The argument of free will and suffering

[friardchips]

… a what?
EDIT: Saw that you edited.

That was fun. Just for fluidity’s sake: a clarifier.

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,…

This is more to the point. Freedom incorporates the ability to choose freedom. But this ability to choose freedom is not freedom until the freedom is chosen. So, the choice, in itself, is not a free one. It is just a choice to possibly choose freedom. So the term ‘freewill’ really can’t be defined only when evil is an option. Which is what you were arguing against. You countered my position that was questioning the need for evil as being a vital factor in the definition of freewill.

…but specifically the ability to chose for the good, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

Actually, it is. This is my point. No one has thus far had the patience to allow certain lines of questioning to follow through to a satisfactorily consistent conclusion.

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.

No. I was putting forward examples of defining freedom which you chose to argue around by using grey areas i.e:- yes but this person could be thinking this and that and so because of this then…subjective reasoning.

Ermm… no, it’s directly related to the points.

Errrrmmmmm, no it’s not. You are ice-skating your way around my question

You seem to be claiming that the existence of repercussion somehow diminishes a person’s freedom.

Not quite, no. I am getting you to question the definition of freedom in order to better define what freewill is in the wider context of good and evil which might then result in a more conclusive end to this thread on the subject of suffering than some threads that never really reach an agreed upon verdict.

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.

Then why did you counter my question to the OP?

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.

Now you are arguing the opposite again. One minute you are saying that evil is not necessary for freedom to exist and now you are saying that if there was no evil then there would be no FREEwill.

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

Possibly. But so far I think it is the case that you are not resopnding to the questions as they are written.

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.”

Okay. But I also used the word ‘objective’. However, you were the one using grey areas and so I would imagine that it is you who is using subjective reasoning here. My initial question to the OP was not subjective. The following examples incorporated subjectivity but were still linked to an objective goal.

A man in jail does not feel free,…

But he is free, right, objectively?

…but from the position of having free will, he is.

Strange answer.

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.

So, he was free when he was tempted to choose something that essentially was enslaving?!

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

We’re at that fun bit again because I can’t view this bit!

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

is.

My question is what I originally posted.

 

[ANV]

Also suffering exists regardless of human existence, so how does free will is ever considered a rational excuse for the problem of suffering when it existed before humans, with or without them, regardless of their “free will”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s better to have will.

Better for whom? I am sure you would change your tune, if you, or your beloved one would be the target of that “free will”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The desire to commit violence is usually determined by the actions of others, whether justly or otherwise.

So, if no one would wish to “start it”, there would be no need to retaliate.

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.

Nonsense. Do you have any desire to hurt someone? No? So there is no need to curtail your freedom, if you have no desire to harm others. And if someone, who is a psychopath or sociopath would initiate violence, then it is obvious that prevention is the solution - and to hell with their “free will”.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

…had to cut to get my post short enough…

No wonder the discussions teeter out when you’re having them… there are so many individual points here to respond to that I honestly just don’t have the time.

I’m going to try to respond to everything here, but I really can’t break it out into as many bullet points as you have in your post.

But this ability to choose freedom is not freedom until the freedom is chosen. So, the choice, in itself, is not a free one

This is nonsense. The ability to choose is itself freedom. You do not have to choose the good in order to have the freedom of choice. Without the freedom of choice it would not be possible to choose the good. You’re approaching it backwards. If this isn’t what you meant, I’m sorry, but that’s what you’ve written. When presented with the option to choose freedom or enslavement, I am equally free to make either choice, regardless of the outcome.

Actually, it is. This is my point. No one has thus far had the patience to allow certain lines of questioning to follow through to a satisfactorily consistent conclusion.

Probably because you try to break it down into so many individual, minute, disconnected points that it’s impossible to respond satisfactorily to all of them. Also, just because the conclusion isn’t satisfactory to you doesn’t actually mean it’s not a complete response.

You keep accusing me of using grey areas. I’m afraid you’re going to have to explain that to me, because from my perspective I’m being pretty black and white about the issue. I’m not skating around anything.

The definition of free will is having the ability to chose either for or against something. Period. No grey area, nor skating around, just that. I’ve said it enough times that I don’t understand why you keep claiming I’m not answering the question. The wider context of good and evil has no affect on this definition, there are simply the two absolute results of either side of the choice.

Now you are arguing the opposite again. One minute you are saying that evil is not necessary for freedom to exist and now you are saying that if there was no evil then there would be no FREEwill.

(emphasis mine)

WRONG.

I don’t mean to yell, but you are twisting what I wrote. True, I said that evil does not NECESSARILY exist, it is the result of the choice to reject the good. HOWEVER, that does not mean that without evil there would be no free will. It is entirely conceivable that a person always chooses the good, and that every person always chooses the good. (extending all the way up to the angels) If everyone always did chose the good, then there would be no evil, but our free will would still remain intact, that freedom of choice would simply always be directed towards the good. As such, I can conceive of a reality in which there is both free-will, and no evil. Just because we humans do not always chose the good does not mean that we lack the capacity to always chose the good. Similarly, just because we do not always choose the good does not mean that we must choose evil in order to have free will, and if we did always choose good, that wouldn’t mean we lack free will.

However, we do not always chose the good, and any reality which, as an aspect of its nature, precludes the ability to chose evil, is a violation of free will, because we are prevented from exercising one of the two options. There is a difference between not choosing, and not being able to chose.

The man in jail has free will, but not freedom of movement or action. Will does not necessitate action. The serial killer locked up in an 8x10 cell might not be capable of murdering another victim, but he still has the capacity to will those murders, and is still guilty of the evil of murder if he does so. (This principle is extrapolated from Jesus’ teaching that lusting after a woman in your heart is as much a sin as actually committing adultery with her.)

Since you keep insisting that I am not answering your question, could you please begin your next post by succinctly stating what that question is? Because from my standpoint, I’ve answered it about a dozen times, you simply fail to recognize an answer when its given because you disagree with it. I’m not trying to be mean, only stating what it looks like to someone that’s not in your head.

…Also, please try not to slice my responses up so much this time. It really is hard to respond to a dozen individual sentences rather than complete thoughts.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So, if no one would wish to “start it”, there would be no need to retaliate.

Nonsense. Do you have any desire to hurt someone? No?

Actually, there are many people that I have had the desire to hurt in my lifetime… I’m honestly not clear on the point you’re trying to make here… none of what you’ve written acutally undermines my position. Even if I personally had never wanted to punch someone in the face, that doesn’t change the fact that generally the desire to cause harm is in response to some action or another. Not only psychopaths hurt people… in fact, the majority of damage is done by regular people who just get pushed a little too far.

and to hell with their “free will”.

This is ultimately why you will never be able to reconcile suffering with God. You view a lack of suffering as the ultimate good, whereas I view free will as the ultimate good. Do I wish there was no suffering? Sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that I believe free will is more important than a pain free existence. Without the ability to chose, everything is meaningless, and we are no better than robots. You might like that notion, but I view it as a violation of our very nature as rational beings.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Actually, there are many people that I have had the desire to hurt in my lifetime… I’m honestly not clear on the point you’re trying to make here… none of what you’ve written acutally undermines my position. Even if I personally had never wanted to punch someone in the face, that doesn’t change the fact that generally the desire to cause harm is in response to some action or another. Not only psychopaths hurt people… in fact, the majority of damage is done by regular people who just get pushed a little too far.

But if you had no desire to do so, you would not commit any violent act. My point was to remove the desire would be a perfect solution to get rid of suffering. No need to curtail someone’s ability to do violent acts, if they do not desire to perform them. And removing this desire from EVERYONE, not just a select few would be the solution to the problem of violence.

This is ultimately why you will never be able to reconcile suffering with God. You view a lack of suffering as the ultimate good, whereas I view free will as the ultimate good. Do I wish there was no suffering? Sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that I believe free will is more important than a pain free existence.

I don’t think that this would be your attitude if you, or some of your loved ones would be on the receiving end of some insane violent action. Am I mistaken? I am very serious about this question. May I hope for an answer?

Without the ability to chose, everything is meaningless, and we are no better than robots. You might like that notion, but I view it as a violation of what we are as rational beings.

But it was you, who said in your prior post that having a choice - even without evil - is sufficient to have free will. And, of course I agree. Limiting the possible actions, but not eliminating ALL of them is the sensible solution to the problem of evil.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

But if you had no desire to do so, you would not commit any violent act. My point was to remove the desire would be a perfect solution to get rid of suffering. No need to curtail someone’s ability to do violent acts, if they do not desire to perform them. And removing this desire from EVERYONE, not just a select few would be the solution to the problem of violence.

You can’t simply remove a desire… they’re not little modules that you can plug into or take out of a mind… Those desires are the result of our choices and the choices of those around us. They are responses to stimuli. The only way to get rid of them is to create an artificial block/limit, or to remove the stimuli. Our desires are part of what make us us, even the negative desires, though they are deformations of positive desires.

I don’t think that this would be your attitude if you, or some of your loved ones would be on the receiving end of some insane violent action. Am I mistaken? I am very serious about this question. May I hope for an answer?

Actually, it would be, and has been, my response. Just because I hate what happens to someone I care about doesn’t change the fact that I still think free will is preferable to a world that is artificially good. I’d rather have meaningful choices in the midst of my pain than meaningless choices in a world where there is no possible outcome but good.

But it was you, who said in your prior post that having a choice - even without evil - is sufficient to have free will. And, of course I agree. Limiting the possible actions, but not eliminating ALL of them is the sensible solution to the problem of evil.

That’s the thing, my theoretical had no limiting factors, because any limit would limit the free exercise of will. My theoretical was a reality which had no limits, but in which everyone freely chose good. Just because that’s not the likely outcome doesn’t mean it’s not a potential. Placing a limit that makes it impossible to chose against the good removes free will, even if you can still chose between multiple good options. If you cannot chose against the good, then it is not free will in the context of this discussion.

I’m out for the day. Hopefully I’ll be able to continue the discussion tomorrow.

 

[Wesrock]

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.

Because God isn’t human, and His goodness and perfection is not the same thing as human goodness and perfection. God is good because He is fully what He is, not because He acts according to human morality. Human morality is itself based on what it is to be fully human.

The moral law isn’t an arbitrary and extrinsicaly imposed set of rules. It’s intrinsic to the essence of a human being. It’s follows from what we are. It’s not imposed upon what we are, but is what we are.

But this is a distinction between substance and artifact, teleology and design, which would have to be delved into.

 

[Wesrock]

But if you had no desire to do so, you would not commit any violent act. My point was to remove the desire would be a perfect solution to get rid of suffering. No need to curtail someone’s ability to do violent acts, if they do not desire to perform them. And removing this desire from EVERYONE, not just a select few would be the solution to the problem of violence.

…

But it was you, who said in your prior post that having a choice - even without evil - is sufficient to have free will. And, of course I agree. Limiting the possible actions, but not eliminating ALL of them is the sensible solution to the problem of evil.

Everything is on a grade, Vera. Everything. For there to be any variation, any change, is to admit into the system privations. Part of what it is to be human is accept or reject the good. There’s no hamstringing, that. And to do so is to ultimately make something different than a human being, who is defined moreso by the capability for choosing good and evil than by any arrangement of arms, legs, heart, brain, and hair.

I don’t think that this would be your attitude if you, or some of your loved ones would be on the receiving end of some insane violent action. Am I mistaken? I am very serious about this question. May I hope for an answer?

You are mistaken, for me, anyway.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You are mistaken, for me, anyway.

It would be uncharitable of me to express what I think using the words that come to my mind. So let me just say, politely, that I don’t believe you.

I hope it will never happen to you that someone whom you love is about to suffer some horrible attack. However, I am quite sure that if it happened, you would do everything in your power to prevent it. After all self-defense or the defense of others is perfectly acceptable in the Catholic moral system. Why would prevention be different? Why should the “free will” of the psychopaths be “respected”?

 

[Wesrock]

It would be uncharitable of me to express what I think using the words that come to my mind. So let me just say, politely, that I don’t believe you.

I hope it will never happen to you that someone whom you love is about to suffer some horrible attack. However, I am quite sure that if it happened, you would do everything in your power to prevent it. After all self-defense or the defense of others is perfectly acceptable in the Catholic moral system. Why would prevention be different? Why should the “free will” of the psychopaths be “respected”?

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I would of course act in self-defense of loved ones and not just stand idly by. But I’d never condone lobotomizing the entire human race or abolishing man’s free will in order to avoid it.

 

[friardchips]

This is nonsense. The ability to choose is itself freedom. You do not have to choose the good in order to have the freedom of choice. Without the freedom of choice it would not be possible to choose the good. You’re approaching it backwards. If this isn’t what you meant, I’m sorry, but that’s what you’ve written. When presented with the option to choose freedom or enslavement, I am equally free to make either choice, regardless of the outcome.

You keep accusing me of using grey areas. I’m afraid you’re going to have to explain that to me, because from my perspective I’m being pretty black and white about the issue. I’m not skating around anything.

The definition of free will is having the ability to chose either for or against something. Period. No grey area, nor skating around, just that. I’ve said it enough times that I don’t understand why you keep claiming I’m not answering the question. The wider context of good and evil has no affect on this definition, there are simply the two absolute results of either side of the choice.

(emphasis mine)

WRONG.

I don’t mean to yell, but you are twisting what I wrote. True, I said that evil does not NECESSARILY exist, it is the result of the choice to reject the good. HOWEVER, that does not mean that without evil there would be no free will. It is entirely conceivable that a person always chooses the good, and that every person always chooses the good. (extending all the way up to the angels) If everyone always did chose the good, then there would be no evil, but our free will would still remain intact, that freedom of choice would simply always be directed towards the good. As such, I can conceive of a reality in which there is both free-will, and no evil. Just because we humans do not always chose the good does not mean that we lack the capacity to always chose the good. Similarly, just because we do not always choose the good does not mean that we must choose evil in order to have free will, and if we did always choose good, that wouldn’t mean we lack free will.

However, we do not always chose the good, and any reality which, as an aspect of its nature, precludes the ability to chose evil, is a violation of free will, because we are prevented from exercising one of the two options. There is a difference between not choosing, and not being able to chose.

The man in jail has free will, but not freedom of movement or action. Will does not necessitate action. The serial killer locked up in an 8x10 cell might not be capable of murdering another victim, but he still has the capacity to will those murders, and is still guilty of the evil of murder if he does so. (This principle is extrapolated from Jesus’ teaching that lusting after a woman in your heart is as much a sin as actually committing adultery with her.)

My original post to which you countered:

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

Unfortunately, I lost my answers, which took me about an hour to write. If not more.

In short, we have the “Perfect Law” of freedom, in Scripture, which incorporates responsibility.

Evil can remain as an abstract possibility that is not tempting and therefore we can have freewill without evil ever really being a serious choice. So one can know that evil could exist and that is enough for freewill. And yes, in that case, human beings can exist without evil; however, without God incorporated in there somewhere, this is an impossibility.

If a person chooses to do something objectively wrong which consequentially moves this person into a position in which this person would be restricted against their will on any level of existence then the choice to do so would be a choice lacking in freedom -their wills are corrupted by a perverted intellect which is known by the fruit - but if the choice were truly free then the choice would not be made or even considered, to put oneself into that position. So, the person might have freewill, but their freedom to act well, is severely limited. As you noted, the intent comes from within, first. If seen with freedom of heart then one can see the world in a better way.

Freedom is the ability to choose good. Or maybe a better word would be…to ‘know’ good. And not dependent on there being evil choices that are anything more than in abstract form.

I think we have reached this conclusion?

So, from here, would be the question of what constitutes ‘evil’.

And where does ‘temptation’ come into the picture.

If we tackle these then we can answer with greater clarity the subject of suffering (or at least, as best we can).

I did answer with far more text but as I said, I lost my writing.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I would of course act in self-defense of loved ones and not just stand idly by.

If you do then you DON’T value the attacker’s “free will” over the life of your loved one. If you could protect your loved one (or anyone else for that matter) by “firing” a memory-erase gun, which would not harm the attacker, just make him forget his intention… would you do that? You cannot have both ways, either the “free will” of the attacker is more important, or bodily integrity of the intended victim takes precedence. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

But I’d never condone lobotomizing the entire human race or abolishing man’s free will in order to avoid it.

Why do you exaggerate? This is not a “caricature” of what I said, it is a total distortion. Limiting the “free will” of some selected individuals in some scenarios is not “lobotomizing”, and does not mean the “abolishing” of free will.

Every act is single, it must be evaluated on its own. If you allow any act of violence, instead of using the appropriate force to prevent it, then you prefer the “free will” of the attacker. Above you said that would try to protect the potential victim. Which one will it be?

 

[MPat]

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.

First, let’s note that this is just an emotional reaction. No self-contradiction has been found, you just said you do not like an answer (in different words). We, however, would prefer to know the truth, even if it is not very convenient.

Second, if we look at the facts, Christianity has been found to be rather comforting to victims of various persecutions. Certainly more so than anything atheism can offer.

Better for whom? I am sure you would change your tune, if you, or your beloved one would be the target of that “free will”.

You are so sure that not a single one of us has ever suffered at the hands of someone? Really?

Nonsense. Do you have any desire to hurt someone? No? So there is no need to curtail your freedom, if you have no desire to harm others. And if someone, who is a psychopath or sociopath would initiate violence, then it is obvious that prevention is the solution - and to hell with their “free will”.

And if you do have a desire to hurt others, for example, those who count as “a psychopath or sociopath”? Let’s say, by depriving them of free will?

For yes, we all do have a desire to hurt others. That is a result of Original Sin.

And that does complicate matters significantly.

And if you want a more emotional answer - look at tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheEvilsOfFreeWill - it lists many examples of villains in fiction using your reasoning…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

First, let’s note that this is just an emotional reaction. No self-contradiction has been found, you just said you do not like an answer (in different words). We, however, would prefer to know the truth, even if it is not very convenient.

Second, if we look at the facts, Christianity has been found to be rather comforting to victims of various persecutions. Certainly more so than anything atheism can offer.

I was responding to a very specific claim, namely that without these violent acts there would be no need for God’s justice. My answer was sarcastic, emphasizing that the sufferers might not take solace in the claim that their suffering gave God an opportunity to exhibit “justice”.

You are so sure that not a single one of us has ever suffered at the hands of someone? Really?

A real red herring. One poster said that “it is better to have free will”. I asked: “better for whom”? He did not answer, and neither did you.

And if you do have a desire to hurt others, for example, those who count as “a psychopath or sociopath”? Let’s say, by depriving them of free will?

That is not “hurting”. A short, directed memory-erasing that they did not even know about is not “hurting”.

For yes, we all do have a desire to hurt others. That is a result of Original Sin.

Please leave the mythology out. There are many people, who are not vindictive, who are willing to turn the other cheek - and NOT just the so-called saints.

 

[goout]

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.

God is not a human being.


I fail to see where your confusion is.

 

[MPat]

I was responding to a very specific claim, namely that without these violent acts there would be no need for God’s justice. My answer was sarcastic, emphasizing that the sufferers might not take solace in the claim that their suffering gave God an opportunity to exhibit “justice”.

Did you get an impression that your sarcasm wasn’t understood? It was. You need a different answer.

A real red herring. One poster said that “it is better to have free will”. I asked: “better for whom”? He did not answer, and neither did you.

You want the answer “better for attacker, worse for victim”. That presupposes that the victim and the attacker are two different people. They are not. Everyone is an attacker and a victim once in a while.

And you talk as if we didn’t know what it feels to be a victim, as if that was the only reason why we value free will. But everyone knows what it feels to be a victim.

That is not “hurting”. A short, directed memory-erasing that they did not even know about is not “hurting”.

And why isn’t loss of memory “hurting”?

Not to mention that you didn’t say anything about “A short, directed memory-erasing that they did not even know about” before. And are you going to say that “they” do not deserve some suffering, if it was required for removal of free will…?

Please leave the mythology out. There are many people, who are not vindictive, who are willing to turn the other cheek - and NOT just the so-called saints.

And you answer about actions when the question is about desire. Yes, not everyone follows that desire all the time. It does not mean that they never get that desire.

Also, let’s note that those “many people” seem to have no names. I wonder whom did you have in mind…

 

[Bradski]

It’s better to have will. Suffering is the consequence of will. The need for justice is the consequence of that suffering.

That’s not true. Suffering MAY be the consequence of will. And you don’t need to wait for the suffering before you impose justice.

Let’s say that someone is planning a terrorist act and we discover his plan. Do we stand back and say that we can’t do anything until he actually carries it out? This guy in the UK found out the answer to that and got a life sentence: cbsnews.com/news/haroon-syed-london-bomb-attack-sentenced-life-in-prison/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=39378785.

I’d assume that everyone would be in agreement that if someone’s free will resulted in a concrete plan (not necessarily an act in itself) to commit evil, then preventing him from committing that act would be a good thing.

Imagine if a theatre was blown up and someone told you: ‘Yeah, I knew that was going to happen. I know the guy who did it and he’s been planning it for months. But what could I do? Free will is paramount. God gave it to us and to prevent its use would be against God’s will’.

I reckon that guy would be charged and incarcerated for his own good. If I’d lost someone in the theatre, then I’d be making plans on the guy myself. But you might say: ‘How do we actually know he was going to carry it out? We’re not omniscient’.

True. But maybe you know someone that is.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Did you get an impression that your sarcasm wasn’t understood? It was.

It did not look like it. It still does not.

You want the answer “better for attacker, worse for victim”.
That presupposes that the victim and the attacker are two different people. They are not.

What are you talking about? A suicide attempt?

Everyone is an attacker and a victim once in a while.

Nonsense. But even it were true, in every specific instance there is only one attacker and one intended victim.

And you talk as if we didn’t know what it feels to be a victim, as if that was the only reason why we value free will.

No, you speak as one who DOES NOT CARE. Who “values” the free will of the attacker over the suffering of the victim. But I bet, if it was your loved one, who is about to be victimized and you had the wherewithal to stop the act, you would join me in saying: “to hell with the attacker’s free will”.

And you answer about actions when the question is about desire. Yes, not everyone follows that desire all the time. It does not mean that they never get that desire.

The desire, which is not acted upon is not problematic. (Notwithstanding what Jesus said about the “adultery in his heart”.) But if there is no desire, we nipped the problem in the bud.

Also, let’s note that those “many people” seem to have no names. I wonder whom did you have in mind…

Gandhi? Mandela? All those who choose silent, passive resistance over violence.