The amount of "freedom". Too much? Too little? Just right?

[Spock]

It has been stated many times that we “must” have free will, in order to love God in a meaningful fashion. However, it has never been discussed (at least to my knowledge) just how much freedom is needed to achieve that.

After all we have only a **limited **freedom to actually do good, or bad. Among other things, the laws of nature limit us, and quite seriously. But there are other limiting factors, as well.

So the question arises: “just how much freedom should we have?”. If our freedom would be limited to allow us to love God, or not, that would be sufficient. After all “love” is just a nice buzzword for a very human emotion - which should be expressed in both words and action. We could express our love by going to church, by worshipping, by adhering to God’s commands. (Well, at least to some of them, but I will not go into that right now.) Or express our lack of love by staying away from church, or doing some things that God allegedly “frowns” upon, even if those actions do not inflict suffering on others. For example: to love our spouse in a disapproved position, or loving our partner outside marriage, or even - horribile dictu - sexually loving a person of the same gender.

Also, we could have much more freedom to do good: helping others in need, for example. So, on one hand, we have freedom which we could do without, on the other hand, we lack freedom which is highly desirable.

Do you have any argument to show that our amount of freedom is somehow “optimal”? That taking away some freedom to do bad, or having some more freedom to do good is somehow inferior to the current state of affairs?

 

[phoage]

I have no way to justify my position and cannot document it in Scripture or dogma. I do not know enough philosophy to refer to anyone elses arguments.

I believe that each individual should be legally entitled to do anything that does not demonstrably infiringe on another’s freedom/safety.

I have a abhorance of Legislatures that pass laws to protect me from myself for my own good. I submit that I am the best judge of that (below heaven).

I understand that some people feel the need to legislate behavior and I can agree with procedural rules (which side of the road to drive on, what color a stop sign is) but generally, I am for the least possible government regulation and the greatest individual freedom.

As I have said however, I cannot justify this and I realize that most people think I am crazy.

 

[liquidpele]

I’m reminded of the saying: Your freedom ends where my nose begins

While you can agree or disagree with the specifics of that particular quote, I don’t think anyone can disagree with the fact that the freedoms of different individuals will conflict from time to time. Resolving this in a civil manor is what government and society is all about.

 

[06convert]

The Church answers this in the Catechism. Here is an online reference if you don’t have a hard copy handy. .

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Start at paragraph 1700 and read from there. The Church goes over the dignity of the human person and how it relates to freedom. Both inner and outer freedoms.

Most important, remember that freedom and rights are seperate from license. Today’s society confuses these and interchanges them at a increasingly sickening level. .

Freedom of Choice
Right to Die

These aren’t freedoms or rights, but licenses to do evil. . For the sake of morality we can’t let society cloud the differences and exploit evil in the name of freedom.

 

[JDaniel]

It has been stated many times that we “must” have free will, in order to love God in a meaningful fashion. However, it has never been discussed (at least to my knowledge) just how much freedom is needed to achieve that.

After all we have only a **limited **freedom to actually do good, or bad. Among other things, the laws of nature limit us, and quite seriously. But there are other limiting factors, as well.

So the question arises: “just how much freedom should we have?”. If our freedom would be limited to allow us to love God, or not, that would be sufficient. After all “love” is just a nice buzzword for a very human emotion - which should be expressed in both words and action. We could express our love by going to church, by worshipping, by adhering to God’s commands. (Well, at least to some of them, but I will not go into that right now.) Or express our lack of love by staying away from church, or doing some things that God allegedly “frowns” upon, even if those actions do not inflict suffering on others. For example: to love our spouse in a disapproved position, or loving our partner outside marriage, or even - horribile dictu - sexually loving a person of the same gender.

Also, we could have much more freedom to do good: helping others in need, for example. So, on one hand, we have freedom which we could do without, on the other hand, we lack freedom which is highly desirable.

Do you have any argument to show that our amount of freedom is somehow “optimal”? That taking away some freedom to do bad, or having some more freedom to do good is somehow inferior to the current state of affairs?

Interesting question. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard that it was discussed either. However, I’m not sure how we could discuss it. Not only do we have the limiting factors you mention, but also, we are limited by our knowledge. The extent of “bads”, on earth, is what it is - historically - unless we dream up some new sorts of “bads”. And some of these may turn out not to be so bad.

The same thing may be said of “goods”, but, probably not with quite as much accuracy.

I certainly wish life on earth had fewer bads. And, I certainly wish life on earth had more wins (goods). But, I can guess where you want this discussion to go. I find the discussion far to the outside of philosophical bounds. I find it instigated by a rage against any belief in God whatsoever, even if the belief is held by someone outside of your own skin. Why such fury? If a Christian wants to waste his, or her, life dwelling on God, what possible difference should that make to you. Christians are kind of like TV sets. If you don’t like the show, change the channel.

If you think that this may show us the error of our ways, opening our eyes to the absurdity of the concept of Free Will, you’ll be wrong. It won’t. Not only for the reasons I gave in paragraph 1, but, also because your OP belies your attitude; an attitude that clearly suggests that should a Christian engage you, you will re-engage him with all possible condescension.

God bless you,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

Do you have any argument to show that our amount of freedom is somehow “optimal”?

Do you have any argument to show that our amount of freedom is not “optimal”? It seems presumptuous to make such a decision when no one can even explain the nature of free will. How on earth would freedom be restricted to certain aspects of a person’s behaviour? And what evidence could you produce to substantiate your hypothesis?

 

[Spock]

I have no way to justify my position and cannot document it in Scripture or dogma. I do not know enough philosophy to refer to anyone elses arguments.

I believe that each individual should be legally entitled to do anything that does not demonstrably infiringe on another’s freedom/safety.

I have a abhorance of Legislatures that pass laws to protect me from myself for my own good. I submit that I am the best judge of that (below heaven).

I understand that some people feel the need to legislate behavior and I can agree with procedural rules (which side of the road to drive on, what color a stop sign is) but generally, I am for the least possible government regulation and the greatest individual freedom.

As I have said however, I cannot justify this and I realize that most people think I am crazy.

I sure don’t think so. You articulated my position clearly.

I’m reminded of the saying: Your freedom ends where my nose begins

While you can agree or disagree with the specifics of that particular quote, I don’t think anyone can disagree with the fact that the freedoms of different individuals will conflict from time to time. Resolving this in a civil manor is what government and society is all about.

Right. But I was not attempting to talk about political freedom, rather about the underpinning of “free will”, which presupposes that a “will” can actually be carried out, that is we have the ways and means (power, ability, freedom to act).

 

[Spock]

Do you have any argument to show that our amount of freedom is not “optimal”? It seems presumptuous to make such a decision when no one can even explain the nature of free will. How on earth would freedom be restricted to certain aspects of a person’s behaviour? And what evidence could you produce to substantiate your hypothesis?

You answer my question, and I will answer yours. Besides, my answer is already imbedded in the OP, if you read it carefully enough.

 

[Spock]

Freedom of Choice
Right to Die

These aren’t freedoms or rights, but licenses to do evil.

I am not talking about freedom in the political sense, rather that we are physically able to carry out actions. Of course, I disagree that there is anything “evil” about these, but that is beside the point. You consider them evil, and therefore I wonder if you would prefer that such actions would be physically impossible to carry out. After all that is the best, direct approach, to prevent something undesirable to happen. What is your opinion? Do we have too much “freedom” in the sense of “free will being executed”, or not? Are such “freedoms” helpful to achieve the ultimate good (according to the Catholic opinion) - which is loving and worshipping God?

 

[Spock]

I certainly wish life on earth had fewer bads. And, I certainly wish life on earth had more wins (goods).

That would be a promising start. After all I agree with your sentiment here. But what follows from it? Is it desirable to decrease of freedom to do “bad” and increase our freedom to do “good”?

 

[tonyrey]

After all we have only a limited freedom to actually do good, or bad. Among other things, the laws of nature limit us, and quite seriously. After all we have only a limited freedom to actually do good, or bad. Among other things, the laws of nature limit us, and quite seriously.

It is not our free will that is limited but our scope for exercising it.

If our freedom would be limited to allow us to love God, or not, that would be sufficient.

Incorrect. Our scope for exercising our free will would be limited to allow us to love God and everything He has created - particularly other persons and ourselves. How do you propose to restrict our scope for exercising our free will?

Also, we could have much more freedom to do good: helping others in need, for example. So, on one hand, we have freedom which we could do without, on the other hand, we lack freedom which is highly desirable. Do you have any argument to show that our amount of freedom is somehow “optimal”? That taking away some freedom to do bad, or having some more freedom to do good is somehow inferior to the current state of affairs?

Until you specify how increasing or decreasing our scope for exercising our free will could be effected your proposal is gratuitous…

 

[Spock]

It is not our free will that is limited but our scope for exercising it.

What do you mean? There are two ways to interpret “free will”.

The first one is that we have almost unlimited freedom to “want” or “will” something, but our ability to carry out is impeded by some outside circumstance. An example: “someone is trapped in a high building, which is on fire”. He has two actual options: “either to die by the fire (if he stays), or die by falling if he jumps”. He still has the unlimited freedom to “want” or “will” to gently levitate to the ground, but gravity disallows that. As a matter of fact, once, a long time ago a poster said that the “free will” of a woman is untouched even when she is raped, regardless of the fact that she is unable to escape. Please elaborate, if this is your interpretation, or not.

The second one is that we have some options (at least two of them) and we can freely exercise either one. If there is one option only, then there is no “free will”. The options can be totally frivolous, of course.

So the freedom I am talking about is always limited. We can think about any action, but we are unable to carry it out, if there is some circumstance which prevents it. This is point of this whole thread. it is possible to have a hypothetical world, where we have many options (all good), which has limited freedom of action, just like ours. Also we would have more options to do good, not just some as we have today.

The option to love God or not is always there. Even if we can do only good things to other humans, we still could do it for its own sake, and not include God in the picture. So God could “reward” those who go and worship him, and could “punish” those who do not worship him. After all the command to love God is the first one among the 10 commandments - and rejecting the first commandment is a mortal sin (disobedience).

 

[tonyrey]

The first one is that we have almost unlimited freedom to “want” or “will” something, but our ability to carry out is impeded by some outside circumstance.

We can want anything within the limits of our imagination.
When we are reasonable we can will anything we believe is feasible.

It is possible to have a hypothetical world, where we have many options (all good), which has limited freedom of action, just like ours.

Your hypothetical world is too vague. You need to give a detailed explanation of **how **our freedom of action is limited and **how **we would have more options to do good.

The option to love God or not is always there.

It is always there if you believe in God. If you don’t believe in God, how can you choose not to love him?

So God could “reward” those who go and worship him, and could “punish” those who do not worship him.

This is a very crude interpretation of God:

If a man says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? (1, John 4:20

After all the command to love God is the first one among the 10 commandments - and rejecting the first commandment is a mortal sin (disobedience).

If you don’t believe in God it doesn’t make sense to reject the first commandment.

 

[Spock]

We can want anything within the limits of our imagination.
When we are reasonable we can will anything we believe is feasible.

No question about that!

Your hypothetical world is too vague. You need to give a detailed explanation of **how **our freedom of action is limited and **how **we would have more options to do good.

I don’t understand why you need details. I already gave examples of how our choices are limited in both directions. We cannot do either good, or bad, beyond a certain limit, simply because the laws of nature prevent us.

It is always there if you believe in God. If you don’t believe in God, how can you choose not to love him?

More to the point, how could I choose to love him?

If a man says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? (1, John 4:20 )

Agreed.

If you don’t believe in God it doesn’t make sense to reject the first commandment.

It does not make sense to accept it. But, whether you believe or not, the commandment stands. It does not say: “Love God thy Lord… if you believe in his existence”

 

[seductus_sum]

After all we have only a **limited **freedom to actually do good, or bad. Among other things, the laws of nature limit us, and quite seriously. But there are other limiting factors, as well.

Spock, I fee like you are making an interesting point, but you are loosing me somewhere. Maybe I have just put off my schoolwork for so long that I can no longer read, but I would appreciate some clarification…

How exactly are we limited in our freedom to act? I believe that I can do everything that is possible for me to do. Some things are impossible for me to do, like flying and lifting super heavy objects. If I could do those things, I could help a lot more people, I could do a lot more “good,” as you say. I assume this is an example of how “the laws of nature limit us.” Am I on track so far? Are you asking why are we limited in this way?

What about the “other limiting factors?” Can we have an example or two or those? For the life of me I cannot think of any–which of course is not to say that there are none.

 

[nuntym]

I just am grateful that the things I sometimes want to do to stupid drivers whenever I drive around can’t be done just by thinking about it :shudders:

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t understand why you need details.

Because otherwise your hypothesis lacks substance.

How would our choices be limited in your hypothetical world?

How we would have more options to do good?

More to the point, how could I choose to love him?

You could choose to love God by expressing gratitude for everything you are and possess, doing what you believe is right and loving His creatures. “If you love me keep my commandments.”

But, whether you believe or not, the commandment stands. It does not say: “Love God thy Lord… if you believe in his existence”.

The commandment was directed at believers…

 

[tobias]

All this talk of limitations of will because of physical restriction is sheer poppycock!
If I truly will something and a law of nature prevents me from doing something, it in no way lessens or restricts my will, it restricts my ability to carry it out.

Take for example Neil Armstrong, he willed to go to the moon, and he did. How many before him (and after) willed to go as well, but had not the technology, or the training to do so, was there will restricted? No. Their action was. If there will was restricted the technology to get there would have been abandoned, and thus never accomplished.

If will were restricted, as you (Spock) propose, Invention would not be possible. Limitation would have stagnated man in an animal like state. Highly illogical.

 

[HickmanJosh]

After all “love” is just a nice buzzword for a very human emotion - which should be expressed in both words and action.

Love is not a pointless buzzword for some emotion, you are referring to infatuation not love, true love is a choice.

More to the point, how could I choose to love him?

           Simple, talk to him.

I wonder if you would prefer that such actions would be physically impossible to carry out.

 Without the evil how could we be driven to do good?

.

 

[Spock]

All this talk of limitations of will because of physical restriction is sheer poppycock!
If I truly will something and a law of nature prevents me from doing something, it in no way lessens or restricts my will, it restricts my ability to carry it out.

This reminds me of an old conversation when I asked why does God always allow the will of the strong attacker to override the will of the weak defender, namely why can the will of the rapist override the will of the woman being raped. The answer was: “her free will is not restricted at all, her freedom to wish to get away is not impaired, only her actual ability to carry it out”. What you say exactly corresponds to this view.

Now what does “free will” mean in the absence of ability to actually doing what you intend to do? What kind of meaning do you associate with the word “to choose”? How can anyone “choose” to do something that cannot be carried out - for whatever reason?

If will were restricted, as you (Spock) propose, Invention would not be possible. Limitation would have stagnated man in an animal like state. Highly illogical.

That does not follow at all.