Freedom of Will Vs. Freedom of Action

[Biedrik]

So, this is an issue that I have frequently come across when discussing free will, especially with Calvinists. Whenever I argue that humans have free will, people frequently counter my opinion with a statement such as “You do not have free will because you cannot truly do whatever you want. You cannot fly, nor can you simply be rich because you want to. Therefore, you have no free will.” As I mentioned, Calvinists are some of the people who I discuss this with. They give a modified version of this point of view by saying “You do not free will because you cannot defy the will of God. If you want to go out and kill someone, but God does not wish for that to happen, then events will transpire so that you cannot kill that person. Therefore, you have no free will.”

In response to this, I say that there is a distinction between freedom of will, and freedom of action. I say that just because you cannot do something, it does not mean you are not willing it. For example, currently I am willing that my keyboard float into the air. It of course, is not doing what I am willing it to do. Yet I can still will for it to do this. I can still think to myself that I want the keyboard to float. Therefore, my will is free, but the extent of it is not. Therefore I don’t have freedom of action.

The usual counter-argument that I hear to this is that freedom of will and action are inseparable, so if you do not have one, you do not have the other. I myself am curious as to what people here think about this idea. I doubt that what I have suggested is a new idea, so I wonder, does anyone know if what I have just stated exists under some other name? And where?

’

 

[JohnDamian]

The free will and free praxis are seperate through a real distinction.

That is to say, the individual free will can exist seperately from the individual free praxis, however the free praxis cannot exist independantly of the free will. For, the will is prior to the praxis.

Nonetheless, the free will obstructed in it’s material act is a possibility of the oppressed or constrained praxis, that is to say; what can be willed cannot always be done. Yet, what can be done can always be willed.

“You do not free will because you cannot defy the will of God. If you want to go out and kill someone, but God does not wish for that to happen, then events will transpire so that you cannot kill that person. Therefore, you have no free will.”

This is a misunderstanding by Calvinists. One has free will in that one can will that one defies God, but the act of the individual to actualise that disposition is only potential in the light of God’s aquiescence. That is to say, I could will opposed to God; but could only act out my will if God allowed it.

Furthermore, despite the priority of my will over intellection and praxis (which are it’s posteriors), the primacy of God is such that were he to will it so that the wills of lessers were to be not free - this is possible. However, this would entail a contradiction with his quiddical goodness - therein; God, as his quiddity is Good cannot will that the wills of lessers are constrained by his will or praxis; even if the praxis of lessers is to be constrained.

To give an example; we are free to choose to will ourselves against God, but only through his permissance of our will’s freedom. Yet, we cannot always manifest our will in actions against the will of God; which permits by it’s quiddity our freedom. Nonetheless, in the same way that our praxis cannot occur in absence of volition, our free volition cannot occur without God’s.

 

[jpbathon]

“You do not free will because you cannot defy the will of God. If you want to go out and kill someone, but God does not wish for that to happen, then events will transpire so that you cannot kill that person. Therefore, you have no free will.”

’

Would God will an innocent person’s murder? I find it hard to believe that in his infinite Love, Mercy, and Compassion he would will such a thing. Therefore, by by the fact that innocent people are murdered all the time, I find that this statement has a fundamental flaw. Let me explain. By the same reasoning, if I wished to go out and kill someone, and I am able to, God’s will must have aligned itself with mine, otherwise I would not have been able to commit the murder. In that case, God would have willed an innocent person’s murder. If God wouldn’t will an innocent person’s murder, yet I willed it and completed the task, then God’s will and my will MUST have been able to differ. Thus, I must have my own free will that can act contrary to God’s will.

 

[Gloria1]

In my opinion, ‘will’ without the power to execute is ‘half dead’. The same way faith without action is dead. In my opinion, Humans have free will but our freedom to make decisions is limited in the sense that we depend on the laws of nature. You wish you could fly but the law of gravity doesn’t permit you to fly freely here on earth without a propeller. You may have the power to think freely but if you don’t have the power to execute or carry out what you plan on doing then your free will is ‘half dead’.