Free will and love... love? WHICH love?

[Peter_Plato]

Why would God create a physical world with a separate kind of being? Why not just stick to spirits, if spirits are more valuable than matter?

This existing material world may just be a kind of medium with its attendant constraints that allows us as free human moral agents to work out our moral/spiritual destinies in an environment that limits the impact of our decisions at the same time as it highlights consequences. Perhaps the material world as it exists functions as a kind of shielded environment to mitigate the kind of harm that a spiritual world with potentially morally evil creatures might allow. Evil here is equally subject to the limitations of physical laws and is constrained by them in terms of possible harm. Without those constraints the effects of evil could be immediate and exponentially more harmful. Perhaps the material world is a kind of “quarantine state” that we have been placed in as a result of original sin.

Why not just stick to spirits, if spirits are more valuable than matter?

I am not clear that a necessary value judgement of “more valuable” attends to this idea. We exist in a material medium, why does that devalue the medium? Are animals more valuable than the air they breathe? The medium or environment may be value neutral even if animals, humans or spirits are important. I don’t see why “more valuable” is even applicable.

In fact, it is possible that all moral agents, including spiritual ones must abide in some kind of environment vis a vis God in order to relate to other beings and to God himself. The medium may just be a fact of existence and the kind of medium might vary with the kind of creature. We live in a material medium, spiritual beings might live in some kind of spiritual medium.

This supposition of a value that comes from beyond our material existence leads to all kinds of confusion and strangeness - the most obvious, of course, is the hierarchy of being established by most religions, with God at the top, human males next, and human females and other animals a distant third, then plants scarcely worth a mention over rocks (unless they’re precious stones, of course) at the bottom. Value judgements - most of them quite arbitrary, if seriously examined - are implicit in this hierarchy.

This is an error. Just because some, in the past, have made these kinds of implications about value hierarchy does not mean the implications are correct. The value judgements are not implicit. God as Being is Goodness itself and all created beings receive or derive their goodness as a share in God’s goodness. The hierarchy is not about some beings being more good than others. Beings may have different capacities, but that implies nothing about goodness.
A dog is not “more good” than a plant. Each has its own unique goodness as a unique being.
A human being may have capacities (rationality, free will, consciousness) that entail moral responsibilities and rights, but that does not mean a human as human is more good, in God’s eyes than a bird. Having different capacities may mean that killing a human being is a completely different kind of act than killing a bird because of the possible irreparable changes to the capacities that would ensue. Killing a human means killing a unique subjective individual, but a bird may not, in fact, be a subjective individual. That difference would make one an immoral act, but the other not. However, we could not say that a human is “better” than a bird. That would be making a category mistake, comparing apples to oranges, so to speak.

You still need to explain what “the ground of being” means, both in general (for a supernaturalist - for a naturalist, matter and energy are the “ground” or the basis of any and all beings, and this implies no value judgement whatsoever) and in the context of naming your God as the “ground” of being. What does that mean, exactly? I’m no Thomist, so a plain-speaking, layperson’s explanation will do just fine here. What are you actually talking about when you say that “God is the ground of being”? How would we know if it was so, or otherwise?

What is the nature of existence that is the condition that allows contingent beings like you or I to “be?” That is the ground of being. Neither matter nor energy could be the “ground” of being because existence is not an inherent or essential feature of these. Matter or energy simply could “not exist.” In fact, 13.7 billion years ago, they didn’t. So why did they begin to exist? What is the essential nature of “existence” that allows things that begin to exist to come into existence where they didn’t in a prior state or time? What is it about existence itself that allows “things” that exist to be? That potency to bring into being is the “ground of being.” That potency must have the “resources” that allow the things that do come into and go out of existence to do just that. If that potency has the resources to, minimally, bring into existence an entire universe from “nothing” then that potency must have unfathomable resources at its disposal.

How would we know if it was so, or otherwise?

Why do things exist? What has made that possible? The entire universe does not explain its own existence, so what does? What has the explanatory power to sufficiently cover why the universe in all its abundance and variegation is here? We know the universe is, so we know that whatever brought it into existence must have the resources to do so. That’s how we know. At least try to conceive what would be sufficient, not just to your brain, but in reality, to explain a universe.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So the question is what does the volitional aspect add (if anything at all) to the action which epitomizes “agape”? Let’s consider a simple scenario: “there is a traffic accident and a passer-by stops to help”. That is clearly a volitional act on behalf of someone else, so it qualifies as an act of “agape”. Now, who cares if that was a volitional act, or a “pre-programmed” one?

Agape has been, I think, best defined as “willing the good of the other person, as other.” The fact that “willing” the good defines what agape is, is clearly important as to whether the act qualifies as agape or not. A non-volitional or preprogrammed act is not agape precisely because it is not willed by the agent carrying out the act. It is not an act where the agent “wills” the good of the other as other.

The person who suffered the accident is happy for the help in either case. He would not care if the helper was “programmed” to help, or if he could have just walked on. The act of helping is what is important, and the “why” is completely irrelevant.

No, the act of helping was “good for” the recipient and important in that respect, but it is clearly not as important (according to the definition of agape) as an act done when the agent "wills the good of the other merely for their sake as other.”

If the person stopped from the goodness of his “heart”, or he stopped because he wanted to feel good about himself, or he secretly hoped (but never asked) for a reward, it makes no difference. So it turns out that “free will” is not important when it comes to “agape” either, and it does not play a role in the other kinds of “love” either.

You are clearly wrong here. The person is not demonstrating agape unless he is “willing the good of other as other.” So the free will of the agent in doing the “willing” is crucially important to the act being an act of agape.

In addition, it clearly makes a difference to other kinds of love, as well. You could not, clearly be in a romantic “relationship” with a robot. If you thought you were, you’d be mistaken. A relationship involves the participation of two individuals who freely will the good of the other individual, as an “other” individual. Don’t be fooled by the word ‘romantic’ here. To be love and not merely emotional egoism or some form of narcissism, there must be a caring for the other as other and a will that desires the best for them, the “good” for them. In a sense, this is no different than agape, except for the physical intimacy that would attend in the case of romantic love.

There are some more “kinds” of love, when one “loves” certain foods, and does not love others, or loves certain kinds of music, but none of those are volitional choices. They are there or they are not there, and it does not matter either way.

To be honest, it sounds like you are reducing all kinds of love, including, agape and romantic love to this same kind of one way love, that merely means some kind of emotional state towards another being with no regard to who or what the other being actually is. By your definition love towards a person with volitional free will, consciousness, rationality, etc. would be no different, no more good, than “love” towards a robot. Sorry, I just don’t agree.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

…from previous

I think you need to have a look at, for example, Aristotle’s concept of “the good.” For the most part, his ideas about ethics have been subsumed into the Catholic understanding of ethics via Aquinas. For Aristotle, the good, is actualization of potential, a kind of fulfilling of the purpose of the kind of being in question. A hammer, for example, is good to the extent that it can carry out the functions of pounding nails. Humans are not the same category of beings as hammers. However, Aristotle, would say that a human being is “good” to the extent that it actualizes all its potential capacities or virtues. A good man would demonstrate full use of virtues of intellect, will, emotion, etc. Aristotle was quite explicit about the nature of virtues or powers of the soul (justice, temperance, courage, practical wisdom, etc.) that would characterize a soul as “good.” He developed the concept of the golden mean, where each virtue is a kind of middle point or moderation between two vices. Courage for example is the virtue between the extremes of timidity and brashness. The rational part of the soul, for Aristotle directs the choices using reason to develop, over time, the character of the individual. The character of the soul is the demonstrable incorporation of the virtues of the soul over a lifetime. Aristotle would assert that a human is only “good” or “happy” to the extent that all the virtues are developed and exhibited by the individual over time. A good society, Aristotle would argue, is one that most fully facilitates the development of human virtues for as many of its citizens as possible.

My argument to support volitional free will, in this context, is that volitional free will is precisely the “human making” property that Aristotle means when he speaks of the virtues or powers of the soul. It is the ability of human beings to make choices towards their own and others’ good. You can’t have a “good” human society without the good making property of volitional free will which is precisely what makes each of us human.

In order to develop volitional free will (i.e., the virtues of each soul) what is required is the possibility of exercising choices over time to develop virtues like courage, temperance, prudence, patience, practical wisdom, etc. The choices made on behalf of the soul’s virtues are precisely the exercising of those virtues that are required to develop and strengthen them. Just as increasing weight resistance is key to muscle strength, courageous choices in the face of challenging situations is what strengthens the virtue of courage. Where courage is never challenged because only safe and secure settings exist, courage will never thrive.

For Aristotle, the free volitional exercise of these virtues is precisely what the good is. A world where virtues are never freely exercised is a world of ethical couch potatoes, where “the good” is absent precisely because virtues are not actualized.

A world where robots and automatons simply carry out all the policies of a programmed good society is not a human society for the simple reason that the exercise of the virtues through volition is absent.

I don’t care if the good is always done to me, I care that there are human individuals who do their freely chosen level best to become fully human even if I have to suffer the fallout from their mistakes. Call me foolish but I prefer a world of volitionally free human beings, even with the potential of hurt or even harm, to one without the possibility of human freedom because all the good is programmed into preformed automatons.

 

[Trurl]

Peter Plato:

Agape has been, I think, best defined as “willing the good of the other person, as other.”

Definitions are arbitrary. You are now quibbling about “definitions”. Fine. Let’s take your definition, in that case the good actions which are “programmed” do not “qualify” as “agape”… so let’s call them with a different word… say: “apage” (from the phrase apage satanas ). So I am going to argue that “apage” is not just equal but even superior to “agape”. After all the outcome is the same; HOWEVER, one can count on the programmed behavior, while one cannot count on the actions of those who can choose to leave you in a mess. Just as you cannot count on lucky accidents (like a horse running by, or a lightning striking someone when they are about to shoot you). And safety, predictability are definitely “valued” by most people. (Yes, there are people who like to live on the “edge”, but this is not relevant here.)

Furthermore, what good is to merely “will good” to someone, and not DOING it? I can will all the good things in the world, but if I lack the wherewithal to carry out those “wishes” or I don’t carry them out, even if I could, it is irrelevant what I “will”. Conclusion: from the composite of “willing” and “acting” you cannot leave out the “acting”, because the “willing” by itself is just an impotent wishful thinking. However you can safely leave out the “willing” part, since the “acting” still performs the good.

Therefore the “apage” is definitely superior to “agape”.
Peter Plato:

In addition, it clearly makes a difference to other kinds of love, as well. You could not, clearly be in a romantic “relationship” with a robot.

Why not, if that “robot” is an adroid, who displays all the signs of “romantically” love you? I am very certain that people who feel uncomfortable in regular social encounters (extremely shy, for example) would welcome the “make-believe” world of “programmed love”. And one can definitely feel friendship toward a robot, “who”, or “which” will stick to your side, and come to your aid in the times of need.
Peter Plato:

If you thought you were, you’d be mistaken. A relationship involves the participation of two individuals who freely will the good of the other individual, as an “other” individual. Don’t be fooled by the word ‘romantic’ here. To be love and not merely emotional egoism or some form of narcissism, there must be a caring for the other as other and a will that desires the best for them, the “good” for them. In a sense, this is no different than agape, except for the physical intimacy that would attend in the case of romantic love.

The only thing I agree with that generic “love” can have many facets, but this is not relevant here. Just as there can be many different kinds of love, there can be many different kinds of “relationships”. Of course we are in the territory of science fiction here, but the books of Isaac Asimov describe these possibilities in excellent detail. I point to the novel: “The Caves of Steel” (the relationship between Eliah Bayley and R. Daneel Olivaw) and the “I Robot” series, where there is a romantic relationship, too.
Peter Plato:

For Aristotle, the good, is actualization of potential, a kind of fulfilling of the purpose of the kind of being in question… For Aristotle, the free volitional exercise of these virtues is precisely what the good is.

Really? So the fulfillment of the potential of a psychopath is “good”??? Come on, let’s get real.

Obviously there is nothing wrong to give freedom to do evil to those people, who will NOT do evil. If one is not about commit evil actions, it is perfectly fine to give him the freedom to do them. However to give freedom to those who will commit evil acts is ludicruous - if one has the knowledge beforehand. This is the reason we keep criminals in jail, to prevent them from exercising their free will, to keep them from committing more mayhem. Only an idiotic system would set free those people who are known to perform more evil acts. So the “touting” of free will as something good and valuable no matter what the outcome might be; is sheer nonsense. Free will of those who are about to do evil MUST be curtailed for the sake of the next possible victim(s).

No matter how the apologists try to whitewash reality by postulating that “there might be some unknown and greater goods from committing or allowing acts like the flood or the Holocaust - if only we were privy to them”, their feeble attempts are built on thin air. They have no facts to support their “arguments”, only blind, empty faith, without any actual (and factual) support.
Peter Plato:

I don’t care if the good is always done to me, I care that there are human individuals who do their freely chosen level best to become fully human even if I have to suffer the fallout from their mistakes. Call me foolish …

Let your wish be fulfilled. I AM calling you “foolish”. At the very least you are naive, if you think that the fallout will happen ONLY due to their “mistakes”. I venture to surmise that you have never been the victim of of some very cruel people, who enjoy the pain inflicted on others (no need to go into details about the nature of that pain). That is why you “prefer” the freedom of such people.
Peter Plato:

…but I prefer a world of volitionally free human beings, even with the potential of hurt or even harm, to one without the possibility of human freedom because all the good is programmed into preformed automatons.

And now you show the sign of being simplistic. Not being able to commit evil does not take away your freedom completely. It places limits on that freedom, for sure. But there is more than ample freedom remaining. And such humans would not be “automatons”, no matter how many times that nonsense is being repeated.

 

[Trurl]

Yup… dead in the water… what else is new?

 

[davidv]

Yup… dead in the water… what else is new?

Every newly baptised person. They are reborn as adopted children of God. Very new indeed!! Freed from the slavery of sin and grace filled to show agape as never before.