Free Will? What do you mean "free"?

Two Definitions

Considering the concept of free will is tricky. When people talk about it, they often interchangeably use the phrase "free will" to mean one of two things:

1. Contra-causal Free Will: The state of being able to choose an action without interference from any causal chain of events.
2. Compatibilistic Free Will: The state of being able to choose an action even if it is determined by a causal chain of events.

Nonsense

The idea of contra-causal free will is what most people have in mind when they use the term "free will" without disambiguation. This kind of free will is simply impossible. Not because the laws of physics don't allow it... but it because it doesn't make any sense.
Consider what it would take to make this kind of free will a reality: We would need a "soul" or "spirit" of some kind that could make choices apart from causes in the physical world. But, this "soul" would have to work in some way. Wouldn't it have to obey the "physics" of the "spirit world"? In other words, a spiritual entity would still be necessarily subject to spiritual causes. And if it is subject to spiritual causes, then it is not un-caused and the soul/spirit has no free will.
To say that contra-causal free will exists is to say that the soul does not work in any particular way, has no explanation and follows no rules of causality. Adopting this point of view is not only nonsense, it also makes all the qualities of the soul arbitrary and random.

Compatibilism

Compatibilistic free will, on the other hand, must exist. It says that we are "free" in the sense that we take in caused inputs, process them "as we choose" (deterministically) and generate caused outputs. The problem I have with calling compatibilism a kind of "free will" is that it's horrifically misleading.
Demonstrating that compatibilistic free will exists can be too easily confused with demonstrating that "free will" exists in the classic (contra-causal) sense. This becomes more noticeable when you realize that hand-held calculators and bouncy balls have compatibilistic free will just like us humans. They only differ in degrees of complexity and predictability. The term "free will" becomes all but meaningless under Compatibilism.

Political Parties: Don't Choose, Align.

Did Someone Say Party?

Did you know there are more than just Republicans and Democrats? It's true! There are actually quite a few parties. Here are some of the major ones:

• Democratic Party
• Republican Party
• Libertarian Party
• Constitution Party
• Green Party

Which one do I belong to? Well... none of them.
Which one do my views most strongly align with? Well... I don't want to say... yet.

I would encourage you, however, to read overviews of each platform and form options for yourself about them. A platform is just a set of positional statements about specific real-world issues. It's my hope that you will form these opinions from a hedonistic point of view. You should consider how each position affects people's happiness and make a decision according to that standard. I've given you what I think are the right set of tools... now it's up to you to think for yourself.

Identity & Political Parties

A final word about political parties: If/When you find that you agree with one more than the rest, don't stake your identity on it. When someone criticizes "your" party, recognize that they are not criticizing you. They are criticizing an idea... an idea that you may or may not be right about. Sometimes it's an issue specific idea. Other times it's a core ideological/philosophical idea. Either way, you should try to glean their argument their criticism and argue it out.
A truly good idea can withstand argument. And if your idea can't hold its own in a word fight, maybe you should consider the other guy's idea instead of your own. We are all human. Not all of us are right about everything. Be willing to not only correct others, but also correct yourself when necessary. It's okay to change your mind.

Ok, Democracy. Now What?

I hope I have been able to convince you that a Democracy is the ideal form of government. If we make societal decisions according to societal happiness we need to know if the people are going to be happy with each decision we make. The only way to do this is to ask the people... in other words, take a vote.

Capitalism or Socialism? "Conservative" or "Liberal"?

Frankly, it doesn't matter. I see each of these systems as a means to an end. A tool that may (or may not) maximize our happiness. I know it would be convenient for our ethical system to mindlessly determine the way our government should work in absolute terms but that's not reality. We will have to think through each decision and how it impacts societal happiness. There is no room for being intellectually lazy in a democracy.
I think we can still take a look at the strengths and weaknesses of each system and make some generalizations from a utilitarian point of view:

	Capitalism	Socialism
Strengths	High Economic Efficiency Encourages Property Stewardship	Ensures Equality of Opportunity Allows for Collective Action
Weaknesses	Reduces Equality of Opportunity Prevents Collective Action	Clunky/Reactive Economy Discourages Property Stewardship

Economic Efficiency. Pure capitalism excels at maximizing GDP and ensures the largest sum total of wealth is generated for a given society (albeit poorly distributed wealth). It utilizes the self interest built into human nature to accomplish this.

Equality of Opportunity. Socialism ensures that everyone has the same chance to do well in life as everyone else. Capitalism, by contrast, tends to make is easy for the rich to get richer and makes it hard for the poor to get the jump start they need to make a good wage.

Property Stewardship. Capitalism, again taking advantage of selfish human nature, ensures there is a steward for everything (i.e. the owner). Homes, cars, land and property of any kind need to be maintained or taken care of. Socialism doesn't naturally ensure this maintenance gets done. We humans tend not to take good care of things if we don't have a vested interest in them.

Collective Action. Imagine a meteor large enough to extinguish human kind is on a collision course with Earth. Preventing the meteor from landing would require extensive resources from humanity. In a capitalistic society, a charitable fund would have to be established to pay for the effort and many people would fail to contribute thinking "someone else will do it". In a socialistic society, however, the government could acquire whatever resource it needed to ensure Earth's safety.
Simply put, some projects have necessarily public consequences and are only successfully if everyone cooperates. Full societal cooperation is only realistically achievable through socialization and/or regulation.

• Global warming & carbon emissions
• Water table monitoring and action
• Meteor monitoring and action
• Pollution of natural resources
• Over-harvesting prevention (deforestation, game hunting, fishing)
• Etc, etc, etc.

Some Generalizations & Conclusions

Informed voting is a moral imperative. If only a few vote, then a democracy becomes a functional oligarchy. If everyone votes but does so uninformed, we have a society that makes poor decisions. In order to maximize societal happiness, you need to be an informed voter. Voting in an informed way, then, is a moral virtue. Don't throw away your voice through whim or silence.

Education is the most important thing to socialize. Having an informed voter-base is essential to the core of a properly functioning democracy. And you cannot be informed without at least a basic education. Without an informed voter-base, decisions can be made haphazardly. Equal and easy access to education, then, is a necessary democratic backbone. This alone justifies public (socialized) education to me.

Lean to Capitalism in times of scarcity. Capitalism is very good at being efficient with whatever limited natural resources an economy has to work with. I think this is a good starting point for gauging how capitalistic or socialistic our society should be. In times of scarcity, we should socialize and regulate less. In times of plenty, we should socialize and regulate more. I am suggesting that there is not only a balance between socialism and capitalism, but that it is a moving target. Something to think about as you head to the polls.

Ethics to Politics

How to Choose a Party

Political parties are generally formed based on feelings about specific social/government issues. Should the government do X? Should it stay out of Y? Should the government tax more or less... spend more or less? But should we really be forming political positions based on feelings? I don't think so. The stakes are too high. We need to really think these things through.

Think about the sentence:
What government should do needs to be figured out.
The word "should" is a reference to ethics.
The phrase "figured out" is a reference to epistemology.

You see, the right system of government is built based upon a specific epistemology and ethical framework. In general, we can see where we might land on political issues depending on where we have landed in the  epistemological and ethical departments. Consider the following table:

System	Evidentialism	Philosophical Skepticism	Authoritarianism
Objective Egoism	Democratic Capitalism	Individualist Anarchism	Dictatorial Capitalism
Objective Altruism	Democratic Socialism	Collectivist Anarchism	Dictatorial Socialism
Utilitarianism	Democracy	Anarchism	Dictatorship

Now, I know that Egoists can advocate Socialism and Evidentialists can advocate a Dictatorship but those positions would be cognitively dissonant with one another. The table above attempts to estimate where someone would probably land if they thought about how their philosophical views affect their political views.

The Table Explained

Evidentialism leads to Democracy. Evidentialists agree that no individual has a monopoly on truth. Just like science works using a peer review process, so does government function with a democratic voting process. Evidence has to be checked and cross-checked.

Philosophical Skepticism leads to Anarchy. Since knowledge about what the government should (or should not) do is impossible, the government shouldn't do anything. Since subjective feelings guide the philosophical skeptic, everyone should just do what they want.

Authoritarianism leads to Dictatorship. Placing your guide to reality on a person (or a book) instead of evidence naturally leads to a government that is structured that way. Weather that arbitrarily selected guide is a king (monarchy), a small group of elite (oligarchy), or a holy book (theocracy) each is still a form of dictatorship.

Egoism leads to Capitalism. This connection should be easy to see. Egoism values self interest. Capitalism is a system that values and is driven by self interest.

Altruism leads to Socialism. Rejecting yourself in favor of others naturally leads to the rejection of private property. Holding a good for yourself (privately) is principally selfish. The only system based on these principles is Socialism.

Utilitarianism is Capitalist/Socialist neutral. A Utilitarian isn't concern with the Capitalism/Socialism dichotomy. He just wants a system that makes the broadest number of people happy. Sometimes that might mean a capitalistic approach. Other times it may mean a socialistic approach. The framework we choose for each government related question is based on happiness outcomes, not on the intrinsic focus of the system.

It should be clear now that I think any good government starts with a foundation of democracy. I hope you think that too.

Objecting about Objectivity

Why Objectivity Matters

Someone might ask why an ethical system needs to be objective. The answer comes in the form of another question: "Why come up with an ethical system in the first place?" The answer is so that we can make moral judgement and evaluate behavior according to a moral standard. In a subjective ethical system, the only person in a position to evaluate one's behavior is himself. If we want to evaluate someone else's behavior in a social society, we need an objective ethical system.

What About Objective Forms of Egoism & Altruism?

This is great question! Egoism & Altruism as defined in the previous post are subjective. However, there is a way to define them that objectifies them. Consider the following table:

System	Subjective Form	Objective Form
Egoism	Pursue happiness for myself.	Pursue happiness for myself AND allow others to do the same.
Altruism	Pursue happiness for others.	Pursue happiness for others AND graciously accept altruism from others.
Utilitarianism	N/A	Pursue happiness for all men including yourself.

If we eliminate the two subjective systems we are still left with three candidate ethical systems. How do we justify our selection given that all three systems are useful and objective? Just ask yourself something basic:
"Who's happiness is more valuable? Mine? Or yours?"
The objective answer is that our happiness is equally valuable. Only Utilitarianism recognizes this reality. The other two systems irrationally focus on one which is actually equal in value to the other.

Why Not Objective Egoism?

Objectivism is the most prominent philosophy that defends Objective Egoism (even though they define it in subjective terms). Advocates of Objective Egoism will attack Utilitarianism claiming that considering the happiness of all equally places an impossible burden on everyone. However, considering all men equally does not mean influencing all men equally. The fact is that we are closer to certain people more than others. We can affect change in certain lives more than others. We are finite and limited. Utilitarianism can and should be applied in the context of this fact of reality.
We humans spend a vast majority of our time taking care of our own needs and wants. Is this compatible with Utilitarianism? I say "absolutely yes!" The happiness of everyone is (generally) most efficiently maximized by having each individual look after their own needs and wants. Who else is better suited to fulfill your needs and desires than you? For most of us, the answer is no one. In this sense, a kind of secondary egoism plays a significant role in a well designed utilitarian philosophy.
Even though Utilitarianism and Objective Egoism are fundamentally different, they agree on a great deal when it comes time for practical application.

Why Not Objective Altruism?

Objective Altruists will try to attack Utilitarianism and Objective Egoism claiming that they lead to selfishness, which is "intrinsically bad". They will often reach this conclusion because they feel that selfishness is just bad. Not only is this appeal to emotion fallacious, it's also generally untrue.
It turns out that, if you use your moral intuitions as a guide, selfishness can easily play a positive role. We feed ourselves, think for ourselves, protect ourselves from harm, and enjoy our lives. These things are all selfish and they all seem good to our moral intuitions.

Why Utilitarianism

Again, I want to suggest that my happiness is equal in value to any other normal human being on this planet. This fact is what brings us to Utilitarianism instead of other ethical systems.

Who's Happiness?

This is a continuation of my discussion on ethics. If haven't read my last few blog posts, you might want to read the ones on purpose & morality for some context first.

Three Systems

Once you arrive at the conclusion that morality is about the happiness of intelligent agents, there follows a very important question: Who's happiness should I be morally concerned with? There are three schools of thought on this question:

1. Egoism: The idea that morality is concerned exclusively with one's own happiness.
2. Altruism: The idea that morality is concerned exclusively with the happiness of others.
3. Utilitarianism: The idea that morality is concerned with both one's own happiness and the happiness of others.

While we examine these three ethical systems, it's important to understand that we are, fundamentally, attempting to define what we mean when we say "morality." A good definition needs to be:

1. Useful (giving us a method for determining the morality of a given action.)
2. Objective (giving us the same answer regardless of who's perspective we happen to have.)

Usefulness

As far as usefulness is concerned, all three systems seem to fit the bill. It is clear established weather or not the happiness of each affected entity should be weighed. Egoism is cognitively the easiest because there is only one entity to consider. Altruism and Utilitarianism, however, are more complex because more than one entity may be under consideration. In political decisions, even entire populations would have to be considered.

How much weight of consideration would we give each affected entity under Altruism or Utilitarianism? The rational answer to that should go back to the root of morality and values: intelligent agency. The degree with which an agent is "intelligent" is the same degree with which we give it moral consideration. This has some fascinating implications with respect to controversial issues like abortion & the humane treatment of livestock. But we'll save exploring that for another time.

Regardless of the added complexity associated with Altruism and Utilitarianism, they are still very useful and provide clearly defined guidelines for establishing the morality of a given action. All three systems pass this first test.

Objectivity & Equality

As far as objectivity is concerned, only Utilitarianism gets a passing grade. It should be clear that Egoism and Altruism are subjective (by definition) since they define morality in the context of a particular perspective. Consider what would happen if two men stumbled upon a diamond in the dirt at the same time:

1. If the two men were Egoists, they might fight each other for it if the happiness derived from walking away with the entire diamond is worth more than the cost of taking a few punches. The outcome is both good (for the man who walks away with the diamond) and bad (for the man who lost.)
2. If the two men were Altruists, they might encourage the other man to take it leading to an endless tautology of selflessness: "You take it"; "No, you take it"; "No, I insist, you take it". In the end, one of them might give in. If so, that outcome would be morally bad (for the taker) and good (for the other man).
3. If the two men were Utilitarian, they might recognize that their interest and right to the diamond is objectively equal. They would seek out a way to maximize the happiness derived from the diamond between the two of them. This might mean taking it together to a pawn shop and splitting the earnings. Both men derived happiness from the event and no one was left in a state of unnecessarily suffering.

The interest of any man, if viewed objectively, is no more important than the interest of any other. This observation of equality is foundational to establishing a proper understanding of morality. Utilitarianism, then, is the proper moral system of choice.

Values, Morality & Happiness

Just as the concept of purpose is derived from intent, so is the concept of value. When something is able to fulfill its purpose, we call that thing "valuable." A car only has value if it runs. Value is also tied with the concept of desire. Follow an object's chain of purpose to the intelligent agents that gives it value and you will see what I mean. If all of humanity no longer wanted to travel anywhere, cars would no longer have any value. Also, if all the oil and gas on Earth suddenly vanished, cars would no longer have any value. So let's establish the prerequisites for value:

1. The object must have a purpose (given by an intelligent agent.)
2. The object must be in such a condition that it can fulfill its purpose.
3. The object must be desired by (by an intelligent agent) for its purpose.

Think about these three conditions for a while. You should begin to see that "value" simply describes the purpose relationship between an intelligent agent and another object.

Self-Assigned Value

If value is the purpose relationship between an intelligent agent and an object and intelligent agents are self-purposed, then it follows that intelligent agents are the beginning of value. This makes perfect sense when you consider a hypothetical universe that has no intelligent agents... just rocks, planets & galaxies bumping into one another. Is there any value in such a universe? Does the concept of value even make sense in that universe? I don't see how.
As intelligent beings, humans define their own purpose. This means that the "ultimate" value is a direct function of our own desires. Stated another way, the existence of desires from intelligent beings is the source of any meaningful value. This is how I understand the solution to the classical "is/ought" distinction. Our desires exist ("is") and so we have values ("ought").

Happiness: The Highest Value

To reach the final step in my value system, we need to make two basic observations:

1. Happiness, by definition, is is a desirable experience.
2. Morality, by definition, is ideal (or desirable) behavior.

The conclusion to reach, then, is that morality is fundamentally about the happiness of intelligent agents. More happiness is what we call "good" and less happiness is what we call "bad."

Morality, then, is the science of maximizing the happiness of intelligent agents.