral - oh, wrong thread, I thought we were talking about prostitutes

[En_Route]

Yes, in the sense that you bear no  "moral" responsibility; either its something you were bound to do as a result of factors ( principally genes, early environment)  over which you had no control,  or else it was completely arbitrary.

I'm not sure I follow the second part of this?

The ifea is that behaviour must be either caused or uncaused.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Lets see, you imply that when an individual runs or not that red light (s)he is doing it due to a number of psychological pressures that, if properly understood, would predict the decision in question? Some of those pressures would be the capacity for delaying reward, empathy, and the adherence to social norms, plus the immediate pressures of the individual in question at the time of the deed.

If I understand your argument, you are implying a level if psychological determinism (I have a psychoanalyst friend that argues that is the case) that pretty much would place all meaningful decisions (and many trivial ones) outside of the realm of free will.

Perhaps because I find determinism to be a bit uncomfortable or perhaps because of those occasions in which the balance can be tipped either way, I have the feeling that, while the main hypothesis may have some validity, its by no means absolute and that free choices can be made, even if not too frequently.

[The Meromorph]

Yes, in the sense that you bear no  "moral" responsibility; either its something you were bound to do as a result of factors ( principally genes, early environment)  over which you had no control,  or else it was completely arbitrary.

I'm not sure I follow the second part of this?

The idea is that behaviour must be either caused or uncaused.

I very rarely find that two-valued logic like that is either useful, unbiased, or reflective of the real world.
This is absolutely not one of those times.
I dislike being 'unTaddy', but your post suggests to me that you could benefit from the application of a clue-by-four to your head!

[Opsa]

I agree with Mero (except the upside-the-head bit, which I think was a bit harsh).

I believe that a person chooses to run a red light or not. It is a choice, a very selfish one as it risks the safety of others, and the person in question is responsible for that choice.