Did Adam and Eve have complete dominion of reason over appetite?

[STT]

The point is that it enables us to make a choice.

That is not correct. Even a computer can choose rationally. Free will allows us to make poor choice.

 

[OneSheep]

I mean that they are responsible for their act.

“Responsible” is a very tricky word. It means “ability to respond”, and we have all had times where we cannot come up with acceptable reasons for our behaviors, so our response is pretty limited. So, “responsibility” is by definition going to be dependent on how responder’s ability to articulate and degree of self-awareness. (i.e. knowing exactly what was going on in his/her mind at the time of the act, and being able to take ownership of that thinking).

I think that the more common definition of “responsible” is “blameworthy”. Do you agree?

On the other hand, there’s the notion of ‘forgiveness’, but that’s distinct from ‘responsibility’.

It depends on the definition of “responsibility” one is using, I think.

 

[Gorgias]

Even a computer can choose rationally.

A computer isn’t rational. It doesn’t choose. It deterministically follows rules.

 

[runningdude]

Yes, they had full order, and threw it away. They were perfectly rational, and deliberately chose an action that was irrational.

They were perfectly capable of not sinning, and perfectly consented to sin.

 

[simpleas]

Some of the posts on here make Adam and Eve sound like two very weak minded human beings.

They had preternatural gifts, but that from what I understand doesn’t control conscience.

They used their own conscience.

 

[STT]

In a *if * statement there are at least two options, A and B. Computer selects or does something base on some rule, if A>B then do C. That is pretty similar to us with the exception that we as rational agent can understand and can define rule. So for example we do nothing in such a case if A then do nothing where A could be a crime. Let’s call this rational selection, what I call it rational decision. Could we do that? Of course we could. Now what is the use of free will? It just allows us to choose poor option.

 

[Vico]

In a *if * statement there are at least two options, A and B. Computer selects or does something base on some rule, if A>B then do C. That is pretty similar to us with the exception that we as rational agent can understand and can define rule. So for example we do nothing in such a case if A then do nothing where A could be a crime. Let’s call this rational selection, what I call it rational decision. Could we do that? Of course we could. Now what is the use of free will? It just allows us to choose poor option.

It is a moral choice that allows a person to express charity or hatred of God. The determined will to an act or omission is, in itself, an expression of charity or hatred of God, when it is grave matter and with knowledge of the immoral character, and with prior reflection enough for it to be a personal choice.

 

[Vico]

…
So choosing to eat the fruit was evidence of " complete dominion of reason over appetite"?.

They did not have concupiscence then: the choice was not involving the lower appetites, rather it was involving the irascible appetites:

1. A good that is difficult to attain:

• hope (absent but attainable good),
• despair (absent, unattainable good).

1. An evil that is difficult to avoid:

• anger (present evil),
• courage (threatening but conquerable evil),
• fear (threatening but unconquerable evil).

 

[Gorgias]

In a *if * statement there are at least two options, A and B. Computer selects or does something base on some rule, if A>B then do C . That is pretty similar to us with the exception that we as rational agent can understand and can define rule.

And, as it were, that’s what makes all the difference. The computer is merely a mechanical device which follows the physical laws governing electricity. There is no ‘meaning’ or ‘understanding’ inherent to the system itself. The similarity is only that there is the appearance of rationality in the computer system.

So for example we do nothing in such a case if A then do nothing where A could be a crime. Let’s call this rational selection, what I call it rational decision. Could we do that? Of course we could.

There’s a difference between choosing to not act and not having a choice in action. The former can have a moral dimension, but the latter does not.

Now what is the use of free will? It just allows us to choose poor option.

It allows us to choose – either good or evil.

 

[STT]

And, as it were, that’s what makes all the difference. The computer is merely a mechanical device which follows the physical laws governing electricity. There is no ‘meaning’ or ‘understanding’ inherent to the system itself. The similarity is only that there is the appearance of rationality in the computer system.

Yes, in a computer is appearance of rationality because computer cannot understand. We however are rational agents, therefore we could make rational choice.

There’s a difference between choosing to not act and not having a choice in action . The former can have a moral dimension , but the latter does not.

No. We can understand whether an option is moral or not. It is matter of understanding rather than ability to choose.

It allows us to choose – either good or evil.

So it is absurd.

 

[Gorgias]

We can understand whether an option is moral or not. It is matter of understanding rather than ability to choose.

In terms of ‘rationality’? Yes. In terms of ‘free will’? No. Free will is all about the ability to choose.

So it is absurd.

Not sure what your definition of ‘absurd’ is, here.

 

[STT]

Not sure what your definition of ‘absurd’ is, here.

Absurd: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

 

[Gorgias]

Absurd: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

So what is “wildly unreasonable, illogical or inappropriate” about “the faculty to make a choice”?

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, they had full order, and threw it away. They were perfectly rational, and deliberately chose an action that was irrational.

If a person has full order, why do they throw it away? Wouldn’t it take something less than “full order” to make such a foolish decision?

 

[OneSheep]

Some of the posts on here make Adam and Eve sound like two very weak minded human beings.

I have been so weak-minded. How about you?

They had preternatural gifts, but that from what I understand doesn’t control conscience.

They used their own conscience.

What this brings up, then, is a subsequent question. If God gave them “preternatural gifts” over concupiscence in order that they might avoid the power of strong appetite, then why did He not also give them the wisdom to know when they are being lied to, or to know that the fruit would also have a huge negative effect on their children?

 

[STT]

The problem is with free choice which allows us to do wrong. Rational choice is quite ok.

 

[runningdude]

You are comparing Adam and Eve to their children. We have imperfect mastery over our reason, which serves to mitigate our subjective guilt.

Adam and Eve had no such mitigation. They made a “foolish” choice, despite having the perfect grace to resist such a choose.

All sin is “foolish” and irrational, because it harms our otherwise immortal rational soul.

 

[johnjacob2004]

It is not necessary for angels to eat.
Angels have no bodies and therefore, no appetites… angels fell because of the sin of pride.

Adam and Eve fell because of the sin of pride also…

Logically, Angels had no appetite due to not having corporeal bodies, but they fell due to pride.

Adam and Eve fell due to pride.

Pride is not contingent on having a corporeal body, thus the sin of pride was not due to human appetites

 

[simpleas]

I have been so weak-minded. How about you?

simpleas:

Yes, yet Adam and Eve had infused knowledge, which I believe means they didn’t have to learn some human traits they had them ‘built in’ so to speak. We on the other hand live and learn.

What this brings up, then, is a subsequent question. If God gave them “preternatural gifts” over concupiscence in order that they might avoid the power of strong appetite, then why did He not also give them the wisdom to know when they are being lied to, or to know that the fruit would also have a huge negative effect on their children?

Maybe God did, yet he gave them each a conscience, they didn’t have children yet.

There seems to have been a limit to the infused knowledge, how much did they actually know? Seems most writings guess or presume that they must have had this or that knowledge but no-one actually knows.

 

[OneSheep]

They did not have concupiscence then: the choice was not involving the lower appetites, rather it was involving the irascible appetites:

From your wealth of resource, what is the answer as to why God the Father would give the couple “complete dominion of reason over lower appetites” but not “complete dominion of reason over irascible apetites”?