What is wanting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
That made zero sense.
Click to expand...
That is not true. It makes complete sense.
Vonsalza said:
You only rationalize when confronted with a problem that can have logic meaningfully applied. You then choose which logical outcome you wish to pursue - especially if there’s more than one outcome.
Click to expand...
That is not correct. You don’t need free will to analyze a situation with some options.
Vonsalza said:
Thus “free will” is present in both situations.
Click to expand...
Free will enter only when you want to choose bad otherwise you choose the best option when you finished your analyzes.
Vonsalza said:
And I’m assuming that you’ve already been told “good” and “bad” are completely meaningless words outside of some objective moral authority that defines them.
Click to expand...
That is off topic so lets please set it aside.
Vonsalza said:
This whole thing is a mess, respectfully. :confused:
Click to expand...
That is not correct.
 
STT said:
That is very true.

That is not true. A rational being, human, does not choose bad instead always choose good if he doesn’t have free will.

For what purpose?
Click to expand...
You said a rational being and humans are rational beings, but humans do not always act rationally. Note that sin is an act contrary to reason.

Responsibility is necessary for there to be any expression of love or hate, for neither can be compelled. There is a distinction between objective sin and moral culpability.
 
Vico said:
You said a rational being and humans are rational beings, but humans do not always act rationally.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the main reason that we act irrationally is because of free will. So the question is what is the use of it?
Vico said:
Note that sin is an act contrary to reason.
Click to expand...
That we can agree upon.
Vico said:
Responsibility is necessary for there to be any expression of love or hate, for neither can be compelled.
Click to expand...
Love and hate are emotions and we don’t completely have control on them. Here we are talking about act when free will is involved.
Vico said:
There is a distinction between objective sin and moral culpability.
Click to expand...
That we know.
 
STT said:
That is very true.

That is not true. A rational being, human, does not choose bad instead always choose good if he doesn’t have free will.
Click to expand...
If he has no free will he chooses nothing.
 
STT said:
Yes, and the main reason that we act irrationally is because of free will. So the question is what is the use of it?

That we can agree upon.

Love and hate are emotions and we don’t completely have control on them. Here we are talking about act when free will is involved.

That we know.
Click to expand...
I am not referring to emotions of love and hate, but to charity and malice.

Collins Dictionary
  • Charity: an act of goodwill or affection.
  • Malice: Malice is behavior that is intended to harm people or their reputations, or cause them embarrassment and upset.
 
Vico said:
I am not referring to emotions of love and hate, but to charity and malice.

Collins Dictionary
  • Charity: an act of goodwill or affection.
  • Malice: Malice is behavior that is intended to harm people or their reputations, or cause them embarrassment and upset.
Click to expand...
I see. But the question still stands what is the use of free will if it only allows us to do bad?
 
STT said:
You need to be rational to do good. Free will just allows bad.
Click to expand...
Bad can also be done without free will and free will allows for either choice.
Four possibilities:
    • Free Good
    • Free Bad
    • Unfree Good
    • Unfree Bad
    In the same sense as formal and material objects of logic there is formal and material sin. Formal pertains to actions with responsibility. Material can be with or without responsibilty.

    What are the differences between formal and material objects of logic?
    (Reference.com)
    • Formal logic proceeds from methods of observation and comprehension. It deals with the evaluation of logical statements and objects and with the tools used to arrive at those evaluations.
    • Material logic proceeds from assessment of physical and observable quantities. It is considered procedural and very focused on ideas of hardness and softness as they relate to the quality of evidence in either a legal or debate-postulate sense of the word
    .
 
Vico said:
Bad can also be done without free will and free will allows for either choice.
Click to expand...
That is not correct if the agent is a rational being.
Vico said:
Four possibilities:

  1. *]Free Good
    *]Free Bad
    *]Unfree Good
    *]Unfree Bad
Click to expand...

  1. There are only three possibility.

    1. *]Free and rationl → Good
      *]Free and rational → Bad
      *]Unfree and raional → Good
      *]Unfree and rational → Bad (this is not permissible for an rational agent)
 
STT said:
That is not correct if the agent is a rational being.

There are only three possibility.


  1. *]Free and rational → Good
    *]Free and rational → Bad
    *]Unfree and rational → Good
    *]Unfree and rational → Bad (this is not permissible for an rational agent)
Click to expand...

  1. No, truly there are four, because material bad act is possible even though the person is not culpable for it.
 
Vico said:
No, truly there are four, because material bad act is possible even though the person is not culpable for it.
Click to expand...
What is material bad? I know you provided the definition but that doesn’t really help me. Could you please rephrase it?
 
STT said:
What is material bad? I know you provided the definition but that doesn’t really help me. Could you please rephrase it?
Click to expand...
Material sin is sinful in the objective since, regardless of the knowledge of the sinner.
Formal sin is known by the sinner to be sinful or intended to be sinful, this is the subjective sense.

Modern Catholic Dictionary

Materially Evil: Something that is objectively a moral evil, and therefore sinful, but a person does it either without knowing it is wrong, or under duress and without internal consent to the evil.

Formal Evil. A bad human act, done with knowledge that it is morally wrong, and with consent to performing it because of some advantage to the one who does it.
 
Vico said:
Material sin is sinful in the objective since, regardless of the knowledge of the sinner.
Click to expand...
If you mean that sinner does not know the effect of his act to be sinful then that is not our concern otherwise you need to expand this so I can understand. Thanks.
 
STT said:
If you mean that sinner does not know the effect of his act to be sinful then that is not our concern otherwise you need to expand this so I can understand. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I did explain it with the second sentence from the Modern Catholic Dictionary. “Something that is objectively a moral evil, and therefore sinful, but a person does it either without knowing it is wrong, or under duress and without internal consent to the evil.”
 
Vico said:
I did explain it with the second sentence from the Modern Catholic Dictionary. “Something that is objectively a moral evil, and therefore sinful, but a person does it either without knowing it is wrong, or under duress and without internal consent to the evil.”
Click to expand...
So he hasn’t done anything rationally bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top