B
Bahman
Guest
We human with no doubt are rational beings. We can use our rationality to make good decisions. Having freedom of action however allows evil action. Does that mean that free will is a deficiency?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
GEddie
Guest
No, just a partial mirage.
ICXC NIKA
ICXC NIKA
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
Lack of morals is a deficiency, free will is an asset.
B
Beryllos
Guest
Most good things can be used for good or evil.
Good things with greater capacity to do good also have greater capacity to do evil.
Free will is one of those things.
Good things with greater capacity to do good also have greater capacity to do evil.
Free will is one of those things.
S
Solmyr
Guest
Correction: somewhat rational beings.We human with no doubt are rational beings.
Everyone speaks of this “free will” as if were some binary asset, either one has it or not. This is irrational. First, our freedom to act is always limited, even though we can wish, will, want or desire anything at all. Free will must incorporate the ability to act on that will, otherwise it is just pie in the sky.
The amount of freedom that a creator gives its creation is what needs to be examined. From the constructor’s point of view the amount of freedom must be contingent upon the goal of the created system. If one wishes to create a “clockwork”, then any amount of freedom is a bug. If one wishes to create a system with some freedom, then it needs to be examined, how much freedom is desirable.
Obviously, if the freedom can undermine the goal of the system, then it is too much freedom. An intelligent creator would give enough freedom so he does not need to micro-manage the system. But would prevent the freedom which would destroy the system itself or would prevent the system to live up to its expectation. And that limitation must be built into the system. To give the freedom which can lead to undesirable actions, and then issue “commandments” against it is the sign of a lazy, uncaring or incompetent creator.
Looking at the world as it is, there are two possibilities, 1) either the amount of freedom we enjoy is optimal, or 2) we have too much freedom to destroy.
If the first assumption is correct, then our ability to create mayhem is exactly what God wanted. If the second one is true, then our amount of freedom is a “bug”.
D
davidv
Guest
Freedom to act is not the same as free will. Free will is not constrained by restrictions on actions.Correction: somewhat rational beings.
Everyone speaks of this “free will” as if were some binary asset, either one has it or not. This is irrational. First, our freedom to act is always limited, even though we can wish, will, want or desire anything at all. Free will must incorporate the ability to act on that will, otherwise it is just pie in the sky.
The amount of freedom that a creator gives its creation is what needs to be examined. From the constructor’s point of view the amount of freedom must be contingent upon the goal of the created system. If one wishes to create a “clockwork”, then any amount of freedom is a bug. If one wishes to create a system with some freedom, then it needs to be examined, how much freedom is desirable.
Obviously, if the freedom can undermine the goal of the system, then it is too much freedom. An intelligent creator would give enough freedom so he does not need to micro-manage the system. But would prevent the freedom which would destroy the system itself or would prevent the system to live up to its expectation. And that limitation must be built into the system. To give the freedom which can lead to undesirable actions, and then issue “commandments” against it is the sign of a lazy, uncaring or incompetent creator.
Looking at the world as it is, there are two possibilities, 1) either the amount of freedom we enjoy is optimal, or 2) we have too much freedom to destroy.
If the first assumption is correct, then our ability to create mayhem is exactly what God wanted. If the second one is true, then our amount of freedom is a “bug”.
Your dichotomy does not follow as it is based on a equivocation of free will.
G
GEddie
Guest
And even free will is not absolute; our wanting is as conditioned as our thinking or acting. Perfect freedom is a mirage.
ICXC NIKA
ICXC NIKA
B
Bahman
Guest
What do you mean?No, just a partial mirage.
ICXC NIKA
B
Bahman
Guest
We as rational being can practice rationality to gain morality. What is the use of free will when it allows us to do evil?Lack of morals is a deficiency, free will is an asset.
B
Bahman
Guest
That is what free will allows, to do evil.Most good things can be used for good or evil.
Good things with greater capacity to do good also have greater capacity to do evil.
What do you mean?Free will is one of those things.
B
Bahman
Guest
Free will is not related to freedom of action since the first is related to choose an available option and the second is related to the constraints in our lives. Moreover I have no idea how your post is related to a correction in rationality.Correction: somewhat rational beings.
Everyone speaks of this “free will” as if were some binary asset, either one has it or not. This is irrational. First, our freedom to act is always limited, even though we can wish, will, want or desire anything at all. Free will must incorporate the ability to act on that will, otherwise it is just pie in the sky.
The amount of freedom that a creator gives its creation is what needs to be examined. From the constructor’s point of view the amount of freedom must be contingent upon the goal of the created system. If one wishes to create a “clockwork”, then any amount of freedom is a bug. If one wishes to create a system with some freedom, then it needs to be examined, how much freedom is desirable.
Obviously, if the freedom can undermine the goal of the system, then it is too much freedom. An intelligent creator would give enough freedom so he does not need to micro-manage the system. But would prevent the freedom which would destroy the system itself or would prevent the system to live up to its expectation. And that limitation must be built into the system. To give the freedom which can lead to undesirable actions, and then issue “commandments” against it is the sign of a lazy, uncaring or incompetent creator.
Looking at the world as it is, there are two possibilities, 1) either the amount of freedom we enjoy is optimal, or 2) we have too much freedom to destroy.
If the first assumption is correct, then our ability to create mayhem is exactly what God wanted. If the second one is true, then our amount of freedom is a “bug”.
S
Solmyr
Guest
Not equivocation, precise definition.Freedom to act is not the same as free will. Free will is not constrained by restrictions on actions.
Your dichotomy does not follow as it is based on a equivocation of free will.
If that is the case then the whole “free will defense” collapses. If only the “freedom of will” is important, but not the ability to act on that will, then God could safely prevent all the murders, rapes etc. since it would not affect the “will” of the would-be-perpetrator. I am sure the would-be-victims would welcome this solution.Free will is not related to freedom of action since the first is related to choose an available option and the second is related to the constraints in our lives.
You just contradicted yourself. Is the ability to act on that “will” important, or not? Can’t have both ways.That is what free will allows, to do evil.
B
Beryllos
Guest
What I mean is that free will brings about great good, which in God’s plan perhaps outweighs the evil.That is what free will allows, to do evil.
…
What do you mean?
You might as well have asked, in your OP, if human imagination is a deficiency, since it can be used for evil. Or what about hands? Hands can be used to carry out evil. Are hands evil, or a deficiency? Would humanity be more perfect if we did not have imagination, or hands?
No. God made us just as we must be, however imperfect.
B
Bahman
Guest
As it was said, free will is about choosing when options are available whereas freedom of will is about availability of options.If that is the case then the whole “free will defense” collapses. If only the “freedom of will” is important, but not the ability to act on that will, then God could safely prevent all the murders, rapes etc. since it would not affect the “will” of the would-be-perpetrator. I am sure the would-be-victims would welcome this solution.
That is not correct. We can have a set of options available, including evil. It is up to us to choose the option.You just contradicted yourself. Is the ability to act on that “will” important, or not? Can’t have both ways.
G
GEddie
Guest
Meaning that while we possess a measure of freedom, **perfect **freedom of will is a mirage.What do you mean?
ICXC NIKA
B
Bahman
Guest
That is not correct. Thats rationality which allows us to realize and perform Good. Quite oppositely free will allows us to do evil.What I mean is that free will brings about great good, which in God’s plan perhaps outweighs the evil.
That is free will that allows you to do different things. It is simply the source of your action.You might as well have asked, in your OP, if human imagination is a deficiency, since it can be used for evil. Or what about hands? Hands can be used to carry out evil. Are hands evil, or a deficiency? Would humanity be more perfect if we did not have imagination, or hands?
B
Beryllos
Guest
I think we are speaking different languages. In your language, free will seems to mean irrationality, and rationality can only perform good. In my language, free will means the ability to choose good, sometimes irrationally, or to choose evil, sometimes rationally.That is not correct. Thats rationality which allows us to realize and perform Good. Quite oppositely free will allows us to do evil.
B
Bahman
Guest
No, in my language we can always do Good being rational. Free will oppositely allows us to do evil. So what is the point of having free will if the ultimate Goal of Creation is to become perfectly Good.I think we are speaking different languages. In your language, free will seems to mean irrationality, and rationality can only perform good.
What is the point of having free will? It simply allows you to irrationally choose evil.In my language, free will means the ability to choose good, sometimes irrationally, or to choose evil, sometimes rationally.
D
davidv
Guest
You have been repeatedly been given the point of free will. Why are these reasons rejected without discussion?No, in my language we can always do Good being rational. Free will oppositely allows us to do evil. So what is the point of having free will if the ultimate Goal of Creation is to become perfectly Good.
What is the point of having free will? It simply allows you to irrationally choose evil.
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
Rationality tells you the old woman about to be hit by a car is very old and not worth risking your 25 year old self, with a bright future to jump out and push her to safety. Free will allows you to do it anyway and hope for a good outcome for both. I feel most of your arguments revolve around your grasp of english, many are quite good, but hard to understand.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.