Daniel Dennett's book : Freedom Evolving, explores this in really great detail. (It was a bit over my head and I had to re-read some of the chapters before proceeding any further). But determinism vs. indeterminism was quite an overwhelming lot to consider when putting it down.

I think we have some form of freedom of choice, but it is limited and is confined to our surroundings and environments and ourselves.

My decisions are based in part on my surroundings, my environment and on the rejection of all the christian nonsense that was instilled to me at a young age. (Ironic to say that my worldview was partially formed from rejecting christian morality, but that was a good starting point for me).

But I am no expert on this.

I would say that I can't live in a vacuum, every choice in front of me is not as easy as flipping a coin, and there are always things to consider before making that choice. Therefore, I could technically do what I wanted, and it is not just the fear of consequences that hold me back, but there are things to consider before I make that choice. Of course, not everyone has the same mindset as I, so that is just from my perspective.

I don't get how the Chinese Room thing applies to us. I also don't see how the lack of free will affects the potential existence of sentience in any way, just because our conciousness isn't really making our decisions doesn't mean we can't be concious of them.

1 and 2 seem fine. I just wanna clarify a little to make sure we're on the same page; The "I" that is not responsible there is our conciousness. Clearly our brain is responsible for our actions but ethics isn't about how to treat brains, it's about how to treat sentience.

As for 3, I wouldn't say you can't blame harm caused to you on the "actions" of others. Clearly those actions are causing you harm but the conciousness of the person performing the actions is not ultimately responsible for them and hence punishing the conciousness for them would not make sense.

Whatever we do is predetermined but this does not mean we might as well think nothing matters. Clearly if I have a notion in my head that rape is fine then I will likely cause more suffering in the world than someone who doesn't have said notion, and so to argue I (or my brain) should not care about reducing harm makes no sense. Determinism does nothing to strip value from suffering.

Suppose we did provenly somehow live in a world with free will but we had mind controlling technology that could completely override a person's ability to decide for themselves. We then do some experiments with this technology and use mind control on a bunch of people and make them fight each other in good old gladiator combat. Now all of a sudden a meteor hits the planet that miraculously only kills everyone except the mind controlled people and hence eliminates all free will from the universe. Does the fact the gladiators don't have free will make it any less meaningful when they hurt each other in their pointless battle, does their suffering somehow have less value? Clearly not, so I really don't see why the inability to change our destiny means we can't declare certain things to be better or worse.

I actually aren't that attached to the words morality or ethics, I could instead simply talk about value since that's basically what ethics is attempting to manage. It wouldn't change anything of importance if lack of free will in some technical sense means our decisions can't be cathegorized as ethical, our decisions still obviously affect each other's welfare in different ways and hence they are just as meaningful whether they're free or not.

Responsibility or no, our actions affect welfare and so I don't give a shit whether we slap the ethical label on them or not. The only thing that matters is they have the meaningful label.

Lack of freedom does nothing to make welfare less meaningful and neither does it make certain behaviour objectively more or less conducive to that welfare. This is what I call ethical behaviour but like I said, if you really wanna steal that word from me then I can use something else and make the exact same points.

I believe I covered this one above more than once. 

I would still like you to directly address the short argument I made in the other thread btw (the one you quoted in the OP).

Well you don't need to be Einstein to have heard of the uncertainty principle.  Basically it implies that it is impossible to measure ANYTHING's velocity and position with an accuracy greater then h (not just particles, I mean cars, pool balls, your balls ).  The more accurate you get the position, the less you will know about the velocity and conversely.  That implies that there is no predetermined arrangement of particles from point A to point B in time, you can only represent it statistically.  Or rather you can only express it as probabilities.  This arrangement has an 80% probability, where as this has 60%... so on and so forth.  I was just attacking the hard deterministic paradigm.  

So, the conclusion was that if uncertainty is the only thing that separates us from lack of free will (or hard deterministic approach), uncertainty is free will.

I can elaborate on the uncertainty principle if you want me to, but you can read some very eloquent articles on wiki. 

No, the whole point of unfree will is that our conciousness does not decide our actions. Clearly the brain and conciousness are not the exact same thing even though conciousness is a product of the brain, you don't need to (nor can you) conciously control certain actions your body performs such as your heartbeat so you already get it that our brains perform SOME actions with our body without a prompt from our conciousness. The argument is about the actions we do feel in control of and whether that feeling is an illusion or not. 

No, you can't blame the conciousness. What I was trying to say is that clearly the actions of the body did cause you harm, but those actions are not the responsibility of its conciousness. 

I didn't argue we can mysteriously make decisions to alter our behaviour via some freedom, I argued that the ideas in your head do affect how shitty the universe is. The important thing is that those ideas CAN change, and the fact those changes are predetermined as well is completely irrelevant. Ethics is precisely as important in a nonfree universe because the value of sentient welfare is just as important too. If you had a notion in your predetermined head now that rape is fine and my predetermined head made an argument to yours that showed you why you're an asshole and changed you, that action would be just as meaningful because so is the suffering it is likely to prevent whether free will exists or not. Explain to me how this is erroneous or how it means ethical considerations are irrelevant in a nonfree universe. 

Preposterous, we may never have a cure for certain illnesses either but that in no way implies that declaring they really suck balls is in some way arbitrary. 

Yes, but if someone's predetermined fucknut head thinks that they might as well just go around raping and pillaging because it's meant to happen, then quite obviously our predetermined heads still have a perfectly logical reason to call that guy an asshole and go kick him off a cliff. 

It also wouldn't be at all pointless to declare more sunlight would be good as with that realization it becomes possible to invest in technology that could theoretically some day make that a reality (to pull a sci-fi example outta my ass - by making the surface of the moon somehow reflect more light or whatever). 

Ok, let's once again assume that we in fact have free will. Now I could then make this same argument to you about occurrences that are not in any way caused by the decisions of our free wills. You claiming there can be no value in a nonfree universe is no less silly than me declaring that since the meteor that's about to annihilate your hypothetical free will possessing humans doesn't have free will then you can't derive any meaning from the fact those people are about to get squished. 

The sensation of having a crocodile rip your arm off, for example. 

This is silly, you might as well argue that if a sleepwalking person (which I assume you will grant has no free will) walks off a cliff and gets impaled on a sharp rock then we can't call that meaningful since there was no free will involved in that occurrence. 

Lion rips gazelle to pieces, gazelle goes "OWFUCKSHITWTFSTOPASSHOLEKAJFLHFLSHFKLASFHLAS". 

Are you gonna tell me that because neither of those creatures has free will that the gazelle's suffering is meaningless, so if the lion could kill it by (relatively) quickly ripping it's throat out or slowly by eviscerating it, that we can't make any assessments of which method is preferable? Again, the fact the lion cannot in fact make that assessment is entirely meaningless to the fact that one of those methods is better than the other, and deciding which is preposterously simple, especially since the method of the gazelle's death doesn't even affect the lion's meal (or anything else meaningful as far as we can tell). 

I don't see how the argument is unfalsifiable, it merely presents a logical reason why free will is impossible, just like we can logically show that an all-powerful and all-good god does not exists with the problem of evil. I'd also find it profoundly interesting if you can't address such an argument, whether it has to do with ethics or not.

What has my belief in free will, or lack of,  got to do with this debate? And what has it got to do with my balls? This is a discussion assuming the lack of free will. I'm happy not to distract with my personal input from it for now.

You're missing the point of the thought experiment. The point isn't that the event actually happened in the past, it's that what you're seeing is predetermined.

You say 'Our ethical standards today DO AFFECT THE FUTURE whether they're predetermined or not'. This is impossible if they are predetermined. to affect something is to change it from its natural path. but because it exists in a predetermined world, it cannot be changed from its predetermined path, so it cannot be affected.

You've maintained several times now that a value system we hold can change the future in a predetermined universe. This is impossible, by definition. Why do you keep saying it?

Why? remember to quantify your answer within the construct of a deterministic universe.

There you go saying you can change the ending of a predetermined universe. The film only has one ending - the characters in the film have absolutely no chance of changing it. Do you understand this concept of pre-determinism that you're so keen on supporting? It sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It's not meaningful because it was always going to happen anyway. Seriously, I am beginning to feel like I'm repeating myself too much here.

Remember that I am playing by YOUR rules here - you are the one arguing for no free will in a deterministic universe. a deterministic universe is essentially like a long film - rewind and fast-forward as much as you like, that point in the film will always look exactly the same, regardless of what's happened earlier in the film. it's not that everything has already happened that I'm trying to maintain, it's that everything WILL happen the same way regardless of any perceived choices you think you have - in this universe you're just a film character. You may make a choice in the film, but it's predetermined - the future is set.

(Aside: in all probability, due to quantum fluctuations, the universe is unlikely to act like a giant roll of film where the same thing would happen every time from the same set of starting parameters, but that has nothing to do with free will or lack thereof - because our decisions do not cause quantum fluctuations, and therefore do not affect the direction of the universe - For the continuation of this thought experiment however, we can ignore this on the basis it doesn't provide free will)

Ok, being clear here, we're now assuming free will in this bit (This may get confusing if we keep swapping around). What I mean is you can alter the value of those around you by your actions - If I murder a puppy in front of a bunch of people, their shock and disgust would mean that their value has been negatively affected. that's all I mean by 'surrounded by value' - the value of sentient beings around the individual. 

There you go AGAIN with saying you can affect the future with choices in a predetermined universe. You can't. Your entire argument seems to be based on this.

How about instead of us continuing to chunk up our previous conversations into more and more difficult to follow pieces (apologies to the peanut gallery), you just explain to me how you can make a choice in a predetermined universe that affects the future. This is logically impossible, so I'm interested in hearing you maintain this stance.

PS I'm very much enjoying this discussion, so thank you for your continued involvement.

I am not saying I have some magical ability to change determinism. I am saying that my ethical standards are a vital part of how the film plays out as far as my involvement in it goes, just like the height and location of a tree affect it's chance of getting struck by lightning, but this does not in any way imply that something in the universe necessarily made a concious choise to plant the tree there.

Your argument would have my predetermined brain conclude that it's totally fine for me to go around raping and torturing things just because it may or may not be my unchangeable destiny, which is preposterous as doing so would cause the exact same amount of suffering as it would in a nondetermined scenario (though I maintain such a scenario is logically impossible) so why the hell would my predetermined brain not think about that question ethically?

The point is different films have different conclusions. You're essentially arguing that just because the nature of a film is necessarily deterministic that no value judgements can be made on the content of any of them. Obviously my brain can look at recordings of balet dancing or gang rape and make a perfectly logical decision on which one should happen again if I'm given that choise, and just because our choises are in fact predetermined does not mean our brain doesn't have a logical reason to make those decisions ethically, as that is what will determine how the rest of the film plays out. It's as if you're arguing the people in the zombie film may as well leave the door open just because it's already decided whether the zombies will eventually get in the house or not.

No, to affect something is to play a part in what happens to it next. The sun's gravity affects us regardless of the fact it has no choise. Whether I think rape is wrong or not will affect the future regardless of the fact I have no concious control over that thought in my head.

Wait, are you saying that the uncertainty principle is crap? Or that it doesn't defeat "hard determinism" or "Laplacian determinism"?  I want to be clear on what you mean before I go on a rant.

I didn't say that, the point is that we can imagine different endings and make value comparisons between them. On my way out the door I can compare stepping over my cat to kicking her the fuck outta the way, and make a logical deduction on which outcome is preferable. The fact this is all predetermined so I don't in fact have that choise does not mean that we can't say it isn't good that my brain opted to step over the cat, because we can imagine a different course of events for that film where I kick her against a wall, and the fact that outcome was not in fact possible does not mean it wouldn't have been a shittier option. 

What's wrong with comparing our situation to a different one? I don't need free will to compare different possibilities and figure out which sucks more or less.

Because I know that having a dagger up my ass is really not all that much fun. How the hell does whether suffering sucks have anything to do with free will?

I could just as easily and nonsensically choose something different if we had free will. Again, the (laughably simplistic) subject of whether suffering is bad has fuckall to do with free will.

I also can't believe we're back to this subjective nonsense. The only thing that matters in the universe (in ANY universe) is sentient welfare. The fact different sentients have different subjective preferences does not mean I can't make the objective observation that these creatures are better off having their subjective desires fulfilled. The fact the lion thinks raw meat is better than carrots is a subjective preference, the fact it's better then for the welfare of the lion if it gets meat rather than carrots is objective. 

Well if you agree that it's good we don't just sit on our asses going "determinism, lol" when the neighbor's house is on fire then I really aren't sure what the meaningful disagreement here is.

You seem to know an awful lot about me.  If you can put that chip down off your shoulder for a bit, perhaps we can have us an honest to goodness discussion. 

Firstly, far be it from me to claim a better understanding of a fundamental aspect of our reality, than someone that has read a Wiki page on it.  And Einstein disputed it too... it must be false.  CHECK MATE atheist ! The uncertainty principle is a mathematical reality, it is a fundamental property of a wave.  

Secondly, I've never claimed that there is a "free will" as theist believe in it.  I have simply said that a hard deterministic universe is only possible in a static frame of reference, a newtonian paradigm.  

Now you seem to have this whole deterministic thing figured out down pat.  Is your definition of a deterministic universe such that, knowing all possible position of particles at any given time, and all the forces acting upon those particles, you can deduce the position of the particles in the future?  Have you actually given this any thought or are you just parroting something you read on wiki?  Your argument reeks of Dennett's adaptable aversion determinism bs.  I love Dennett's work, but on this one particular point I disagree with his ideas from "Freedom Evolves" book.  I'm not completely satisfied with the seemingly intentional confusion between randomness and uncertainty, but you seem to be. ...

Actually, you are mirroring his views on determinism (Dennett's).  He views reality as a fully deterministic.  The fact that you would consider the phrase "adaptable aversion determinism" to be both meaningless and erudite, shows that you have not really read into this beyond wiki.  Allow me to enlighten you, my insecure friend.  The "Professor of Bullshit" claims, as you, that there is no free will.  He also dismisses quantum mechanics as an explanation of non hard determinism, though his claim, unlike yours, doesn't come from a low IQ coupled with a "big man trapped inside a short man's body" syndrome.  Rather, our professor of bullshit, (which by the way, I admire) has a theory that we've all EVOLVED to AVERT  danger.  This, my insecure friend, he puts together rather eloquently in his book Freedom Evolves.  He turns this (meaningless phrase as you've called it), into an adaptable aversion argument against knowledge of hard determinism, though it does exist, in his opinion.   

His is rather a relative and subjective paradigm, based on his own theories, unlike your ignorance which is based on wiki.  

Ok, now that we got that out of the way, allow me to dumb down my vocabulary lest I attempt, and fail to seem erudite.  

Ok dude, so like, I don't believe in free will, cuz there is no free will hehe, lolz.  Where would free will come from cuz we have no souls and stuff, that stuff is for like ppl that go to church, dumb.  

I don't believe in hard determinism.  haha, we don't know jack shit about jack shit (I mean that as a collective we, relatively speaking you know a lot less then most people) 

You can't say one way or the other, cuz like the definition of hard determinism is predicting everything with 100% certainty, and we can't do that cuz like the fabric of space time seems to be like unpredictable or something, lolz.

Does that answer your question?  I hold an agnostic view on the subject originating from my understanding of reality and all the material I was able to come across on the subject.  

Do enlighten me, however, why you hold such strong deterministic views?  And please keep the cheap card reader psychology crap out of your answers, it makes you seem really insecure.

Wow, I'm a little creepped out the attention but oddly flattered.  Let's get a few things straight.  First of all, my field is telecommunication and IT, that's what I know.  I love philosophy, physics, and generally anything that requires a bit of reflection.  English is my second language, so, at times I may screw up my syntax and/or misplace words.  My mastery of it is far from perfect, and I like to use "big words" because it helps my vocabulary.  

I will be the first to tell you that I am not a philosopher, I also don't consider myself an authority on anything other then my field.  Furthermore, I don't consider myself to be special, or superior, aside from the fact that I think more critically then most people.  

Now, I'm not sure wtf your problem is, but I'm sure it's hard to pronounce.  I'm not in the least bit upset, or annoyed.  At this point I'm genuinely interested in your reaction.  

As far as  DD is concerned, I read a few of his books, saw some of his crap on youtube and generally find myself siding with some of his views, but not all.  As far as determinism is concerned, you would have to define what you mean by that.  I've already told you everything you wanted to know.  At this point in our collective knowledge, I don't think that we can say one way or the other.  I find that to be a reasonable stance until more evidence is uncovered.  My original post in this topic it was a failed attempt at levity.  The sum of uncertainty is free will, only in so far as you define "free will" as the one thing that would stop the universe from being deterministic.  I'm sorry that went over your head, or that my posts/style offended you.  

Let me sum it up for you, that way I can repeat myself and hence subconsciously affirm the fact.  I'm just a regular Joe that works with computers and likes to read more then the average guy.  Now, your turn.  What makes you so superior as to be insulted by my supposed attempt to sound intelligent, and why are you so interested in me personally? And also, WHY do you hold such views on determinism? And, HOW is the uncertainty principle not valid? 

Just out of curiosity, what's the justification for declaring the behaviour of sub-atomic particles has to be, by their nature, unpredictable? Why is it ruled out that we may simply not have the proper tools or knowledge to predict exactly what they'll do next?

It's the math behind it.  Aside from the "observer effect" which basically says that if you measure something that small, you will affect it and hence the results will change accordingly, the math is such that if you try to calculate the two variables in a wave like behavior,  you can not find out both precisely at the same time.  Basically, the observer effect is an experimental confirmation of the underlining mathematics behind the wave behavior. 

No problem, just don't tell mr Jones, he may foam at the mouth

 the nature of the universe is far stranger than our macroscopic senses can perceive. Particles are not in one specific place at a time... They are actually a 'probability distribution' which means they can actually be in a range of places at once,with a likelihood of being observable at these places dependent on distance.

Yeah, thanks for explaining that Ktulu, except none of it has anything to do with whether or not we have free will. So the uncertainty principle at the level of quantum mechanics (which you don't even understand) means we have free will does it? How's that then? Because there's something we don't understand in the universe, so that's an argument for free is it? Or is it because the uncertainty principle destroys all determinism? But you've said yourself you don't believe that and nor does anyone else, not even Roger Penrose (or have I missed something - are we all randomly bouncing off the walls like sub-atomic particles?)

Quantum events occur at the micro level, there are no quantum events at the macro level; they cancel themselves out at the macro level. Human actions take place at the macro level, so the uncertainty principle has no bearing on the free will debate. So why the fuck are you debating it? Simply because you think you know something about it, whereas you know fuck all about free will? This is just quantum mechanics for dummies, and you're wasting everyone's time with it.
 

And just to be thorough (now that I've boned up on this irrelevant, boring crap just to prove you conclusively wrong) let's just say the uncertainty principle did have a bearing at the macro level, then how does it support the argument for free will rather than for chaos? If these events are truly random, then how do they come under the control of a human free will?

And let's be clear - the Heisenberg effect is something that we don't understand. It is an experimental result that repeatedly shows in certain circumstances sub-atomic particles behaving in a way we cannot explain. This is not some some fundamental law of mathematics. If it was, we would, necessarily, have already understood it. The 'uncertainty principle' just tries to 'explain' it by saying that this effect is purely random. How this could be the case - all the stuff about waves and observer effect - is pure conjecture. Contrary to what you say, it is not the case that the Heisenberg effect is necessarily inexplicable. Explanations exist and are gaining ground in scientific circles, e.g. Everettian probability. Don't ask me to explain it as I don't understand it. It doesn't matter.

None of this has the slightest relevance in terms of free will. If you think it does then it's up to you to show why - but you can't do that can you, because that would mean committing yourself to a position, and intellectually you're incapable of doing that. So yeah, thanks Ktulu for wasting everyone's time with this stuff that was designed to make you look clever and ends up making you look stupid.

Now, I've spelt out why it has no relevance to the free will debate, but if you still think it does then you spell out to me why it does by answering my questions above, or admit you don't what you're talking about. Oh and don't post another fucking video so some doddering old fool can make your argument for you - make it in your own words, just like I've done, so I can see where you really stand and if you really understand it.
Nighty night
 

The math itself is highly technical, but in itself not conclusive.  Nobody really has a full understanding of the fundamentals, we're just trying to make sense of the experimental data the best we can.  We currently have a theory, and everyone is continually trying to poke holes in it with the best and newest experiments.  So far, as messed up as it is, QM has held up.  It is far from perfect, and it's failure to jive with gravity is a cesspool of exotic theories, one crazier then the other.  That's how you end up with the string theory, the holographic principle, to name a few of the popular ones. 

The issue with predicting position/velocity comes from the fact that every individual particle behaves like a wave.  So, when you have waves, interacting with other waves, the math gets pretty hairy.  If you try to detect a particle behaving like a wave, you have to send a photon, which also behaves like a wave.  The only thing that you have control over is the frequency, or distance between the wave's peaks.  So, if you send a high frequency photon, (short distance between peaks) you can detect it's position more accurately, but the energy from the photon gets transferred to the particle and changes its velocity severely.  If you lower the frequency, you don't influence it as much, but you cannot tell its position with as much accuracy.  The discrepancy will always be higher then h (reduced Plank's constant).  And hence, the observer effect proves the uncertainty principle. 

I think you are asking the wrong question.  The universe can only be explained, if observed.  If not observed, what's there to explain? Asking what the universe is doing when not observed is not really asking anything.  We can only ask what happens when we observe the universe in such and such a way.

Professor Ktulu - let’s cut to the chase. You haven’t answered any of my questions, as I knew you wouldn’t. Let’s try again  - just to be fair and show you I’m not asking you questions I can’t answer myself my position is in square brackets after each of the questions; but please, answer the questions rather than just picking up on my position. I know you find it hard, but have a go:

1. Is it your contention that the universe is made up of quantum events which are unpredictable due to the uncertainty principle, and that this principle operates at every level (micro and macro) thereby rendering all events in the physical universe unpredictable?

[my position is that the uncertainty principle only operates at the quantum level and that events like human action are in principle predictable and determined by physical laws]

2. Does the fact that an event is unpredictable equate in your mind to it being undetermined?

[my position is that our ability to predict an event does not mean that that event is necessarily undetermined – there are many things that we do not know, but that is not in itself a reason to believe that they are undetermined]

3. If we cannot predict which synapse an electron will go down when we make a decision, how does that give us ‘free will’ rather than random outcomes?

[my position is that this description of how our decision making works actually weakens the case for free will, which I take to mean that we have some degree of control over our decision making rather than it being completely random]

4. If quantum indeterminacy pervades all matter, at every level, its effects are presumably not just restricted to brain states, but apply to matter as a whole. So how is it that things like computers seem to behave in a fully determined and predictable way? Or do they have ‘free will’ too?

[my position is that no sensible person could argue that computers have free will, but given that they are subject to the same uncertainty principle that endows us with ‘free will’ then presumably they and all other matter in the universe must have it too. In that context, the concept of free will ceases to have, for me, any meaning] 

I look forward to your answers, but please note that I shall be on holiday from 21-28 September inclusive and unable to answer any queries you may have during that time, so if you could get back to me with your answers before I go it would be most appreciated.

Cordial regards
 

Quantum events have been used to power 'real' random number generators (as opposed to quasi-random) which can then be used to influence decisions and outcomes at the macro level. I could for example turn this into a game of chance and gamble money on it.. so quantum level events would directly decide how much money I might win or lose in an evening. 

I don't think it's a huge undertaking to consider how a similar series of events originally initiated by quantum unpredictability may work towards the potential of free will (i.e. the two stage model of free will, or similar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_model_of_free_will )

[my position is that I don't know.]

My opinion is in that line of thinking, but a bit different. I don't care (much) about the amount of suffering itself, in fact I could easily propose to increase it if it's useful. What I care about is the amount of suffering of the individual: I would try to limit that, even if I have to increase the suffering of others. The point is that a bit of suffering is nothing particular, much suffering instead is a decidedly more powerful feeling/sensation. So I think that, if possible, everyone could share a bit of suffering so to avoid a lot of suffering to even one "sentient being".

-------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

Simply put, if you take one die every face has the same probability in the outcome. If you take the sum of more dice you'll see that the outcome instead will start to converge toward one value (because of the number of cases of the result of the sum). With particles it's the same (sort of): when you have billions of them, you can be pretty sure that in the average there will be no surprises in their measurement.

---------------------------------------------

I would not put the "decision" discussion in terms of "free will" or "quantum mechanics", but simply relatively to information. Why? Because there's no decision to make if I have all the informations -- it's just matter of following the logic. I have to make a decision when I don't know something (if not then what matter would have that decision?). At least that's what I understand, it depends on the definition of "decision" which is being used. Not an easy thing (determinism, in a certain sense).

Yes, but sure there will be some extreme cases in which this rule won't work... It's pretty abstract, this is his defect. For example making considerably suffer humanity for years because of one person is obviously detrimental for the whole humanity. If this person is not so "important" in the events of humanity, probably it's better to kill him/her. I know this could be repulsive to some, but it's just an abstract case, as said.

Not necessarily. Gravity is certainly deterministic and I think we can safely say that there is no conscious entity deciding whether or not to hold us to the ground. 

I don't believe there is any consistency to human morality at all and there is no formula you could create that would describe the morality of every human on the plant. Ultimately, morality is nothing but a personal choice and may or may not have an underlying principle.