What is wanting?

[rinnie]

No, we don’t know right from wrong as a omniscient know.

We can do our best but that could not be the best possible thing, something that a omniscient can do.

That is exactly when free will come to play its role. So the question is what is it and what is the use of it?

Simple free will is exactly what God said it was, we have a choice to please God or ourself.

We can choose to steal or not steal, to kill or not kill to sin or not sin. IF we sin it means that we know that we are choosing to separate ourselves and do it anyway. If we sin and are not aware of it, it is not held against us. God is not unfair and does not judge anyone unfair. He judges us all according to our own ability.

I do not understand how you cannot understand right from wrong. Do you feel that we do not all have the ability to know right from wrong? Do you feel that we are all without a conscience?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I am sorry. Please accept my apology.

I am sorry that I have to repeat myself. I cannot make it more clearer than that: Rationality can only leads to good therefore free will can only allows to go against rationality which means allowing bad.

So the question is what is the purpose of having free will when it only leads to bad?

I think that I am correct. We do not freely choose to love people. That is something deep inside our nature.

See my post on your other thread.

You are not addressing responses.

For example , you claim the heroic act was only due to hormones. Now you bring up love.

For either reason, why those , rather then free will caused this heroic act by a complete stranger.

 

[rinnie]

You of course need to be consciously aware of the situation to make a rational or free choice.

Yes.

Sin is irrational therefore we cannot sin rationally. We however can use our free will to commit sin which is irrational. The main question related to this thread is what is the use of free will if it always allows bad. We don’t really need it.

That is not correct. Machine can choose rationally. Machine cannot choose freely.

How is a machine rational? If I program a machine to cheat everyone on the toll road out of a dollar every ten miles. are you saying the machine has a conscience and is going to override what it was programmed to do and not cheat people??

And are you saying only irrational people can sin? That they cannot make a rational decision to sin. Again I completely disagree with you and so does the Church. It makes the difference between venial and mortal sin.

 

[fhansen]

I doubt it. What we see as a growth in human culture is the result of a better understanding of our position in nature. That made us a better rational agent which eventually leads to good.

This sounds like a pipe-dream, considering that we’ve experienced our bloodiest history in modern times, committed by societies that were of the more highly educated and cultured kind.

Choosing light instead of darkness is a rational act.

People often decide which act is light is and which is darkness based on some preference for one over the other. All darkness has some attraction, some reason for desiring it or their would *be *no darkness.

Free will can leads to bad again if it leaded to bad in the past.

Or to good, to a greater good than we started with or than we even imagined possible, to a good that outweighed the bad that we also would have experienced.

 

[STT]

See my post on your other thread.

I saw that you mentioned that there is a relation between two threads. To be hones I cannot see the relation. Could you please elaborate?

You are not addressing responses.

For example , you claim the heroic act was only due to hormones. Now you bring up love.

For either reason, why those , rather then free will caused this heroic act by a complete stranger.

Heroic action is similar to love our parents have for us. They sacrifice their life as a Hero does.

 

[STT]

How is a machine rational? If I program a machine to cheat everyone on the toll road out of a dollar every ten miles. are you saying the machine has a conscience and is going to override what it was programmed to do and not cheat people??

A machine acts based on a program. Its act could be good or bad based on the loaded program but computer isn’t intrinsically irrational because it works based on logic.

And are you saying only irrational people can sin?

I am saying that free will allows an irrational act. And yes, sin is irrational and could only be committed by a irrational person.

That they cannot make a rational decision to sin.

Morality is based on reason, therefore one cannot make a rational decision to sin.

Again I completely disagree with you and so does the Church. It makes the difference between venial and mortal sin.

I don’t understand. Aren’t those sins different? How this is related to the rest of our discussion?

 

[STT]

This sounds like a pipe-dream, considering that we’ve experienced our bloodiest history in modern times, committed by societies that were of the more highly educated and cultured kind.

That is partially true. We are human and have tribe mentality so we will have problem until we are not united in one tribe. Hopefully that will happen soon.

People often decide which act is light is and which is darkness based on some preference for one over the other. All darkness has some attraction, some reason for desiring it or their would *be *no darkness.

I don’t understand your logic. Things could be attractive if they are pleasant to our nature. Why do you call them dark? By the way, our nature is a gift of God.

Or to good, to a greater good than we started with or than we even imagined possible, to a good that outweighed the bad that we also would have experienced.

Then you didn’t get my argument so I repeat it again. A rational agent can only perform good (correct act). What allows a person to commit bad (wrong act) is free will. Therefore free will can never open a door to a greater good.

 

[fhansen]

That is partially true. We are human and have tribe mentality so we will have problem until we are not united in one tribe. Hopefully that will happen soon.

.
Well, we can keep appealing to speculative solutions that may or may not be realistic or we can acknowledge that humankind as a whole may never evolve or otherwise naturally improve morally.

I don’t understand your logic. Things could be attractive if they are pleasant to our nature. Why do you call them dark? By the way, our nature is a gift of God.

It can appear good to kill, murder, sacrifice, torture, rape, etc, if in doing so a person gets what they want out of the act at the time.

Then you didn’t get my argument so I repeat it again. A rational agent can only perform good (correct act). What allows a person to commit bad (wrong act) is free will. Therefore free will can never open a door to a greater good.

Free will only makes beings culpable for their actions. Rational beings with or without freewill are not guaranteed to act morally good, bad, or neutral. And haven’t you already denied the existence of objective morality anyway? How can you determine that any act is good or bad to begin with?

 

[STT]

Well, we can just keep appealing to speculative solutions that may or may not be realistic or we can acknowledge that humankind may never evolve or otherwise improve morally.

Well, lets try our best and keep our fingers crossed. We really had a great progress.

It can appear good to kill, murder, sacrifice, torture, rape, etc, if in doing so a person gets what they want out of the act at the time.

That is part of our nature. Isn’t it? So why not blame God instead of individuals who has such tendencies.

Free will only makes beings culpable for their actions.

Yes, but what is the point of having it when it only leads to bad.

Rational beings with or without freewill are not guaranteed to act morally good, bad, or neutral.

That is not correct. Rational beings always do good. You know that harming yourself is bad because it can kills you.

And haven’t you already denied the existence of objective morality anyway?

Yes, there is nothing like objective morality. Morality is related to rationality. What is right to do in a situation is to follow your rationality and take the best of it.

By the way, why you bother with objective morality? Jesus clearly said to love your enemy and you killed your enemy in Crusade.

QUOTE=fhansen;14454679]
How can you determine that any act is good or bad to begin with?

What brings you the best for you and others is good otherwise is bad. This is related to prisoner dilemma.

 

[fhansen]

That is part of our nature. Isn’t it? So why not blame God instead of individuals who has such tendencies.

No, I don’t believe such acts are part of our natures. They result from an abuse of free will, not the natures given us. This is why the majority of people don’t commit such acts.

That is not correct. Rational beings always do good. You know that harming yourself is bad because it can kills you.

But in reality wouldn’t a rational being nonetheless always be free to harm themselves? What would restrain them? Are people who harm themselves necessarily irrational beings, or are they just otherwise rational beings who acted irrationally anyway at some point, for some reason?

Yes, there is nothing like objective morality. Morality is related to rationality. What is right to do in a situation is to follow your rationality and take the best of it.

That’s still involves choice, and uncertainty as to the rectitude of the choice.

By the way, why you bother with objective morality? Jesus clearly said to love your enemy and you killed your enemy in Crusade.

I don’t recall killing anyone. But, if I did, then I acted against what my faith considers to be objectively right unless I acted in self-defense, which would not be inconsistent with love.

 

[Vico]

You don’t need to feel sorry for the act you thought it is the best and it turns into bad.

“when we know it is wrong”

 

[STT]

No, I don’t believe such acts are part of our natures. They result from an abuse of free will, not the natures given us. This is why the majority of people don’t commit such acts.

Even if that is true then we reach to my point again. Free will can only leads to bad.

But in reality wouldn’t a rational being nonetheless always be free to harm themselves? What would restrain them? Are people who harm themselves necessarily irrational beings, or are they just otherwise rational beings who acted irrationally anyway at some point, for some reason?

That is again because of free will that a rational being hurt himself. A person could however be in a irrational mental state.

 

[STT]

“when we know it is wrong”

Then we know it is wrong. There is no need to feel sorry about.

 

[rinnie]

Even if that is true then we reach to my point again. Free will can only leads to bad.

That is again because of free will that a rational being hurt himself. A person could however be in a irrational mental state.

Where is your proof that people cannot use free will to do good? And how can it be the reason of free will that a rational person hurts oneself? A rational person hurts oneself if he chooses to do what is bad instead of the good that he was created to do. But a person can use free will to not hurt themselves also.

If a person uses free will to love people, serve the poor, help others, how can that lead to bad? It makes no sense.
Free will can only lead to bad, if a person chooses it to. If a person uses free will to do good, it leads to good,. It has nothing to do with God giving us free will, it has all to do a person using the free will given to us to choose Good.

 

[rinnie]

Then we know it is wrong. There is no need to feel sorry about.

where is there truth in this statement?

 

[fhansen]

Even if that is true then we reach to my point again. Free will can only leads to bad.

That is again because of free will that a rational being hurt himself. A person could however be in a irrational mental state.

But free will doesn’t, of necessity, produce bad acts. It only opens the door to bad acts, but also to more* virtuous* acts than otherwise possible.

 

[STT]

Where is your proof that people cannot use free will to do good? And how can it be the reason of free will that a rational person hurts oneself? A rational person hurts oneself if he chooses to do what is bad instead of the good that he was created to do. But a person can use free will to not hurt themselves also.

Here is the proof. Rationality can only leads to good (correct act). Free will allows to go against rationality which this only allows bad (wrong act).

If a person uses free will to love people, serve the poor, help others, how can that lead to bad? It makes no sense.

You just need to be rational to serve the poor, help others, etc.

Free will can only lead to bad, if a person chooses it to. If a person uses free will to do good, it leads to good,. It has nothing to do with God giving us free will, it has all to do a person using the free will given to us to choose Good.

That is not correct as it is argued.

 

[STT]

where is there truth in this statement?

You want to feel sorry for the act you didn’t know it is correct. Then feel sorry. But that is pointless. It is of course useful to learn from your mistake.

 

[STT]

But free will doesn’t, of necessity, produce bad acts. It only opens the door to bad acts, but also to more* virtuous* acts than otherwise possible.

Virtuous acts are rational. We don’t need free will to commit them.

 

[davidv]

Virtuous acts are rational. We don’t need free will to commit them.

How can one be rational without free will?