F
fakename
Guest
I want to know how to distinguish the involuntary from the voluntary.
Now it seems that things are voluntary (or not-coercive) if you more or less subconsciously think “I command myself to do this”.
So even some things done out of fear or out of pleasure are voluntary as long as you and to the extent that you can, command yourself to do them.
Now, we are not to forcibly convert people to the Catholic faith and yet, on my view of what is voluntary, wouldn’t such a forced conversion be considered voluntary just as grudgingly doing anything is voluntary (paying taxes, submitting to rules, etc.)? And yet these are licit uses of force that does not infringe on free will.
Perhaps it is not the voluntariness which forces our tolerance on the matter but rather, it is the fact that these people lie outside of Catholicism as opposed to heretics. For heretics made a promise which they should be forced to keep as one should when he makes a promise.
Yet this only pushes the problem back further because the problem of coercion applies just as much to the heretic and we would be essentially enslaving his will to ours by our over-zealous application of force.
Likewise, we must ask a related question: If I do something not because I want to but because I fear the consequences, then am I really doing that thing at all and am I doing it voluntarily?
Am I really respecting a king because I fear him and I find that outward shows of respect make me safer? And if I am not, then much less can I be said to be voluntarily respecting the king.
Perhaps this all depends on hair-splitting. In cases where the king simply wants a show of outward respect, then I am voluntarily rendering outward respect though it be done out of fear (providing the fear is not too strong). But if the king wants sincere respect from approbation, then I am not voluntarily giving it since I am not actually giving it at all except in the metaphorical sense of putting on an outward show.
Thoughts?
Now it seems that things are voluntary (or not-coercive) if you more or less subconsciously think “I command myself to do this”.
So even some things done out of fear or out of pleasure are voluntary as long as you and to the extent that you can, command yourself to do them.
Now, we are not to forcibly convert people to the Catholic faith and yet, on my view of what is voluntary, wouldn’t such a forced conversion be considered voluntary just as grudgingly doing anything is voluntary (paying taxes, submitting to rules, etc.)? And yet these are licit uses of force that does not infringe on free will.
Perhaps it is not the voluntariness which forces our tolerance on the matter but rather, it is the fact that these people lie outside of Catholicism as opposed to heretics. For heretics made a promise which they should be forced to keep as one should when he makes a promise.
Yet this only pushes the problem back further because the problem of coercion applies just as much to the heretic and we would be essentially enslaving his will to ours by our over-zealous application of force.
Likewise, we must ask a related question: If I do something not because I want to but because I fear the consequences, then am I really doing that thing at all and am I doing it voluntarily?
Am I really respecting a king because I fear him and I find that outward shows of respect make me safer? And if I am not, then much less can I be said to be voluntarily respecting the king.
Perhaps this all depends on hair-splitting. In cases where the king simply wants a show of outward respect, then I am voluntarily rendering outward respect though it be done out of fear (providing the fear is not too strong). But if the king wants sincere respect from approbation, then I am not voluntarily giving it since I am not actually giving it at all except in the metaphorical sense of putting on an outward show.
Thoughts?