One final time: freedom of will does NOT logically lead to evil actions

[Chiral]

So you’re discussing what the nature of free will would be if there is objective morality, but God could create a world without sin. I may still be wrong. “Why do we have free will?” is a pointless question because if you’re assuming God in this scenario, we can’t possibly know why.

It sounds like you’ve got it right, but to some degree we indeed can know why a God might create beings with free will: one way is if you take Biblical scripture as inspired (I do not demand this, merely suggest it, which is why I quoted a few verses back among my posts). I’ll leave off that for now, as Scripture is more contentious in this discussion, but the question is certainly not pointless - if there is a God, it is certainly possible that He could make Himself accessible to us…

…God creating objective morality, and at the same time creating a world without sin is basically a contradiction, because if you do not have objective morality, you do not have sin, because objective morality is a pre-requisite of sin. Likewise, if you do not have sin, a standard to judge, then the morality created by God is meaningless and pointless (as far as God is concerned). As I’ll mention again, it does not make our human morality insignificant.

:thumbsup:I share your view on the theist position, it is precisely what we are elucidating. As to the significance of human morality without an objective standard… that seems fishy to me, but perhaps you can elucidate this opinion later?

Spock - I’ll answer you post later today (although someone may beat me to it)…

 

[Spock]

So you’re discussing what the nature of free will would be if there is objective morality, but God could create a world without sin. I may still be wrong. “Why do we have free will?” is a pointless question because if you’re assuming God in this scenario, we can’t possibly know why.

The question is “**What **is free will?”, not “**Why **is there free will?”

But I did cover this in an earlier post. God creating objective morality, and at the same time creating a world without **sin **

is basically a contradiction, because if you do not have objective morality, you do not have sin, because objective morality is a pre-requisite of sin. Likewise, if you do not have sin, a standard to judge, then the morality created by God is meaningless and pointless (as far as God is concerned). As I’ll mention again, it does not make our human morality insignificant.

:thumbsup:I share your view on the theist position, it is precisely what we are elucidating. As to the significance of human morality without an objective standard… that seems fishy to me, but perhaps you can elucidate this opinion later?

Let’s not drag “sin” into the picture. We are talking about possible world without human evil. Sin is a predominantly Christian concept, and some actions which are deemed “sinful” are definitely not “evil”. This conversaton is complicated enough already.

Spock - I’ll answer you post later today (although someone may beat me to it)…

Sure, no hurry.

 

[Chiral]

I differ. Here is the analysis cut to the bare bones:

1. Mary has the ability to decide to kill White.
2. Mary has the ability to actually kill White.
3. Mary has the ability to decide not to kill White.
4. As soon as she attempts to put her “will” into action, she is prevented from doing it.

1a) The voter has the ability to vote for the candidate.
2a) The voter has the ability to actually vote for the candidate.
3a) The voter has the ability decide not to vote for the candidate.
4a) As soon as he attempts to his “will” into action, he is prevented from doing it.

Where is the difference? The only difference is that Mary’s device directly tampers with her decision making process, while the voter’s brain is not tampered with, rather he is physically unable to put his wish into action. In a sense, the voter’s locus of control is less “influenced”, yet the result is the same.

The difference I see is that Mary loses LOC regarding the outcome of her decisions upon choosing one specific path, whereas the voters never have the LOC regarding the outcome of the election - #2a & 4a are wrong. The election is a scam, the vote-counters don’t report actual results, those who voted “Yes” did not influence the true LOC any more than those who left their ballots blank. The voters are each their own LOC regarding how they cast their ballots - actual PAP - but they are irrelevant to the outcome - no PAP or LOC. Mary ontheotherhand is the agent whereby the outcome is effected and so she is very relevant. Mary only loses her freedom as LOC regarding the outcome under a specific condition, the voters never have it.

Chiral: “I assume you institute actual to differentiate from perceived? I would counter that actual and perceived have more bearing on the LOC…”

If one is able to imagine (or perceive) a specific goal, but is unable to obtain it, then the situation is irrelevant.

If an agent has the inherent potential to achieve a goal but an external force seizes the power of determination from the agent, the agent loses LOC in that instant and the external force acquires it - the situation is relevant…like the firing-pin example.

Chiral: “Your #0 is irrelevant if the agent is the LOC – aim only matters with respect to moral judgment. Ability to follow a particular path is also irrelevant if the agent is the LOC – you cannot be the LOC if you are unable to effect your choice.”

So, if you cannot carry out your “will”, then you do not have the control over it. Acceptable. The #0 is somewhat “superfluous”, but still necessary. If one has no aim, no desire, then one cannot strive to achieve it. In that sense, trivial it may be, but #0 is important to mention.

What I mean is, if you cannot carry out your will, you are not the LOC with regard to outward manifestation… but I certainly concede you are right #0 is necessary. Without aim we could be speaking of inanimate objects like the ball rolling down the ramp. I am with you here.:yup:
Spock;5577563:

Of course the parent is unable to make the “brainwashing” process “foolproof”. So you say that this “failure” is what keeps free will around? Do you assert that a genuinely good person, whose upbringing makes it “impossible” to perform an evil act (say: murdering someone) is just a “puppet” of his upbringing?
He is still the locus of decision, he knows that murdering someone is one of his options, he even has the wherewithal to carry it out, but he simply does not want to do it. Does this makes him a “puppet”? I don’t think so.

This may be an issue of your use of “impossible”. If someone, regardless of their upbringing, cannot possibly perform an evil act, then YES they are a puppet - to repeat:

…instillation of compulsory, irresistible

desires does indeed constitute removal of LOC from the agent. He can instill the irresistible desires himself and become his own sort of puppet (self-hypnosis?) and maintain LOC… But if the instillation is from a source not identical with himself, even if he is programed to not realize that his compulsion is irresistible (does a puppet always know that it is a puppet?), the impossibility of his acting otherwise negates his being LOC, negates his free will. He will no longer be the operative force behind his decisions, the arbiter.
However, if his upbringing makes it highly improbable that he will sin, his free will still remains intact though heavily influenced (and I would not be opposed to such influence). So, “improbable” vs “impossible”?

 

[Spock]

The difference I see is that Mary loses LOC regarding the outcome of her decisions upon choosing one specific path, whereas the voters never have the LOC regarding the outcome of the election - #2a & 4a are wrong. The election is a scam, the vote-counters don’t report actual results, those who voted “Yes” did not influence the true LOC any more than those who left their ballots blank. The voters are each their own LOC regarding how they cast their ballots - actual PAP - but they are irrelevant to the outcome - no PAP or LOC. Mary ontheotherhand is the agent whereby the outcome is effected and so she is very relevant. Mary only loses her freedom as LOC regarding the outcome under a specific condition, the voters never have it.

Are we talking about the same glass of water, and one of us says: “it is half empty” and the other says: “it is half full”? To wit: if the majority of the people actually votes yes (out of inner conviction) then the vote is legitimate - regardless of the fact that it was “rigged”. That is why I feel that the parallel is good. Not that it really matters. I simply wanted to come up with a scenario which does not assume a science-fiction type of setup, which exists in reality. Let’s not forget, that Mary’s device is just as external to herself as the invalid ballot-count.

“Your #0 is irrelevant if the agent is the LOC – aim only matters with respect to moral judgment. Ability to follow a particular path is also irrelevant if the agent is the LOC – you cannot be the LOC if you are unable to effect your choice.”

What I mean is, if you cannot carry out your will, you are not the LOC with regard to outward manifestation… but I certainly concede you are right #0 is necessary. Without aim we could be speaking of inanimate objects like the ball rolling down the ramp. I am with you here.:yup:

Agreed.

This may be an issue of your use of “impossible”. If someone, regardless of their upbringing, cannot possibly perform an evil act, then YES they are a puppet - to repeat: He can instill the irresistible desires himself and become his own sort of puppet (self-hypnosis?) and maintain LOC… But if the instillation is from a source not identical with himself, even if he is programed to not realize that his compulsion is irresistible (does a puppet always know that it is a puppet?), the impossibility of his acting otherwise negates his being LOC, negates his free will. He will no longer be the operative force behind his decisions, the arbiter.

However, if his upbringing makes it highly improbable that he will sin, his free will still remains intact though heavily influenced (and I would not be opposed to such influence). So, “improbable” vs “impossible”?

It is not the “impossible” which I find relevant, it is the lack of desire. Actual example is myself. I was taught that stealing is wrong. There were many instances when a cashier erred in my favor, and wanted to give back more money than she should have. I had time to reflect, and decided that I will not accept it, rather spoke up and gave the extra money back. Do you really think that I acted as a “puppet” due to my upbringing? I had the opportunity to steal (unpunished) and decided against it. Did I exercise LOC, or was I acting as a puppet, who has no choice? That is a very important point.

 

[Chiral]

Are we talking about the same glass of water, and one of us says: “it is half empty” and the other says: “it is half full”? To wit: if the majority of the people actually votes yes (out of inner conviction) then the vote is legitimate - regardless of the fact that it was “rigged”. That is why I feel that the parallel is good… Let’s not forget, that Mary’s device is just as external to herself as the invalid ballot-count.

Ahh, I misunderstood your interpretation of the election - you would have the ballots actually counted first such that the candidate could possibly win a free election! I assumed the election was rigged to begin with, that the counting was irrelevant so the voters never possessed LOC with regard to the outcome. You would have the voters maintain LOC until the legitimate results were determined and only then have the LOC snatched away if the results did not comply with victory for the candidate - thus paralleling Mary’s case. In both cases, discerning PAP with regard to LOC reveals who is free when, and to what extent.

It is not the “impossible” which I find relevant, it is the lack of desire. Actual example is myself. I was taught that stealing is wrong. There were many instances when a cashier erred in my favor, and wanted to give back more money than she should have. I had time to reflect, and decided that I will not accept it… Do you really think that I acted as a “puppet” due to my upbringing? I had the opportunity to steal (unpunished) and decided against it. Did I exercise LOC, or was I acting as a puppet, who has no choice? That is a very important point.

“Lack of desire” is fishy territory, for it gets into the motivations behind choices.
Are desires the only forces compelling action of the will? If so, do not desires determine our particular choices and actions entirely? And do not desires originate from a source not identical with the choosing agent? If there is no intrinsic (to the agent) arbitrating force between competing desires, then the pre-established (and externally instilled) “strongest” desire always wins out, destroying “free will” - just like a card-game of WAR is pre-determined once the cards are shuffled.
I personally find the notion that there exists an agent-intrinsic arbitrating force compelling - I do not feel that I am slave to my desires - thus I believe in free will. However, I am willing to accept the position that competing desires are the motivating force behind decision-making, just not that they are the extent of the decision-making process. Thus, if one makes a choice, one has weighed the various competing desires, however weak or strong, and this means that the desire was in some way “present” although perhaps insignificantly or its presence was lost beneath the magnificent weight of some other desire.
Am i losing you? What I mean is, in your scenario of returning excess change, the desire to keep the money was present, but your (successful) upbringing raised the value of the competing desires such that your decision was an easy one. You maintained LOC because you could have kept the money - it would not have been impossible for you. You may feel that you entirely lacked the desire, and you may claim that this was due entirely to your upbringing, but I would guess that your knowledge and strength of will are sufficient to override such indoctrination, but your desire to maintain the principles is stronger than any rebellious desire to shake them off, even for greed. To wit: you may have desired to keep the money but desired more to remain honest, and the two were incompatible. Your choice was only circumstantially between “keep the money”/“do not keep the money”; the pith of you decision was honesty vs dishonesty.
In other cases, “lack of desire” may be due to ignorance, but ignorance alters the subject matter of the choice (PAP). One can successfully avoid desiring something if one remains blissfully ignorant of it, but such ignorance also prevents one from ever choosing it or its specific antithesis. (tangent?)
Some ultra-liberals I’ve met maintain that any indoctrination, including the withholding of information from an individual other than oneself is intrinsically wrong because such influences act as strings, evermore binding a free being into a puppet of his/her upbringing, such that free will is diminished. There are so many logical and empirical arguments against this, however, that it needn’t be further entertained.

Conclusion: 1) you are not a puppet if you can possibly choose otherwise (PAP) 2) I need to be more succinct

 

[Spock]

Ahh, I misunderstood your interpretation of the election - you would have the ballots actually counted first such that the candidate could possibly win a free election! I assumed the election was rigged to begin with, that the counting was irrelevant so the voters never possessed LOC with regard to the outcome. You would have the voters maintain LOC until the legitimate results were determined and only then have the LOC snatched away if the results did not comply with victory for the candidate - thus paralleling Mary’s case. In both cases, discerning PAP with regard to LOC reveals who is free when, and to what extent.

Yes, we have complete agreement.

“Lack of desire” is fishy territory, for it gets into the motivations behind choices.
Are desires the only forces compelling action of the will? If so, do not desires determine our particular choices and actions entirely? And do not desires originate from a source not identical with the choosing agent? If there is no intrinsic (to the agent) arbitrating force between competing desires, then the pre-established (and externally instilled) “strongest” desire always wins out, destroying “free will” - just like a card-game of WAR is pre-determined once the cards are shuffled.

I personally find the notion that there exists an agent-intrinsic arbitrating force compelling - I do not feel that I am slave to my desires - thus I believe in free will. However, I am willing to accept the position that competing desires are the motivating force behind decision-making, just not that they are the extent of the decision-making process. Thus, if one makes a choice, one has weighed the various competing desires, however weak or strong, and this means that the desire was in some way “present” although perhaps insignificantly or its presence was lost beneath the magnificent weight of some other desire.

Am i losing you? What I mean is, in your scenario of returning excess change, the desire to keep the money was present, but your (successful) upbringing raised the value of the competing desires such that your decision was an easy one. You maintained LOC because you could have kept the money - it would not have been impossible for you. You may feel that you entirely lacked the desire, and you may claim that this was due entirely to your upbringing, but I would guess that your knowledge and strength of will are sufficient to override such indoctrination, but your desire to maintain the principles is stronger than any rebellious desire to shake them off, even for greed. To wit: you may have desired to keep the money but desired more to remain honest, and the two were incompatible. Your choice was only circumstantially between “keep the money”/“do not keep the money”; the pith of you decision was honesty vs dishonesty.
In other cases, “lack of desire” may be due to ignorance, but ignorance alters the subject matter of the choice (PAP). One can successfully avoid desiring something if one remains blissfully ignorant of it, but such ignorance also prevents one from ever choosing it or its specific antithesis. (tangent?)

Some ultra-liberals I’ve met maintain that any indoctrination, including the withholding of information from an individual other than oneself is intrinsically wrong because such influences act as strings, evermore binding a free being into a puppet of his/her upbringing, such that free will is diminished. There are so many logical and empirical arguments against this, however, that it needn’t be further entertained.

Conclusion: 1) you are not a puppet if you can possibly choose otherwise (PAP) 2) I need to be more succinct

Again, your analysis is impeccable. Yes, we have conflicting desires, and our freedom to choose between them is influenced - but not determined - by our upbringing and our inherited characteristics. I don’t feel that we should go into the analysis of the nature vs. nurture. Both parts play their part in “what” we are.

The rest is just rambling. Fortunately I was never tempted to find out just how deep my upbringing goes. It is said that everyone has a price, everyone can be tempted to act against their inner discipline. Maybe it is true, I don’t know. But that reminded me of a good joke I read recently.

A man meets a beautiful woman and tells her: “Would you spend a night with me for a million dollars?”
The woman smiles and says: “Yes, I would”.
The man says: “How about for 50 dollars?”
The woman is outraged, and says: “What do you think I am?”
The man says: “We are already past that. Now we are only talking about the price!”

I hope you like it. (Side remark: would you mind inserting an empty line here and there into your posts? It is easier to follow, when the text is broken up into paragraphs. Please forgive my rudeness. )

 

[Chiral]

…The rest is just rambling. Fortunately I was never tempted to find out just how deep my upbringing goes. It is said that everyone has a price, everyone can be tempted to act against their inner discipline. Maybe it is true, I don’t know. But that reminded me of a good joke I read recently.
A man meets a beautiful woman and tells her: “Would you spend a night with me for a million dollars?”
The woman smiles and says: “Yes, I would”.
The man says: “How about for 50 dollars?”
The woman is outraged, and says: “What do you think I am?”
The man says: “We are already past that. Now we are only talking about the price!”
I hope you like it. (Side remark: would you mind inserting an empty line here and there into your posts? It is easier to follow, when the text is broken up into paragraphs. Please forgive my rudeness. )

Yes, rambling, my apologies - trying to skim the surface of various arguments without becoming immersed in them. And yes, i will try to break up my sentences into shorter paragraphs - my professors used to have the same complaint

That is a good joke! Reminds me of a pick-up line: “Are you free tonight? Or will it cost me?”

Back to the matter at hand.
As long as upbringing, indoctrination, influences from a source not identical with the agent, etc. do not irresistibly determine what choice an agent will make… How do you propose God could create free beings guaranteed to never sin (i.e. choose evil)?
Have we established a working understanding of “free will” yet? To me it seems that PAP and LOC at least must be maintained. That is, a free agent maintains the locus of causal control regarding a decision between alternate (at least antithetical) possibilities.

We agree that “free will” can exist in the absence (or ignorance) of morality, but not with regard to moral decisions, i.e. if one cannot possibly choose “evil” than neither can one choose “good” per PAP.

In case Hubriss is still following, I am not suggesting that freedom of will necessarily leads to evil actions or choices, I am simply wondering how one might suppose God (as posited in Judeo-Christian theology) could prevent it ever occurring without impinging on that freedom.

I posited earlier that the Judeo-Christian God created humans to Love - a free choice [Love vs Not-love] which necessitates morality. If we assume God to be omnibenevolent (which may be doubted), we can assume His love for His creatures is “unconditional”, meaning He loves them despite any evil they may choose. But an omnibenevolent being also desires what is “best” for His creatures, which would presumably include a lack of “evil” choices, yet their freedom to choose must not be impinged.
Without morality, could humanity achieve what is “best”, namely Love? Or would an omnibenevolent being snatch away LOC as the “good” scientist does to prevent Mary from killing White? To what extent must one have the ability to carry out one’s choices - how far must LOC extend?

 

[Hubriss]

I share your view on the theist position, it is precisely what we are elucidating. As to the significance of human morality without an objective standard… that seems fishy to me, but perhaps you can elucidate this opinion later?

Both believers and non-believers… believe… in “human morality” (or whatever you want to call it. I saw it called that in another post). This is the morality that we humans create for ourselves in our societies. This morality is derived from reason and is based upon our values ranging from the most basic and instinctual, to taught or learned values that have developed over time. I mentioned the significance of morality with or without God before. Of course logically, God-made morality would be far more significant than human morality because it is made into an objective standard that can possibly have a very complicated impact on reality (i.e. Heaven and Hell). If morality is only human made, its over-all significance is not that big, but it still has a meaningful impact on all of our lives, guiding or restricting how we live them.

As long as upbringing, indoctrination, influences from a source not identical with the agent, etc. do not irresistibly determine what choice an agent will make… How do you propose God could create free beings guaranteed to never sin (i.e. choose evil)?
Have we established a working understanding of “free will” yet? To me it seems that PAP and LOC at least must be maintained. That is, a free agent maintains the locus of causal control regarding a decision between alternate (at least antithetical) possibilities.

We agree that “free will” can exist in the absence (or ignorance) of morality, but not with regard to moral decisions, i.e. if one cannot possibly choose “evil” than neither can one choose “good” per PAP.

In case Hubriss is still following, I am not suggesting that freedom of will necessarily leads to evil actions or choices, I am simply wondering how one might suppose God (as posited in Judeo-Christian theology) could prevent it ever occurring without impinging on that freedom.

I posited earlier that the Judeo-Christian God created humans to Love - a free choice [Love vs Not-love] which necessitates morality. If we assume God to be omnibenevolent (which may be doubted), we can assume His love for His creatures is “unconditional”, meaning He loves them despite any evil they may choose. But an omnibenevolent being also desires what is “best” for His creatures, which would presumably include a lack of “evil” choices, yet their freedom to choose must not be impinged.
Without morality, could humanity achieve what is “best”, namely Love? Or would an omnibenevolent being snatch away LOC as the “good” scientist does to prevent Mary from killing White? To what extent must one have the ability to carry out one’s choices - how far must LOC extend?

How God can create free beings guranteed to never make sinful actions:

1. Not create a standard of morality.
2. Create a type of world in which all actions a “person” might find objectionable not possible. A world like this would be hugely different from our own. For example, make it impossible for us to kill each other while instead people always die from some force outside of anyone’s control. Killing each other could still be imaginable and considered bad, but not possible. However, there would still be morality, but they might be based more on our thoughts. This is no different than some sins Christians believe in today like coveting, worshipping other gods, etc. Half of the Ten Commandments seem to fall into a category of “thought crimes.”

About your comments on God and love. I do not think unconditional love is a good thing, never mind possible. UC love would mean the same amount of love for all people in the world. You cannot have UC love for just your brothers and sisters, parents, etc, because the condition is that they are your family. Unconditional love for a person dispite their actions is not a good thing for obvious reasons. If a person kills, steals, or lies it is in your and others’ best interest to stop them even if it means inflicting punishment, reducing freedoms, or even killing them in return.

This might digress. I think the first scenario I just gave is the most likely, and is the reality, but I would like to know what you think about the second scenario.

Night.

 

[Spock]

Back to the matter at hand.
As long as upbringing, indoctrination, influences from a source not identical with the agent, etc. do not irresistibly determine what choice an agent will make… How do you propose God could create free beings guaranteed to never sin (i.e. choose evil)?
Have we established a working understanding of “free will” yet? To me it seems that PAP and LOC at least must be maintained. That is, a free agent maintains the locus of causal control regarding a decision between alternate (at least antithetical) possibilities.

I loved your joke, too.

Yes, we have a lot of agreement to build upon. Especially on the question of free will. It makes perfect sense, that both PAP and LOC must be present in order to have a meaningful freedom.

We agree that “free will” can exist in the absence (or ignorance) of morality, but not with regard to moral decisions, i.e. if one cannot possibly choose “evil” than neither can one choose “good” per PAP.

In a sense, I agree. The “good” chosen will not be “morally good”, but nonetheless it will be “good” in a utilitarian sense.

In case Hubriss is still following, I am not suggesting that freedom of will necessarily leads to evil actions or choices, I am simply wondering how one might suppose God (as posited in Judeo-Christian theology) could prevent it ever occurring without impinging on that freedom.

I posited earlier that the Judeo-Christian God created humans to Love - a free choice [Love vs Not-love] which necessitates morality. If we assume God to be omnibenevolent (which may be doubted), we can assume His love for His creatures is “unconditional”, meaning He loves them despite any evil they may choose. But an omnibenevolent being also desires what is “best” for His creatures, which would presumably include a lack of “evil” choices, yet their freedom to choose must not be impinged.

Without morality, could humanity achieve what is “best”, namely Love? Or would an omnibenevolent being snatch away LOC as the “good” scientist does to prevent Mary from killing White? To what extent must one have the ability to carry out one’s choices - how far must LOC extend?

This is the question now to consider. Since Hubriss gave two scenarios (which I would have also given), let me offer a third one. I will build upon my own disposition concerning the actualization of “evil” choices.

It might be a problem to define just what constitutes an evil action. I know that Chatholics (generally) consider some “victimless crimes” as evil - for example an active homosexual relationship. In my book there is nothing evil about such activity - as a matter of fact it is the expression of love between two partners, who happen to be of the same gender. Since we must attempt to agree just what behavior is properly called evil, I will leave it to you to offer more challenges, what you would consider evil. I do not ask you to leave out something just because I might have a different opinion (like homosexuality). I want to conduct this conversation on your “playing field”.

I will start with the following (provisional) definition: “Evil is to actively causing harm or pain without a possible reason which would negate the effect of harm or pain - or, if there is a good reason to cause pain, then the pain caused must be absolutely minimal in order to achieve something compensatory ‘good’.” In other words, causing pain just for fun. In my eyes that is the pinnacle of evil actions.

How to solve it?

I offer my own example. I do not have the desire to commit such acts, no matter what. It does not mean that I cannot commit acts which intend to do harm, but never without very significant provocation. This is not particularly noteworthy, I would guess that the overwhelming majority of humans behave like that. The counter-example are the psychpaths and sociopaths, and there is some possibility that these humans have a physical brain-defect, which causes such behavior. So God could just cure these people, before they commit senseless torture, violence, rape or murder - or simply not create them at all. The rest of us does not have to be touched in any way, since we are already feel repulsion when contemplating such actions.

Yes, I would say that “love” can be achieved without evil. Love for me means some combination of goodwill, good actions, general respect, etc… The lack of these is not necessarily evil, it can be morally indifferent. There are a few people whom I do not love at all. Yet this lack of love does not indicate “hate”, or committing some actual “evil” actions. It is simply indifference. I would not commit something to cause these people harm, but I probably would also refrain from doing something “good” for them. I leave them alone, do not seek their company, and avoid them, when possible.

I would say that such indifference does not negate the positive love I feel for others. It is genuine love, manifested in actions.

Hubriss properly pointed out the “weird” notion of unconditional love. I agree with him that it would be irrational, if existed.

Please bring up as many problematic scenarios as you wish. I will attempt to give an answer - if I can.

 

[distracted]

For one final time I am going to show that it is possible to have a world, where there is free will and there are no evil choices. I am tired of seeing the nonsensical argument that there are only two possibilities, either having free will and actual evil choices, or dummies (or robots) who are preprogrammed to do everything “right”. The proof will be a mathematical one, unquestionable.

1. Let’s start with a very simple world, where there is one moral agent, who makes one decision. In that case there are two possible worlds, one, where the agent makes a moral choice (regardless of how moral is defined) and another one, where the agent makes an immoral choice. God can actualize either one of these worlds. Therefore there is one world with free will and no evil evil choices. For any mathematician, this is sufficient. To those of you who are not mathematicians, it seems like a trivial example, which does not correspond to the real world. Therefore I am going to spell it out.
2. Now let’s consider a world, with one moral agent, who makes many decisions. Let the number of decisions be “N”. In this case there are “N + 1” possible worlds, where the agent makes exactly 0, 1, 2, etc… all the way up to N morally upright decisons. God can actualize either one of these worlds, so he can actualize the world, where the agent makes “N” moral decisions - in other words, when all the decisions are morally proper. One can make the argument, that this world is also too simplistic. So, let us carry on.
3. The next possible scenario is when there are “M” moral agents in the world, and each of them makes exactly one decision. In this case there are “M + 1” possible worlds, where 0, 1, 2, etc… up to “M” moral choices are made. God can actualize any one of these worlds, so he can actualize the one where each moral agent makes a morally good choice. In this world we also have free will, no coersion, and no immoral choices. Just in case some of you still harbor doubts I will spell out the final scenario.
4. The final possible scenario is where there are “N” moral agents, and each of them makes “M” decisons. Both “N” and “M” can be any arbitrary number, so this scenario precisely reflects our current world. Since each agent makes “M” decisions, the number of possible worlds is “(N + 1)*(M + 1)”. Of these possible worlds there is one where each agent makes only moral decisions. In all the other ones at least one agent makes at least one immoral decision. God can also instantiate or actualize any one of these worlds, since none of them contains a logical contradiction.

Result: No matter how many moral agents are in a world, and no matter how many decisions are made, there is at least one possible world where all the agents make only morally upright decisions - while retaining their free will. God can actualize this world since it contains no logical contradiction.

This is a **mathematical **proof. It shows that the existence of free will does not logically lead to immoral decisions - therefore it does not lead to pain, misery and suffering. If God wanted to, he could have actualized this world. Ours is not that world. Why God chose not to actualize that world is none of my concern. But the fact is that he did not, even though he could have done it.

Case closed. The argument that freedom of action inevitably leads to immoral choices is null and void. Please do not use it again. Of course I am not naive to hope that all of you will read this post, or that those who read it can understand it. But be as it may, if anyone ever brings up the incorrect argument, I will only point them to this thread.

i don’t have to read this whole thing (or any of it??) to know you are wrong… and when i do try to read it, i don’t automatically get it so i figure …well, let’s put it this way… if a written document has to be so convoluted in its explanation of a certain belief, as this is… well, maybe that’s 'cause its not truth. I mean, if a child can’t understand it something is wrong. I am far from a child. Did i try to u/stand it? No… I didn’t read beyond the 1st sentence or 2… i didn’t like the wording. Maybe you could simplify?? I don’t have time to read long posts that i have to rack my brains to figure out what exactly it means…

All i know is that there IS evil and good and we DO have choice as to which way to go…

Has anyone ever done anything to you that you consider “evil”? anything you wish he hadn’t done???

then you will u/stand… hopefully.

 

[Spock]

i don’t have to read this whole thing (or any of it??) to know you are wrong… and when i do try to read it, i don’t automatically get it so i figure …well, let’s put it this way… if a written document has to be so convoluted in its explanation of a certain belief, as this is… well, maybe that’s 'cause its not truth. I mean, if a child can’t understand it something is wrong. I am far from a child. Did i try to u/stand it? No… I didn’t read beyond the 1st sentence or 2… i didn’t like the wording. Maybe you could simplify?? I don’t have time to read long posts that i have to rack my brains to figure out what exactly it means…

All i know is that there IS evil and good and we DO have choice as to which way to go…

Has anyone ever done anything to you that you consider “evil”? anything you wish he hadn’t done???

then you will u/stand… hopefully.

Don’t you just come these Johnny-come-latelies? You did not read the thread. You did not read even the opening post. You did not try to understand the opening post. You reject it, because it is complicated.

Well, there are things that are complicated. Calculus is complicated. Being complicated does not have any bearing whether it is true or false. Have a nice life, go back to your simple things, and ponder those. Some of us around here are interested in more complicated discussions.

 

[Chiral]

…Have a nice life, go back to your simple things, and ponder those. Some of us around here are interested in more complicated discussions.

Now now, be nice (i.e. charitable), and that goes for you as well, distracted - Spock’s suggestions are not misplaced.:tsktsk:

 

[Chiral]

… If morality is only human made, its over-all significance is not that big, but it still has a meaningful impact on all of our lives, guiding or restricting how we live them.

Thank you for explaining, I now entirely see what you mean.

How God can create free beings guaranteed to never make sinful actions:

1. Not create a standard of morality.
2. Create a type of world in which all actions a “person” might find objectionable not possible. …For example, make it impossible for us to kill each other while instead people always die from some force outside of anyone’s control. Killing each other could still be imaginable and considered bad, but not possible. However, there would still be morality, but they might be based more on our thoughts. This is no different than some sins Christians believe in today like coveting, worshipping other gods, etc. Half of the Ten Commandments seem to fall into a category of “thought crimes.”

1. This is problematic. The Christian understanding of God extracts morality directly from His nature, which is why it’s considered “objective”. God’s very existence would instantiate morality, it emanates from His essence – God is Love, God is Truth, etc. The Christian (or at least Catholic) idea of moral “good” and “bad” thus relates directly to God’s nature – “good” means closer to it, “bad” means further from it. Since God is considered a unified whole, Christians usually just talk about “good” and “bad” in relation to His Will – how closely a choice mirrors God’s will.
   In order to not impose this innate standard of morality on a creation, it seems to me that that creation must either:
   A - be ignorant of God/morality (and the level of ignorance correlates to the level of moral responsibility), but there is also a moral responsibility to defeat ignorance (“God is Truth”); or…
   B - not be free (PAP & LOC) in an otherwise moral-situation. “Invincible” ignorance could be considered a form of this slavery, so again the agents must lack freedom…
2. A quick digression regarding the Ten Commandments and “thought crimes” (I like the term, very 1984).
   1 – Worship only God
   2 – Don’t make and worship idols
   3 – Don’t misuse God’s name
   4 – Keep holy the Sabbath
   5 – Honor your parents
   6 – No murder
   7 – No adultery
   8 – No stealing
   9 – No false-witness against neighbor
   10 – No coveting
   Of these, all are “action”-related, referring to some willful demonstration of choice. In the Christian view, action completes will. Actions can be limited to simply “in one’s heart”, so long as the action is authentic, i.e. not merely a facade. Thus, murdering someone “in your heart” could be a “thought crime” for it involves intellectual activity of the will, e.g. deliberate fantasizing. But I think we’d agree that there is a difference in will between the “fantasizer” (who only mentally manifests his will) and the “actualizer” (who physically manifests his will), and that difference would likely be evinced in moral judgments.

Back to your scenario: I highlighted what I thought were pithy points – namely, removal of PAP and LOC from agents. You have demonstrated the distinction between “sin” as an evil choice whereby people are bound to morality, and physical events which do not, in themselves, carry “moral” weight. Is that a contentious claim, that physical events apart from free agents do not carry moral weight? If so, we must discuss that before proceeding.
In a world with only “thought crimes”, sinful action becomes the “thought” emanating from a will that has chosen evil. This does not solve the problem – the free beings can still commit evil acts and are not guaranteed to never sin. What it may solve is the issue of agent-mediated suffering: sin no longer affects anyone besides the sinner. What a very different world THAT would be! But would its denizens be more morally upright? Quite possibly just the opposite…
Alternatively the scenario is similar to the Mary vs White: Mary is truly free to not-kill White, but her freedom is revoked should she choose to kill him – loss of LOC. The result is that God cannot maintain both free-will and sinlessness – He will have to choose one over the other. Which do you think He will choose?

… on God and love. I do not think unconditional love is a good thing… … would mean the same amount of love for all people in the world. You cannot have UC love for just your brothers and sisters, parents, etc, because the condition is that they are your family. Unconditional love for a person despite their actions is not a good thing for obvious reasons. If a person kills, steals, or lies it is in your and others’ best interest to stop them even if it means inflicting punishment, reducing freedoms, or even killing them in return.

You are right that unconditional love would require one to love all people in the world, and I was not implying that you or I are capable of it, just that it is assumed in God. But I think you may be mistaking what else it entails.

(As a slight digression Have you ever heard of Mozi? , he was an ancient Chinese philosopher, among his central tenets was 兼愛, jiān ài – “impartial caring”, treating everyone as your family. Neat, huh?)

“Unconditional love” does not mean that love is manifest exactly the same for all people. When two people are sad, the most loving thing one can do for one is to offer a hug, while for the other it may be to give her space. A criminal requires a different dispensation of love v.s. an innocent. Punishment and restriction can be a form of love, can’t they? Even in the American justice system, we (hopefully) strive to do what is “best” and not merely what is expedient, and not just for our society but for also for the criminals, for they are part of our society which is made up of individuals. We are not a fascist state, nor are we Machiavellian. We have laws protecting law-breakers – how weird is that?

“Unconditional love” does not mean dispensing love exactly the same way for all people at all times, it means always desiring what is truly “best” for each individual person at each moment of his/her life. “Unconditional love” cannot be “bad”, otherwise desiring what is “best” would be desiring what is less good, a contradiction.

 

[Chiral]

…In a sense, I agree. The “good” chosen will not be “morally good”, but nonetheless it will be “good” in a utilitarian sense.

Well, that depends on utility, no? But we’re discussing morality, so I’ll leave that be.

…Since Hubriss gave two scenarios… let me offer a third one. I will build upon my own disposition concerning the actualization of “evil” choices.

It might be a problem to define just what constitutes an evil action. I know that Catholics (generally) consider some “victimless crimes” as evil - for example an active homosexual relationship… Since we must attempt to agree just what behavior is properly called evil, I will leave it to you to offer more challenges, what you would consider evil…

… (provisional) definition: “Evil is to actively causing harm or pain without a possible reason which would negate the effect of harm or pain - or, if there is a good reason to cause pain, then the pain caused must be absolutely minimal in order to achieve something compensatory ‘good’.” In other words, causing pain just for fun… is the pinnacle of evil actions.

How to solve it?

I offer my own example. I do not have the desire to commit such acts, no matter what. It does not mean that I cannot commit acts which intend to do harm, but never without very significant provocation… …The counter-example are the psychopaths and sociopaths… …God could just cure these people, before they commit senseless torture, violence, rape or murder - or simply not create them at all…

Yes, I would say that “love” can be achieved without evil. Love for me means some combination of goodwill, good actions, general respect, etc… The lack of these is not necessarily evil, it can be morally indifferent. There are a few people whom I do not love at all. Yet this lack of love does not indicate “hate”, or committing some actual “evil” actions. It is simply indifference. I would not commit something to cause these people harm, but I probably would also refrain from doing something “good” for them. I leave them alone, do not seek their company, and avoid them, when possible.

I would say that such indifference does not negate the positive love I feel for others. It is genuine love, manifested in actions…

To begin, Catholics do not regard sexual activity between same-sex partners “victimless”, nor are masturbation and gluttony considered “victimless”. The “victims” are those negatively affected (in an objective sense, with regard to the Good) in some way by the sinful action of the agent(s), even when the two are identical. Gluttony may be less contentious, so I hope you see what I mean at least there. I don’t want to go off into specific Catholic teachings regarding which behaviors are and are not “sins”, that would require an in-depth explanation of our Cathechism…

Your provisional definition strikes at the heart of the “Problem of Evil”. Your “evil” may be equated with “suffering”. To the Catholic, physical and mental suffering are not so much to be avoided as spiritual suffering, regarding the health of the “soul” (another plausible but perhaps unprovable assumption, sorry). If mental and physical anguish are necessary to salvage or strengthen the health of the “soul”, then ultimately that suffering is “good” for the individual. Such suffering is not really good or evil in itself, rather what free beings choose based upon the experience of suffering is where “good” and “evil” come in. The lives (or legends) of Catholic saints tend to be fraught with the worst suffering imaginable – it is how they dealt with this suffering that elicits our admiration. In general, suffering is the result of either forces outside our control or our own bad choices. How we use our free will as LOC in response is what matters morally.

To Catholics, evil is precisely the lack of or opposition to Love, and all thoughts and actions are judged according to that standard. One who causes physical or mental anguish in others, but does so out of Love will (presumably) cause the least amount possible while still achieving the “good” of all involved, which necessitated the suffering to begin with. Love, however, must be united with Truth in order to desire what is truly “good” – Love without Truth is not Love. Thus good intentions do not always yield positive results, because the “good” desired was not in accord with Truth.

I agree with much of your definition: an evil choice is characterized by deliberate and undeserved causation of suffering or deprivation of “good”, and moral judgment is mediated by the ability of the agent to do otherwise (PAP & LOC).

Your offering of indifference begs a particular question. Those to whom you bear neither good nor evil will, are you not called to Love them? Isn’t indifference to a person a shirking of moral-responsibility? To determine if indifference is “evil”, you must first establish what is “good” – can you truly be “morally indifferent” toward another human being?

In the case of sociopaths, whose responsibility is it to prevent their inflicting suffering on others? Well, who possesses what extent of LOC & PAP? If the sociopath cannot control his urges to some degree (lack of LOC), responsibility for controlling him falls on those around him – namely you and I! Is there nothing we can do out of truthful Love to mitigate the suffering? Whenever we fail to do, judgment falls upon us precisely to the degree that we could have done otherwise. Pretty harsh, huh? But that is the reality from the Catholic standpoint.
Why doesn’t God just cure these people? Is He not the ultimate LOC with regard to physical events? If the behavior of sociopaths is the largely the result of some natural event, then the question backs up to “Why doesn’t God prevent natural disasters?” Should I go there?..

 

[Hubriss]

1. This is problematic. The Christian understanding of God extracts morality directly from His nature, which is why it’s considered “objective”. God’s very existence would instantiate morality, it emanates from His essence – God is Love, God is Truth, etc. The Christian (or at least Catholic) idea of moral “good” and “bad” thus relates directly to God’s nature – “good” means closer to it, “bad” means further from it. Since God is considered a unified whole, Christians usually just talk about “good” and “bad” in relation to His Will – how closely a choice mirrors God’s will.
   In order to not impose this innate standard of morality on a creation, it seems to me that that creation must either:
   A - be ignorant of God/morality (and the level of ignorance correlates to the level of moral responsibility), but there is also a moral responsibility to defeat ignorance (“God is Truth”); or…
   B - not be free (PAP & LOC) in an otherwise moral-situation. “Invincible” ignorance could be considered a form of this slavery, so again the agents must lack freedom…

The first problem is that there is not “Christian understanding of God.” Christians can hardly agree on the nature of God today. However, the Catholics attempt to justify all the believed properties of God. Goodness in God is argued something like this:

1. They first use some kind of cosmological argument that points to an uncaused cause or infinite creator.
2. They attribute good as a property of the creator by stating that all things, even things like goodness, must have a source. Since God is the infinite creator of everything, so God must be infinitely good.
   I think most Catholics then believe that evil is the absence of good contrary to God’s will (like you said).

Of course, this argument is flawed because there is no actual evidence or reasoning to show that there is actually something akin to good and evil in the real world. There are things we like and don’t like and morality we can reason to that self preserves and serves societies interests. We can say that something is good or bad, but the opinion is subjective because there is no objective confirmation that things are good and bad. There is no miraculous punishment of bad actions or reward for good actions. Good things and bad things happen to “good” and “bad” people indiscriminately. Since there is no cause for belief in objective good or bad without the belief in God, the argument becomes circular.

So if you can reason to a first cause or ultimate creator of everything, it is not unreasonable to believe that God is neutral, regardless of what Christians believe.

1. A quick digression regarding the Ten Commandments and “thought crimes” (I like the term, very 1984).
   1 – Worship only God
   2 – Don’t make and worship idols
   3 – Don’t misuse God’s name
   4 – Keep holy the Sabbath
   5 – Honor your parents
   6 – No murder
   7 – No adultery
   8 – No stealing
   9 – No false-witness against neighbor
   10 – No coveting
   Of these, all are “action”-related, referring to some willful demonstration of choice. In the Christian view, action completes will. Actions can be limited to simply “in one’s heart”, so long as the action is authentic, i.e. not merely a facade. Thus, murdering someone “in your heart” could be a “thought crime” for it involves intellectual activity of the will, e.g. deliberate fantasizing. But I think we’d agree that there is a difference in will between the “fantasizer” (who only mentally manifests his will) and the “actualizer” (who physically manifests his will), and that difference would likely be evinced in moral judgments.

You can worship gods with your mind (praying). Misusing God’s name is only words, so it’s basically thought. Ultra-Jews aren’t supposed to do homework or study school on the Sabbath. In the Catholic version coveting is both 9 and 10. Coveting means to wish for earnestly, or desire.

Yes, there is a difference between will and the fantasizer, and the point was that fantasizing and thinking wrong things is still considered a sin. So in a world where there are no sinful actions, there can still be sin according to our thoughts. But regardless if this agrees with your version of God or not, it is possible theoretically that an all-powerful god can create a world like this.

Is that a contentious claim, that physical events apart from free agents do not carry moral weight? If so, we must discuss that before proceeding.

I don’t think that actions by free agents objectively carry moral weight, but certainly not physical events that are out of any agent’s control. However, if you assume God, it can possibly be said that physical events like natural disasters are in his control, since he is the ultimate LOC.

If so, we must discuss that before proceeding.
In a world with only “thought crimes”, sinful action becomes the “thought” emanating from a will that has chosen evil. This does not solve the problem – the free beings can still commit evil acts and are not guaranteed to never sin. What it may solve is the issue of agent-mediated suffering: sin no longer affects anyone besides the sinner. What a very different world THAT would be! But would its denizens be more morally upright? Quite possibly just the opposite…

Yes, I mentioned that this world would be hugely different than our own. But it is a theoretical world where no evil actions are possible, just the sinful thoughts. Yes, sin would not affect anyone besides the sinner, just like coveting or taking God’s name in vein. Hah, the question of if its denizens would be morally upright is a very good one .

Alternatively the scenario is similar to the Mary vs White: Mary is truly free to not-kill White, but her freedom is revoked should she choose to kill him – loss of LOC. The result is that God cannot maintain both free-will and sinlessness – He will have to choose one over the other. Which do you think He will choose?

I have not read the original scenario of Mary vs White, but I would have to guess that God would maintain free will since there is no precedent that he has limited free will based on sins committed in our world.

Ideas of love are varied. I don’t think killing someone who is themselves a killer can be considered “best” for them personally in most cases. I have to cut this post off short. Gotta go.

 

[Chiral]

Hubriss, with regard to your criticisms of Christian theology, they don’t really have a purpose in this discussion. Your knowledge of what constitutes orthodox Christian theology (and what is considered “heresy”) is lacking, as is your knowledge regarding how we get there (no offense), but others on this forum are probably better teachers than I, and I think you can find threads relating to each of your concerns by running a forum-search…

My point, there IS an orthodox “Christian understanding of God”, and hopefully I have enlightened you regarding His (supposed) nature, and why your #1 is invalid. If we are going to discuss some other non-Christian conception of a deity, the validity of your #1 will depend on that deity’s nature, particularly if morality is not intrinsically tied to your other deity’s nature. But aren’t we talking about the Christian God?
Goodness in God is actually argued something like this:
“Duh, the Bible says so, we experience it in relation to Him, and we can reason to it.”
Pretty unsatisfying, huh? All that “everything must have a source” stuff is secondary.

But can we avoid that train? I’m not trying to prove God’s existence or His nature, not trying to convert anyone, I’m just here trying to represent the Christian perspective…
God is good. God is the source of all good. God is Goodness itself, as He is Truth and Love. These are premises regarding the nature of God pertaining to this discussion. I don’t demand that you believe in Him, it isn’t even necessary that I believe this, just that we both accept these premises so we can continue.

…You can worship gods with your mind… Misusing God’s name is only words, so it’s basically thought… Coveting means to wish for earnestly, or desire…

As I said, action completes will, and each of those commandments regards a chosen action, even if only an action “of the heart”. Yes, everyone of them could be transgressed internally, but that does not make the commandments internally-based, that just makes our actions internally-based.

…the point was that fantasizing and thinking wrong things is still considered a sin. So in a world where there are no sinful actions, there can still be sin according to our thoughts… it is possible theoretically that an all-powerful god can create a world like this.

“Sinful thoughts” are “sinful actions” - “thought” is an intellectual activity. If a being can have sinful “thoughts” then he can commit sinful “actions”. Problem not solved.

…However, if you assume God, it can possibly be said that physical events like natural disasters are in his control, since he is the ultimate LOC.

I think I mentioned that exact point in my post second post. We can get into it, but first I want to close this discussion of free beings guaranteed to never sin…

I have not read the original scenario of Mary vs White, but I would have to guess that God would maintain free will since there is no precedent that he has limited free will based on sins committed in our world.

I agree with you, and it is the reason I don’t think God (as premised) could logically create a world of free beings guaranteed to never sin.
The question “Why maintain free will at such a price (namely, suffering)?” is fundamental, and i guess that’s where we’re heading…

…I don’t think killing someone who is themselves a killer can be considered “best” for them personally in most cases.

The Catholic Church agrees with you, which is why she continues to object to capital punishment.

Talk to you soon…

 

[Hubriss]

Hubriss, with regard to your criticisms of Christian theology, they don’t really have a purpose in this discussion. Your knowledge of what constitutes orthodox Christian theology (and what is considered “heresy”) is lacking, as is your knowledge regarding how we get there (no offense), but others on this forum are probably better teachers than I, and I think you can find threads relating to each of your concerns by running a forum-search…

My point, there IS an orthodox “Christian understanding of God”, and hopefully I have enlightened you regarding His (supposed) nature, and why your #1 is invalid. If we are going to discuss some other non-Christian conception of a deity, the validity of your #1 will depend on that deity’s nature, particularly if morality is not intrinsically tied to your other deity’s nature. But aren’t we talking about the Christian God?
Goodness in God is actually argued something like this:
“Duh, the Bible says so, we experience it in relation to Him, and we can reason to it.”
Pretty unsatisfying, huh? All that “everything must have a source” stuff is secondary.

But can we avoid that train? I’m not trying to prove God’s existence or His nature, not trying to convert anyone, I’m just here trying to represent the Christian perspective…
God is good. God is the source of all good. God is Goodness itself, as He is Truth and Love. These are premises regarding the nature of God pertaining to this discussion. I don’t demand that you believe in Him, it isn’t even necessary that I believe this, just that we both accept these premises so we can continue.

Sorry, but the train is unavoidable. The nature of God is what this discussion has been about from the beginning, and your rejection of my #1 did not take that into account. You basically said that God can not create a standard of morality because by definition God created a standard of morality. You define God as a being whose existence necessitates morality, then ask, “can God create a world without sin or morality?” And answer, “No, because by my definition, God’s existence necessitates morality.” So now the question then must become: What is your justification for the nature of God being good and whose existence necessitates morality? This discussion has not also been about a Christian perspective. It’s been about Christian beliefs and justifications for it. If you say, “From my Christian perspective I believe God created morality because his nature demands it,” then frankly, there’s no discussion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The proof will be a mathematical one, unquestionable.

2 things here.

1. last time i checked, mathematical proofs are questioned all the time
2. this isnt a mathematical argument, its modal

so it is questionable on a number of grounds related to possible world arguments.

Result: No matter how many moral agents are in a world, and no matter how many decisions are made, there is at least one possible world where all the agents make only morally upright decisions - while retaining their free will. God can actualize this world since it contains no logical contradiction.

um…that is the world he actualized, you lack the infomation necessary to prove otherwise.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info-ga…ng_assumptions

Quote:
Working assumptions
Info-gap decision theory employs three simple constructs to capture the uncertainty associated with decision problems:

1.A parameter whose true value is subject to severe uncertainty.
2.A region of uncertainty where the true value of lies.
3.An estimate of the true value of .
It should be pointed out, though, that as such these constructs are generic, meaning that they can be employed to model situations where the uncertainty is not severe but mild, indeed very mild. So it is vital to be clear that to give apt expression to the severity of the uncertainty, in the Info-Gap framework these three constructs are given specific meaning.

Working Assumptions
1.The region of uncertainty is relatively large.
In fact, Ben-Haim (2006, p. 210) indicates that in the context of info-gap decision theory most of the commonly encountered regions of uncertainty are unbounded.
2.The estimate is a poor approximation of the true value of .
That is, the estimate is a poor indication of the true value of (Ben-Haim, 2006, p. 280) and is likely to be substantially wrong (Ben-Haim, 2006, p. 281).
In the picture represents the true (unknown) value of .

The point to note here is that conditions of severe uncertainty entail that the estimate can – relatively speaking – be very distant from the true value . This is particularly pertinent for methodologies, like info-gap, that seek robustness to uncertainty. Indeed, assuming otherwise would – methodologically speaking – be tantamount to engaging in wishful thinking

.

This is a **mathematical **proof. It shows that the existence of free will does not logically lead to immoral decisions - therefore it does not lead to pain, misery and suffering. If God wanted to, he could have actualized this world. Ours is not that world. Why God chose not to actualize that world is none of my concern. But the fact is that he did not, even though he could have done it.

He did do it, prove otherwise if you can.

Case closed. The argument that freedom of action inevitably leads to immoral choices is null and void. Please do not use it again. Of course I am not naive to hope that all of you will read this post, or that those who read it can understand it. But be as it may, if anyone ever brings up the incorrect argument, I will only point them to this thread.

apparently the case is wide open

 

[MindOverMatter]

apparently the case is wide open

Might i just add also that the claim about there being a possible world in which human beings will never choose evil, is not reasonable, since it cannot logically add up to a “possible world” that God can create just because its possible. This is simply because a moral world, in which human beings are free to make moral choices, can only be the result of those free choices. And those choices are only true, because they are actual. To say that there is a possible world, that God can create, in which human beings only choose the greater good, is to say that moral possibilities can exist irrespective of actual human events. Moral possibilities can exist, but not in a deterministic sense. This is not possible, since it is only meaningful to speak of human possibilities in regards to their actual or inevitable existence. Which means a world in which human beings only choose good is only true if human beings make it possible. It cannot be true because God chose a world out of a collection of possibilities. To say that God can choose to create a possible world where nobody does evil, is to say that God can cause human beings to make free-choices that are always moral and free. This is a fallacy if one is claiming that human beings have moral responsibility and have freewill. In other words its clever straw-man, and nothing more.

God can only create a world in which human beings have the freedom to choose between right and wrong. God cannot create a world where the right and wrongness of such a world is the absolute cause of God in the sense that God is choosing a world where human being never sin. If such a world existed, then that would be the world in which we lived.

 

[Spock]

Well, that depends on utility, no? But we’re discussing morality, so I’ll leave that be.

Well, if something is physically bad, then it cannot be morally good. Otherwise, my favorite slogan for the office: “The beating will continue until the morale improves” would not be a sad joke, it would be legitimate.

To begin, Catholics do not regard sexual activity between same-sex partners “victimless”, nor are masturbation and gluttony considered “victimless”. The “victims” are those negatively affected (in an objective sense, with regard to the Good) in some way by the sinful action of the agent(s), even when the two are identical. Gluttony may be less contentious, so I hope you see what I mean at least there. I don’t want to go off into specific Catholic teachings regarding which behaviors are and are not “sins”, that would require an in-depth explanation of our Cathechism…

I am sure you know that we disagree. Obviously you and I have different views about “just whose life is it anyway?”. Even if I would accept that life is a “gift” from God, once a gift is given, the control over it is relinquished (that is why it is a gift), and it is the sole prerogative of the “new” owner to do whatever he/she pleases to do with it. I actually wonder how can any kind of love between consenting adults be considered “evil”? The love, caring, selfless giving between homosexuals is just as real as it is between heterosexuals.

To say that everything that might adversely effect others is “evil” (and I am scrupulously avoiding the term “sinful”) would make us the slaves of everyone else. We would have to consider all the possible ramifications of all of our actions.

Your provisional definition strikes at the heart of the “Problem of Evil”. Your “evil” may be equated with “suffering”. To the Catholic, physical and mental suffering are not so much to be avoided as spiritual suffering, regarding the health of the “soul” (another plausible but perhaps unprovable assumption, sorry). If mental and physical anguish are necessary to salvage or strengthen the health of the “soul”, then ultimately that suffering is “good” for the individual. Such suffering is not really good or evil in itself, rather what free beings choose based upon the experience of suffering is where “good” and “evil” come in. The lives (or legends) of Catholic saints tend to be fraught with the worst suffering imaginable – it is how they dealt with this suffering that elicits our admiration. In general, suffering is the result of either forces outside our control or our own bad choices. How we use our free will as LOC in response is what matters morally.

If we wish to define what “evil” is, then it is unavoidable. You are aware that “spiritual suffering” is meaningless for me. Physical and mental suffering is all that matters.

To Catholics, evil is precisely the lack of or opposition to Love, and all thoughts and actions are judged according to that standard. One who causes physical or mental anguish in others, but does so out of Love will (presumably) cause the least amount possible while still achieving the “good” of all involved, which necessitated the suffering to begin with. Love, however, must be united with Truth in order to desire what is truly “good” – Love without Truth is not Love. Thus good intentions do not always yield positive results, because the “good” desired was not in accord with Truth.

More problems. Upper case “truth” as you use it is also meaningless for me. Besides, to say that evil is just the lack of good is much too vague and does not help to decide many problematic issues. Suppose that I encounter a homeless person and give him a dollar for food. I could give him 10 dollars, but I choose to give only one. Was this an evil act? Obviously giving 10 bucks is better, but giving something is not “evil” in and by itself. And if I choose not to give anything, that is not evil either.

I agree with much of your definition: an evil choice is characterized by deliberate and undeserved causation of suffering or deprivation of “good”, and moral judgment is mediated by the ability of the agent to do otherwise (PAP & LOC).

You are most welcome to offer modifications. That is why I considered it provisional, as a first attempt.

Your offering of indifference begs a particular question. Those to whom you bear neither good nor evil will, are you not called to Love them? Isn’t indifference to a person a shirking of moral-responsibility? To determine if indifference is “evil”, you must first establish what is “good” – can you truly be “morally indifferent” toward another human being?

I most certainly can. I don’t even know millions and billions of people. I can wish good to them, but I have no ability to carry it out. Besides, we are talking about other adults, and they are responsible for their lives, just like I am responsible for mine. The concept we are all responsible for others leads nowhere. I cannot possibly know what is good for them as well as they do - and vice-versa.

Furthermore, there are people whom I actively despise. They harmed me, but I did not seek revenge. Nevertheless, I have no positive feelings for them. Does that make me evil?

In the case of sociopaths, whose responsibility is it to prevent their inflicting suffering on others? Well, who possesses what extent of LOC & PAP? If the sociopath cannot control his urges to some degree (lack of LOC), responsibility for controlling him falls on those around him – namely you and I!

Why do you leave out God? If we have the moral obligation to mitigate suffering (with our very limited resources), then the same applies to God, too - with his unlimited resources.

Is there nothing we can do out of truthful Love to mitigate the suffering? Whenever we fail to do, judgment falls upon us precisely to the degree that we could have done otherwise. Pretty harsh, huh? But that is the reality from the Catholic standpoint.

Mitigating the suffering is infinitely inferior to preventing suffering. I will continue below (the 7K limit bites…)