Is there anything wrong with violating someone's will?

[fakename]

For instance, if I make someone do something by using overpowering fear, then is this wrong because it clouds their reason and therefore their humanity?

But how could it be wrong when involuntary things happen which are not wrong: sweating, sudden death, fear from a non-moral object (animals or objects), or very strong pleasures which also block one’s reasoning like (forgive me for the gross-out factor here) morning-sex or night-sex?

 

[ellzeena]

For instance, if I make someone do something by using overpowering fear, then is this wrong because it clouds their reason and therefore their humanity?

But how could it be wrong when involuntary things happen which are not wrong: sweating, sudden death, fear from a non-moral object (animals or objects), or very strong pleasures which also block one’s reasoning like (forgive me for the gross-out factor here) morning-sex or night-sex?

I’m unsure what exactly your question is but it’s frightening. “…if I make someone do something by using overpowering fear”…is that wrong? OF COURSE IT’S WRONG AND IT’S ALSO ILLEGAL. Such a person’s reason isn’t clouded, s/he is in terror, fear for their life or the lives of others. That person’s humanity isn’t “clouded”, yours is (if you are the perpetrator).

“Involuntary things” sweating is far from sudden death. Fear from a “non-moral object” what exactly is a non-moral object? A Bengal Tiger or Grizzly Bear with cubs are something to fear because of their natural instincts and high prey drive, normal for them. That does not make them “non-moral” it makes them creatures of God who live in a perverted world, turned aside from His will. If you force sex on your partner through FEAR rather than just plain love which does not “force” it, then you are raping that person.

I think you need a priest.

 

[Jenny35]

Yes, manipulation and coercion are wrong. The fact that you had to ask, and compare such things with involuntary bodily response (sweating) is disturbing. If that was your goal, congrats.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I’ll be honest, I don’t understand where your confusion comes in.

You seem to understand the difference between a moral actor and something that is not a moral actor. So presumably you would understand the difference between effects caused by moral actors and effects caused by things that are not moral actors.

For example, the body can starve to death due to its nature—in which case, no evil act has been committed. It is just nature.

Or, the body can starve to death because someone else stole that body’s food—in which case, an evil act has been committed.

 

[Truegrit]

God gives us free will…not coerced will. If you are of the age of reason…then you know the answer. If you are forcing someone to do your will…please stop. Even sex within a marriage, if forced or intimidated…is wrong. Your questions make me wonder…
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[fakename]

I’ll be honest, I don’t understand where your confusion comes in.

You seem to understand the difference between a moral actor and something that is not a moral actor. So presumably you would understand the difference between effects caused by moral actors and effects caused by things that are not moral actors.

For example, the body can starve to death due to its nature—in which case, no evil act has been committed. It is just nature.

Or, the body can starve to death because someone else stole that body’s food—in which case, an evil act has been committed.

What I was expressing was that death and sickness come often times from God and as such, is God doing wrong by overriding one’s will or by causing pain? Death is also against one’s will etc.

I’m actually trying to apply the idea that such coercion is wrong to the political sphere. For instance, is someone was to disagree with the law by saying “I don’t think this law is legitimate or that it makes sense so I will not follow it.” Would the state, be in its rights to coerce that person into following the rule through overpowering fear? Or would it have to respect the conscientious objection? That’s why I’m also interested in seeing how God would act since God’s governance of the universe should set a standard for how we govern.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I’m actually trying to apply the idea that such coercion is wrong to the political sphere. For instance, is someone was to disagree with the law by saying “I don’t think this law is legitimate or that it makes sense so I will not follow it.” Would the state, be in its rights to coerce that person into following the rule through overpowering fear?

Not in my opinion, but you have to be an anarchist like me to believe that. Not sure you want to go down that road.

 

[fakename]

What I was expressing was that death and sickness come often times from God and as such, is God doing wrong by overriding one’s will or by causing pain? Death is also against one’s will etc.

I’m actually trying to apply the idea that such coercion is wrong to the political sphere. For instance, is someone was to disagree with the law by saying “I don’t think this law is legitimate or that it makes sense so I will not follow it.” Would the state, be in its rights to coerce that person into following the rule through overpowering fear? Or would it have to respect the conscientious objection? That’s why I’m also interested in seeing how God would act since God’s governance of the universe should set a standard for how we govern.

Edit: “…that it makes no sense…” and “…that such coercion if wrong…”

 

[fakename]

Not in my opinion, but you have to be an anarchist like me to believe that. Not sure you want to go down that road.

I’ve been an “anarchist” (anarcho-capitalist or tory anarchist so I added " ") for a while but I always wanted to criticize this idea further since any idea worth the effort to believe is worth the effort to criticize.

What type of anarchist are you and why do you like that type? I’m not going to derail the thread; I believe that learning about your preferences could temporarily help me understand something about this whole coercion problem.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I’ve been an “anarchist” (anarcho-capitalist or tory anarchist so I added " ") for a while but I always wanted to criticize this idea further since any idea worth the effort to believe is worth the effort to criticize.

What type of anarchist are you and why do you like that type? I’m not going to derail the thread; I believe that learning about your preferences could temporarily help me understand something about this whole coercion problem.

Market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist, whichever term you would prefer to use.

 

[fakename]

Not in my opinion, but you have to be an anarchist like me to believe that. Not sure you want to go down that road.

I would also like to note, that psychological conditions like fear are sometimes a matter of “if you don’t mind, then it doesn’t matter”. So if an agent of the state says “pay your taxes or I’ll snap your neck” then if you are of a courageous temper, you might not be afraid but might dutifully carryout the payment. However you might also ask the agent “why do you need my money; I need it at least as much as far as I can tell?” So in this instance, since no one can be coerced both parties must try to give a reason as to why he should be entitled to his share of resources. I believe that in this case reason sits squarely on the shoulders of the taxed man and not the tax-collector however, I would admit that the tax-collector could be in the right at least sometimes. But the question basically devolves into “would you give your money at gunpoint to someone who protested that they had a good reason?” Perhaps sometimes but in the majority of cases perhaps not -after all, even an argument from authority would need to establish the legitimacy of a particular state’s authority re: the taxed individual and as we know, few individuals consider the state they live under to be truly legitimate.

 

[fakename]

Market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist, whichever term you would prefer to use.

In that case we are basically the same. Well, you can PM if you like to talk about market anarchist stuff or what not.

 

[fakename]

For instance, if I make someone do something by using overpowering fear, then is this wrong because it clouds their reason and therefore their humanity?

But how could it be wrong when involuntary things happen which are not wrong: sweating, sudden death, fear from a non-moral object (animals or objects), or very strong pleasures which also block one’s reasoning like (forgive me for the gross-out factor here) morning-sex or night-sex?

Okay, so I’m interested in this question still since I have not settled it.

Now, it’s true that a non-moral actor commits no evil however as I said before, wouldn’t God be committing evil by going against one’s will precisely as it is will (so for instance, when someone dies without foreknowing, or when anything happens to anyone w/o their foreknowledge).

 

[thistle]

Okay, so I’m interested in this question still since I have not settled it.

Now, it’s true that a non-moral actor commits no evil however as I said before, wouldn’t God be committing evil by going against one’s will precisely as it is will (so for instance, when someone dies without foreknowing, or when anything happens to anyone w/o their foreknowledge).

God cannot do evil! Even you must realise that!

As for the rest of your sentence it is incoherent. Can you please make it clear what you are trying to say?

 

[fakename]

God cannot do evil! Even you must realise that!

As for the rest of your sentence it is incoherent. Can you please make it clear what you are trying to say?

He would be evil if violating the will was evil since God does seem to violate people’s will all the time. And by a “violation of the will” I don’t mean the violation of any will considered as particular thought like “I will to get ice cream” but rather I mean the operation of willing itself so for instance, any surprise directly contradicts the will in that it cannot be predicted or adapted to ex ante by willing it.

 

[St_Stoli]

He would be evil if violating the will was evil since God does seem to violate people’s will all the time. And by a “violation of the will” I don’t mean the violation of any will considered as particular thought like “I will to get ice cream” but rather I mean the operation of willing itself so for instance, any surprise directly contradicts the will in that it cannot be predicted or adapted to ex ante by willing it.

God has given us ‘free will’ to do the things we want to. It is up to us as to whether those things have good or bad intentions.

Do you have examples of when God is violating our will? I am not understanding the direction you are trying to go in.

 

[thistle]

He would be evil if violating the will was evil since God does seem to violate people’s will all the time. And by a “violation of the will” I don’t mean the violation of any will considered as particular thought like “I will to get ice cream” but rather I mean the operation of willing itself so for instance, any surprise directly contradicts the will in that it cannot be predicted or adapted to ex ante by willing it.

You are still making no sense.

God is not evil and cannot do evil.
God gave us free will and does not violate that free will.

I am under the impression (correct me if I misunderstand you) that you mistakenly think that foreknowledge is a violation of free will which of course it is not.

 

[fakename]

You are still making no sense.

God is not evil and cannot do evil.
God gave us free will and does not violate that free will.

I am under the impression (correct me if I misunderstand you) that you mistakenly think that foreknowledge is a violation of free will which of course it is not.

I’m saying that will is soul and has greater importance than the mere needs of the body. The soul is rational, and therefore anything sub-rational is contrary to the will and whatever disrupts the will is sub-rational. Disruptions of the will (like surprise, strong emotions, unpredictable occurrences, mental instabilities e.g. as those brought about by drugs) are always evil because these are disruptions of the soul and of the most valuable part of man, indeed, of that part which most makes a man a man.

If this is all true then it seems God is evil for causing unpredictable occurrences or for causing mental destabilization which are both evils against the very nature of man.

 

[thistle]

I’m saying that will is soul and has greater importance than the mere needs of the body. The soul is rational, and therefore anything sub-rational is contrary to the will and whatever disrupts the will is sub-rational. Disruptions of the will (like surprise, strong emotions, unpredictable occurrences, mental instabilities e.g. as those brought about by drugs) are always evil because these are disruptions of the soul and of the most valuable part of man, indeed, of that part which most makes a man a man.

If this is all true then it seems God is evil for causing unpredictable occurrences or for causing mental destabilization which are both evils against the very nature of man.

Why is mental impairment evil and a violation of freewill? That doesn’t make sense.

 

[Catholic80]

I’m saying that will is soul and has greater importance than the mere needs of the body. The soul is rational, and therefore anything sub-rational is contrary to the will and whatever disrupts the will is sub-rational. Disruptions of the will (like surprise, strong emotions, unpredictable occurrences, mental instabilities e.g. as those brought about by drugs) are always evil because these are disruptions of the soul and of the most valuable part of man, indeed, of that part which most makes a man a man.

If this is all true then it seems God is evil for causing unpredictable occurrences or for causing mental destabilization which are both evils against the very nature of man.

Are you on some sort of quest to prove that God is evil?

What you really are asking is the age-old question: Why is there suffering? And to answer your question if God is evil or not, just look at what Christ did:

Imagine the ocean… and the ocean is God. All of humanity from the beginning of mankind to the end are but one drop in the vast ocean of God. All we know, fathom, reason, are, etc. are but one drop in that vast ocean.

God created Man in a perfect world - there was no suffering, no evil, everything was perfect. God did not bring suffering to Man. Man brought suffering to Man. Our suffering is a natural consequence. Our suffering is actually a HUGE sign of God’s mercy. If we did not suffer here on earth, we would all go directly to hell.

So let’s look at what Christ did. If God is so evil, why would He choose to voluntarily suffer? He sent His only Son to suffer more than any human has ever and will suffer, and die the most painful death. That doesn’t sound like a vindictive and malevolent God to me.

Now, since He sent His Son, we can reason with logic that only a loving God would do this. A malevolent God would send us to hell and be done with it. So why did God, who didn’t need to suffer, chose to suffer in the greatest way possible, if He didn’t need to???

Remember, He is God, and just as He is infinitely more vast than we are, His suffering was infinitely more vast than our suffering. Christ’s death was more painful than ANYTHING we could even begin to fathom. He took on the sins of ALL of mankind for all of history and the future. We suffer our own sins and those of the world around us for only our short lifespan.

God never, and I repeat, never violates our free will. God never coerces one to sin. He allows us to be tempted only if it can bring about a greater good… a greater strength and greater love in us. **There is no victory without a battle. **

At the same time, God is infinitely merciful and compassionate towards our weaknesses. He is not judging us at all if we fall in a moment of weakness. Just look how he was towards Mary Magdalene, the Woman at the Well, the Tax collectors, and the Apostles. He was kind and gentle to them, and he reproached them when necessary - all for love.

I think you do not believe you are loved, and you are trying to justify sin by blaming God for your temptations. If you sinned, confess it! It’s really that simple. If you fell in a moment of weakness, God is not nearly as offended by that as He is by your lack of trust in His Mercy (read the Diary of St. Faustina)

I also HIGHLY recommend “Trustful Surrender to the Divine Providence.” It’s a very small book, and I think it will answer a lot of your questions.