The idea of free will seems contradictory to the idea that all evil and sin is corrupt goodness

[N0X3x]

I don’t think it’s safe to distinguish between “desire” and “choice.” A desire (I mean one that is on the level of the will, not a purely sensual attraction) is already a choice.

If that is what you mean by desire, I now have to claim that liberum arbitrium is must mean that we can desire evil for its own sake as well.

(In order to commit a sin, by the way, a man need not be aware of all the consequences. It is sufficient his conscience inform him here and now that what he is about to do is wrong. There are many ways to know that kind of thing, and I think that human beings have an almost instinctive understanding that something as grave as adultery is wrong.)

if man desires to maximize the good, which must be the case if Linus the 2nd’s claim about the beatific vision is true (Which seems to be that in the next life, the will is permanently oriented to the genuine good, and apparent goods that are actually evil are no longer apparently good.) , then man seeks whatever seems to him to be the best option. (the option with the most genuine good.) Under this view, a man can not choose an option that he* really* knows is wrong (or bad, or evil), because if he could, he could also do this while experiencing the beatific vision! He might know that the church disapproves of it, he might know that the bible commands against it, and he might even have a reluctance in his heart to do it, but if he actually decides to do it, he does so because he is pursuing the greatest good he is aware of. or at least, that’s the corruptism perspective.

Anyway, it seems to me that in order to choose the adultery, the man has to forget for a moment the evilness of the action.

What this all boils down to is: is this forgetfulness an intellectual flaw that the man can not control, or is it something that the man deliberately puts out of his mind? In the former case, corruptism would seem to be true, and in the latter case, it would seem that the belief that we have liberum arbitrium is true. But if one is true, the other can not be true.

Remember that adulteries occur in a storm of passion, in which the people involved are not thinking properly. The perpetrators are blinded by the apparent good, and fail to see that they their desires are disordered. The initial walk down that road begins when we fail to control our passions, while we were still in control, and allow ourselves to contemplate and imagine the sinful behavior.

Understood, but the question then becomes: Are the individuals capable, at any point during the walk down that road, of turning around and going back? If the answer is yes, then even though the perpetrators are blinded by the apparent good, they can still choose, even at that moment, the genuine good. In that case, the perpetrators can choose evil for its own sake, since they are capable of stopping and do not. if the answer is no, then the choice for adultery is merely pushed forward to the moment the individuals choose to engage their imagination, and we can ask the same question again: Are these individuals choosing to do so because they are simply mistaken about what the genuine good is? or are they choosing it because they are capable of choosing something less then the best good available to them, in other words, choosing evil for its own sake?

However, it is not the misery itself that the adulterer wants. He still seeks happiness, but he is seeking it in the wrong place.

Linus the 2nd seems to claim that every person seeks the genuine good,and when they do not choose the genuine good, it is because they are mistaken about what the genuine good is. This explains why we do not choose evil when beholding the beatific vision. At that point, we know, with certainty, what the genuine good is and are free from corruptive influences. But if that is the case, it would seem that our ignorance of the complete beatific vision and the presence of those corruptive influences are what are actually responsible for human beings choosing evil. human beings are not responsible for their corruptive influences and ignorance, so these factors must be discounted. yet if they are discounted, then human beings never choose evil, as the doctrine behind the beatific vision shows! Thus, if a person believes the doctrine behind the beatific vision (which essentially an aspect of corruptsim), he can not believe in human culpability, and if he believes in human culpability and liberum arbitrium, he can not believe in the doctrine behind the beatific vision.

 

[lmelahn]

If that is what you mean by desire, I now have to claim that liberum arbitrium is must mean that we can desire evil for its own sake as well.

if man desires to maximize the good, which must be the case if Linus the 2nd’s claim about the beatific vision is true (Which seems to be that in the next life, the will is permanently oriented to the genuine good, and apparent goods that are actually evil are no longer apparently good.) , then man seeks whatever seems to him to be the best option. (the option with the most genuine good.) Under this view, a man can not choose an option that he* really* knows is wrong (or bad, or evil), because if he could, he could also do this while experiencing the beatific vision! He might know that the church disapproves of it, he might know that the bible commands against it, and he might even have a reluctance in his heart to do it, but if he actually decides to do it, he does so because he is pursuing the greatest good he is aware of. or at least, that’s the corruptism perspective.

A man is invited to “maximize” his fulfillment (although that expression sounds too much like Utilitarianism for my taste), but he is not compelled as long as he is in this life.

What this all boils down to is: is this forgetfulness an intellectual flaw that the man can not control, or is it something that the man deliberately puts out of his mind? In the former case, corruptism would seem to be true, and in the latter case, it would seem that the belief that we have liberum arbitrium is true. But if one is true, the other can not be true.

It would have to be deliberate on some level; otherwise, sinful actions would not be sinful. The intellect and the will have the ability to influence each other mutually in different ways. The intellect presents goods to be accomplished to the will. The will, however, can say “no thanks” and command the intellect to show it, say, a sensual good instead.

Understood, but the question then becomes: Are the individuals capable, at any point during the walk down that road, of turning around and going back? If the answer is yes, then even though the perpetrators are blinded by the apparent good, they can still choose, even at that moment, the genuine good. In that case, the perpetrators can choose evil for its own sake, since they are capable of stopping and do not. if the answer is no, then the choice for adultery is merely pushed forward to the moment the individuals choose to engage their imagination, and we can ask the same question again: Are these individuals choosing to do so because they are simply mistaken about what the genuine good is? or are they choosing it because they are capable of choosing something less then the best good available to them, in other words, choosing evil for its own sake?

There are some kinds of sins (the sexual ones in particular) that are very difficult to turn back from once they are started. It is very difficult to quell the heat of passion. The principal sin, in my opinion, occurs when we are still in control and first choose to go down the bad road. Once the heat of passion is on, we actually become less free and even our moral culpability (for actions accomplished in the heat of passion) is diminished.

Linus the 2nd seems to claim that every person seeks the genuine good,and when they do not choose the genuine good, it is because they are mistaken about what the genuine good is. This explains why we do not choose evil when beholding the beatific vision. At that point, we know, with certainty, what the genuine good is and are free from corruptive influences. But if that is the case, it would seem that our ignorance of the complete beatific vision and the presence of those corruptive influences are what are actually responsible for human beings choosing evil. human beings are not responsible for their corruptive influences and ignorance, so these factors must be discounted. yet if they are discounted, then human beings never choose evil, as the doctrine behind the beatific vision shows! Thus, if a person believes the doctrine behind the beatific vision (which essentially an aspect of corruptsim), he can not believe in human culpability, and if he believes in human culpability and liberum arbitrium, he can not believe in the doctrine behind the beatific vision.

The Beatific Vision compels us not to sin, not only because we are certain that it is our authentic good, but because it is so intense. Knowing the doctrine of the Beatific Vision is very different from experiencing that Vision (just as knowing the characteristics of a person’s future spouse is very different from meeting him or her in person). We have liberum arbitrium (the ability to choose between good and evil) now precisely because the goods we encounter are all limited, and hence our wills can reject them. It is a really stupid thing to do, to put it bluntly, but don’t forget that we are wounded by the effects of Original Sin, and, well, we do lots of stupid things as a result.