Problems with my Free-Will Philosophy

For those unfamiliar with my free-will philosophy, read this: https://listed.to/@vt/33768/free-will

I am sure that I'll think of more criticisms as I begin to get used to my new philosophy, so this will be an updating list.

• Moral Alignment
• Application
• Problem of the Criterion

I think that my ideas on free-will as an ethical system don't align very well with our morals. For instance, murder seems to have little intrinsic issues in this system, which is obviously against moral code (I know I posted about this recently, but the issues I raise aren't very satisfactory issues with murder considering the extent of its badness in our moral code). Further examples include animal abuse, . However, this makes sense considering effective altruism and its concept of the limited care-o-meter. In addition, moral codes seem to be largely influenced b culture - the Aztecs felt no qualms about murdering when it was as a sacrifice for the gods, slave owners not caring about their slaves due to racism, Taoism's morality based on universal balance, etc. Thus there is hope that someday in the future, if this ethical system is correct, morality and ethics will align. To be honest, I doubt that day will come. I think the best chance will be with the effective altruist movement, although this is still very influenced by ideas of utilitarianism. I think that effective altruism is a movement striving for ethical perfectibility, reminiscent of past Great Awakenings, based on principles of science and logic. Thus this aligns very well with what would be necessary for my ethical system to be adopted. This misalignment is very cumbersome as it makes it significantly harder to get an idea of what is right and wrong.

I also think that my philosophy is very abstract, leaving a lot of room for interpretation. consider gun rights. I don't have much of a position on gun rights as it seems to have a very non-trivial connection with free-will. Thus my philosophy can flounder a lot when it comes to determining causality. I do have an abstract definition of causality (future post), but it is extremely unwieldy for actual application.

There are also epistemological issues. I will expand on the general situation of this more in a future post, but the relevant problem is that my philosophy doesn't explain the beginning of the universe. I alluded to this issue before, but I believe my "solution" to be invalid because the null set exists in mathematics despite the value 0 also existing. Thus my philosophy doesn't answer why we know. There is also no treatment on super determinism, which if true ruins the Free-will theorem, destroying this entire philosophy.