The argument of free will and suffering

[ANV]

If a person is attacking a victim, would you stop the attack or would you claim the attacker’s or criminal’s free will?
A good person will reply: I will stop the attacker as much as I can, I don’t think the attacker’s free will is more important than the victim’s suffering.
Yet how is that scenario different, when a so called all loving God is involved, the excuse of the attacker’s free will isn’t a moral or consistent answer to the problem of suffering.

 

[Vonsalza]

If a person is attacking a victim, would you stop the attack or would you claim the attacker’s or criminal’s free will?
A good person will reply: I will stop the attacker as much as I can, I don’t think the attacker’s free will is more important than the victim’s suffering.
Yet how is that scenario different, when a so called all loving God is involved, the excuse of the attacker’s free will isn’t a moral or consistent answer to the problem of suffering.

To keep a tight biblical comparison here, the attack ultimately happened because of the sins of both the attacker, the attacked and the “good person”. It is merely one ripple from the consequential tsunami generated by their own choices.

If the attacker and the attacked turn toward God, the first will do penance and be forgiven. The second will be comforted and restored.

Their freedom to act and the necessity of consequence is critical to the existence of a just God.
When the “good person” interferes, the attacker may counter-act; a la a “contest of wills”. When God does so, this possibility is destroyed.

So yes. The scenario IS different.

 

[BobCatholic]

OK, let’s imagine a world without evil.

Every attempt to murder someone winds up being automatically blocked by God. A rapist tries to grab a woman and this action is blocked. A crazy man tries to run down a crowd of people using a car, and the car stops before anyone is hurt.

What is the effect? One has no choice but to do good and this is imposed from outside the person.

What God wants us to do is to do good and this be an internal choice. So how does the above world described fit this? It doesn’t.

So, how would you create a world where we do good and this is an internal choice and not imposed from the outside?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Their freedom to act and the necessity of consequence is critical to the existence of a just God.

Aha. So it is better to have suffering, just so that God could be declared “just”. That should be consolation to the victims of violent acts.

When the “good person” interferes, the attacker may counter-act; a la a “contest of wills”. When God does so, this possibility is destroyed.

So yes. The scenario IS different.

Let’s see. If there is no possibility that the violence prevails, it is somehow “inferior” to the scenario when the violence is allowed… Who “wouldof thunk” it? Let’s replace all the capable members of the police force with bumbling idiots, so the criminals could commit even MORE violence… is that what you propose?

By the way, a well placed hit with a baseball bat on the head of the attacker is a sure-fire way to prevent the attack.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

OK, let’s imagine a world without evil.

Every attempt to murder someone winds up being automatically blocked by God. A rapist tries to grab a woman and this action is blocked. A crazy man tries to run down a crowd of people using a car, and the car stops before anyone is hurt.

What is the effect? One has no choice but to do good and this is imposed from outside the person.

Not necessarily “good”, it can be neutral. Of course this is exactly what we try to do, when we have the necessary “foreknowledge” and ability to act on it. Inferior solution, for sure, but that is the best we can do. What is wrong with it?

What God wants us to do is to do good and this be an internal choice. So how does the above world described fit this? It doesn’t.

How can you declare that you know what God’s preferences are?

So, how would you create a world where we do good and this is an internal choice and not imposed from the outside?

Easy as a breeze. Just create everyone without a desire to commit violence.

 

[Vonsalza]

Aha. So it is better to have suffering, just so that God could be declared “just”. That should be consolation to the victims of violent acts.

No sir, you’ve switched the horse and the cart, as you so frequently do.

It’s better to have will. Suffering is the consequence of will. The need for justice is the consequence of that suffering. Suffering does not justify “justice”. It necessitates it on behalf of those that suffer.

Let’s see. If there is no possibility that the violence prevails…

But it does. Here, yours is a non-real world; unworthy of discussion.

By the way, a well placed hit with a baseball bat on the head of the attacker is a sure-fire way to prevent the attack.

Nope. Those that wish to do ill will do so.
All you’ve started here is an arms race where the attacker will carry a handgun to counter your bat. The evil attacker will always have an advantage as they have less respect for the law. A gun ban affects them less.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Easy as a breeze. Just create everyone without a desire to commit violence.

The desire to commit violence is usually determined by the actions of others, whether justly or otherwise. For example, someone might insult me or someone I care for, thereby making me want to punch them. In order to ensure that no one ever wants to commit any kind of violence against another person, it would be necessary to ensure that no person is capable of performing an action that would cause another person to want to hurt them. Hence, a massive violation of free will.

 

[Vonsalza]

The desire to commit violence is usually determined by the actions of others, whether justly or otherwise. For example, someone might insult me or someone I care for, thereby making me want to punch them. In order to ensure that no one ever wants to commit any kind of violence against another person, it would be necessary to ensure that no person is capable of performing an action that would cause another person to want to hurt them. Hence, a massive violation of free will.

I think Vera dreams of a world where he was free to say any assine, absurd thing he wished and his mother wouldn’t smack him for it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think Vera dreams of a world where he was free to say any assine, absurd thing he wished and his mother wouldn’t smack him for it.

While that certainly got a chuckle out of me (as it would directed at anyone, not just Vera), Ad Hominem attacks make your position look weak. I would try to avoid them, regardless of how much you disagree with the person you’re debating.

 

[friardchips]

If a person is attacking a victim, would you stop the attack or would you claim the attacker’s or criminal’s free will?
A good person will reply: I will stop the attacker as much as I can, I don’t think the attacker’s free will is more important than the victim’s suffering.
Yet how is that scenario different, when a so called all loving God is involved, the excuse of the attacker’s free will isn’t a moral or consistent answer to the problem of suffering.

This is presuming that a ‘choice’ to do evil is an essential factor in the definition of freewill.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

This is presuming that a ‘choice’ to do evil is an essential factor in the definition of freewill.

The choice itself isn’t, it’s the capacity to chose that is necessary. In order for a will to be free, it must be capable of choosing both for, and against, something. Without the ability to chose evil, to chose against good, the will cannot be free.

 

[friardchips]

The choice itself isn’t, it’s the capacity to chose that is necessary. In order for a will to be free, it must be capable of choosing both for, and against, something. Without the ability to chose evil, to chose against good, the will cannot be free.

Hi. This is what a few threads have been concerned with over recent months and yet the bottom line is somehow evaded because the threads wear thin as posters run out of steam.

Freewill is most certainly (yes) the ability to choose between options. Or, more in keeping with religion, the ability to choose between perfect and less-than-perfect choices.

So, your conclusive notion of what the definition of freedom is, will largely depend upon whether you approach this topic from an atheistic point-of-view or from a religious perspective as I don’t think the two can tally sufficiently.

Example: imagine you are tempted to say something nasty to someone. Do you think you are free when you are tempted? Do you feel free if you succumbed to that temptation? Can you perceive that you are objectively free once you have succumbed to such a temptation?

Another: imagine you are tempted to harass a police officer. Do you think your choice to do this makes you free? Does the temptation to do so make you feel free? Do you feel free afterwards if you have given in? Can you perceive that you are objectively free once having succumbed to that temptation?

What is your definition of ‘freedom’?

 

[STT]

Aha. So it is better to have suffering, just so that God could be declared “just”. That should be consolation to the victims of violent acts.

Let’s see. If there is no possibility that the violence prevails, it is somehow “inferior” to the scenario when the violence is allowed… Who “wouldof thunk” it? Let’s replace all the capable members of the police force with bumbling idiots, so the criminals could commit even MORE violence… is that what you propose?

By the way, a well placed hit with a baseball bat on the head of the attacker is a sure-fire way to prevent the attack.

Yeah, we have police!

 

[STT]

Hi. This is what a few threads have been concerned with over recent months and yet the bottom line is somehow evaded because the threads wear thin as posters run out of steam.

Freewill is most certainly (yes) the ability to choose between options. Or, more in keeping with religion, the ability to choose between perfect and less-than-perfect choices.

Why should we need free will if we can by logic choose perfect instead of less-than-perfect. What is the use of it? It just allows you to sometimes choose less-than-perfect instead of perfect.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Example: imagine you are tempted to say something nasty to someone. Do you think you are free when you are tempted? Do you feel free if you succumbed to that temptation? Can you perceive that you are objectively free once you have succumbed to such a temptation?

Another: imagine you are tempted to harass a police officer. Do you think your choice to do this makes you free? Does the temptation to do so make you feel free? Do you feel free afterwards if you have given in? Can you perceive that you are objectively free once having succumbed to that temptation?

What is your definition of ‘freedom’?

Freedom is the capacity to choose one way or another. In your first example, the person may not want/choose to be nasty due to the repercussion, but they are still free to do so. The fact that they will suffer for their choice, which they allow to influence that choice, doesn’t mean they do not have a choice.

The same is true of your second scenario. The fact that repercussions exist for choices does not make us any less free to choose them. It just means that our choices have consequences, which is just reality.

Freedom is not the “unfettered ability to choose without consequence,” it is simply the capacity** to choose. Every choice, every decision, and every action has consequences. Claiming you are not free simply because of those consequences is childish.**

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why should we need free will if we can by logic choose perfect instead of less-than-perfect. What is the use of it? It just allows you to sometimes choose less-than-perfect instead of perfect.

Because God desires for us to love Him, and love can only be Chosen. If there is no option but to love, then it is meaningless.

 

[friardchips]

Freedom is the capacity to choose one way or another.

So this definition does not require further clarification?

In your first example, the person may not want/choose to be nasty due to the repercussion, but they are still free to do so. The fact that they will suffer for their choice, which they allow to influence that choice, doesn’t mean they do not have a choice. ****

We are not debating whether or not the person has a choice. We know that the person has a choice. Try and answer without using the ‘grey area’ as a means to avoid answering directly.

…The fact that repercussions exist for choices does not make us any less free to choose them. It just means that our choices have consequences, which is just reality.

If you had answered properly then this would be a different paragraph because this is not connected to the points put forward.

Freedom is not the “unfettered ability to choose without consequence,” it is simply the capacity

to choose.

We know that freedom wouldn’t exist without choice or that there are not consequences of those choices.

You are arguing against yourself because in two parts of this post you have stated simply that freedom is the capacity to make a choice without need for a clarifier - any mention of evil being a vital element in the equation to define freedom.

Every choice, every decision, and every action has consequences. Claiming you are not free simply because of

those consequences is childish.

We are not claiming this. You have simply understood the points put forward. Seemingly.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Right. So this does not require a

… a what?
EDIT: Saw that you edited.

Honestly, no, I don’t feel that it does. It’s pretty straight forward. All that is necessary for free will is the ability to chose for or against something, and that ability to chose is what is generally termed freedom. Now, we Catholics would say that authentic freedom is not merely the ability to chose, but specifically the ability to chose for the good, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

We are not debating whether or not the person has a choice. We know that the person has a choice. Try and answer without using the ‘grey area’ as a means to answering directly.

What grey area, and if not whether or not there is a choice, then what are we debating? The definition of freedom? I gave it. It’s the capacity to chose.

If you had answered properly then this would be a different paragraph because this is not connected to the points put forward.

Ermm… no, it’s directly related to the points. You seem to be claiming that the existence of repercussion somehow diminishes a person’s freedom.

You are arguing against yourself because in two parts of this post you have stated simply that freedom is the capacity to make a choice. Without need for any mention of evil being a vital element in the equation to define freedom.

I am most certainly not arguing against myself. Freedom is the capacity to choose. Evil itself is not necessary, because theoretically, everyone could always chose good. However, not everyone does, and the result of choosing against good is evil. If everyone choose good, then there would be no evil, but if everyone had to chose good, then there would be no free will.

We are not claiming this. You have simply understood the points put forward. Seemingly.

Then you need to state your points a little clearer, because this is precisely what your examples seemed to indicate.

You asked me what my definition of freedom is, I gave it and then related it back to your examples. The “feeling” of freedom is subjective, and not at all related to the reality of “freedom.” A man in jail does not feel free, but from the position of having free will, he is. The person who chooses to attack the cop may not feel free afterwards, but that is the result of the consequences of his action, not due to a lack of freedom.

Perhaps if you state your question a bit more succinctly, because answering the question you wrote:

What is your definition of ‘freedom’?

doesn’t appear to be sufficient to answer whatever your question actually is.

 

[STT]

Because God desires for us to love Him, and love can only be Chosen. If there is no option but to love, then it is meaningless.

No, it is irrational to choose to do not love. So free will is an ambiguous ability.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

No, it is irrational to choose to do not love. So free will is an ambiguous ability.

I agree that it is irrational to chose not to love God, but that doesn’t change the fact that that love still has to be chosen… just because the other choice is irrational doesn’t mean it shouldn’t still be a choice.