What is wanting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
davidv said:
How does this answer my question?
Click to expand...
I don’t know how to answer your question other way around. To me it is obvious that we could be rational being without free will. I don’t understand how they could be related. Could please elaborate?
 
STT said:
I don’t know how to answer your question other way around. To me it is obvious that we could be rational being without free will. I don’t understand how they could be related. Could please elaborate?
Click to expand...
Why is it obvious? It is not obvious to me.
 
davidv said:
Why are you evading my questions? You made a claim. Please defend it.
Click to expand...
Rationality is defined as the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Free will is the ability to choose among a set of options freely. Why do you think that we cannot perform a rational act without free will? Even a computer can do that: If this do that.
 
STT said:
Rationality is defined as the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Free will is the ability to choose among a set of options freely. Why do you think that we cannot perform a rational act without free will? Even a computer can do that: If this do that.
Click to expand...
Catholic Encyclopedia has an explanation of why:

Free will does not mean capability of willing in the absence of all motive, or of arbitrarily choosing anything whatever. The rational being is always attracted by what is apprehended as good. Pure evil, misery as such, man could not desire. However, the good presents itself in many forms and under many aspects–the pleasant, the prudent, the right, the noble, the beautiful–and in reflective or deliberate action we can choose among these. The clear vision of God would necessarily preclude all volition at variance with this object, but in this world we never apprehend Infinite Good. Nor does the doctrine of free will imply that man is constantly exerting this power at every waking moment, any more than the statement that he is a “rational” animal implies that he is always reasoning.

Maher, M. (1909). Free Will. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm
 
Vico said:
Catholic Encyclopedia has an explanation of why:

Free will does not mean capability of willing in the absence of all motive, or of arbitrarily choosing anything whatever. The rational being is always attracted by what is apprehended as good. Pure evil, misery as such, man could not desire. However, the good presents itself in many forms and under many aspects–the pleasant, the prudent, the right, the noble, the beautiful–and in reflective or deliberate action we can choose among these. The clear vision of God would necessarily preclude all volition at variance with this object, but in this world we never apprehend Infinite Good. Nor does the doctrine of free will imply that man is constantly exerting this power at every waking moment, any more than the statement that he is a “rational” animal implies that he is always reasoning.

Maher, M. (1909). Free Will. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm
Click to expand...
Great quote 👍. Free will doesn’t mean that we’re always exercising it, or always choosing freely. And having the faculty of reason doesn’t imply that a rational being always acts rationally.
 
STT said:
Here is the proof. Rationality can only leads to good (correct act).

You just need to be rational to serve the poor, help others, etc.
Click to expand...
In terms of helping the poor I could argue that it would be more rational to save any spare money I had in case of an emergency.

Murdering a relative to get an inheritance may seem rational if the murderer considers that they have a low probability of getting caught and needs the money and the victim is terminally ill and beyond the point of recognising anyone - also assume that they know that the victim does not want euthanasia under any circumstances (for those that think it would be OK), but it would still be wrong. In other words, from a worldly perspective, a wrong act may be rational from the point of view the person committing it.
 
Vico said:
Catholic Encyclopedia has an explanation of why:

Free will does not mean capability of willing in the absence of all motive, or of arbitrarily choosing anything whatever. The rational being is always attracted by what is apprehended as good. Pure evil, misery as such, man could not desire. However, the good presents itself in many forms and under many aspects–the pleasant, the prudent, the right, the noble, the beautiful–and in reflective or deliberate action we can choose among these. The clear vision of God would necessarily preclude all volition at variance with this object, but in this world we never apprehend Infinite Good. Nor does the doctrine of free will imply that man is constantly exerting this power at every waking moment, any more than the statement that he is a “rational” animal implies that he is always reasoning.

Maher, M. (1909). Free Will. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how what you quoted is an answer to the why question?
 
Elf01 said:
In terms of helping the poor I could argue that it would be more rational to save any spare money I had in case of an emergency.
Click to expand...
If everybody helps everybody in the time of needs then you won’t worry about future and try to save your money.
Elf01 said:
Murdering a relative to get an inheritance may seem rational if the murderer considers that they have a low probability of getting caught and needs the money and the victim is terminally ill and beyond the point of recognising anyone - also assume that they know that the victim does not want euthanasia under any circumstances (for those that think it would be OK), but it would still be wrong. In other words, from a worldly perspective, a wrong act may be rational from the point of view the person committing it.
Click to expand...
This is related to objective versus subjective morality which is beyond the topic of this thread.
 
STT said:
I don’t understand how what you quoted is an answer to the why question?
Click to expand...
Q. Why do you think that we cannot perform a rational act without free will?

A. What appears to be good has many forms and many aspects and “in reflective or deliberate action we can choose among these”.
But, that man is a “rational” animal does not imply that reasoning is always used.
 
Vico said:
Q. Why do you think that we cannot perform a rational act without free will?
Click to expand...
No, what I am saying is that we can perform good without free will since we are rational being. Even a computer can do that: If this then do this.
Vico said:
A. What appears to be good has many forms and many aspects and “in reflective or deliberate action we can choose among these”.
But, that man is a “rational” animal does not imply that reasoning is always used.
Click to expand...
Our emotions and needs are basic forces for push us forward to act. We are intellectual being and can realize options within situation which fit our needs the best. We do always pick up the best option unless free will intervene. So the basic question related to this thread is that what is the use of free will from evolutionary and creationist point of view.
 
STT said:
Rationality is defined as the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Free will is the ability to choose among a set of options freely. Why do you think that we cannot perform a rational act without free will? Even a computer can do that: If this do that.
Click to expand...
This does not answer my original point. It does not explain why this
SST:
To me it is obvious that we could be rational being without free will. I don’t understand how they could be related.
Click to expand...
is true.
 
STT said:
No, what I am saying is that we can perform good without free will since we are rational being. Even a computer can do that: If this then do this.

Our emotions and needs are basic forces for push us forward to act. We are intellectual being and can realize options within situation which fit our needs the best. We do always pick up the best option unless free will intervene. So the basic question related to this thread is that what is the use of free will from evolutionary and creationist point of view.
Click to expand...
I posted your question exactly, did you not recognize it?

A person has four possible types of action but a computer can not do two of these:

  1. *]free will good
    *]free will bad
    *]unfree will good
    *]unfree will bad

    A person certainly does not always act in the best way since there is error. Now, this could be by reflex or habit or by choice.
 
davidv said:
This does not answer my original point. It does not explain why this is true.
Click to expand...
It does. As I mentioned even a computer can perform rational act. I am sorry by I cannot really explain it better unless you tell me where you have problem.
 
Vico said:
I posted your question exactly, did you not recognize it?
Click to expand...
No, I have bad memory.
Vico said:
A person has four possible types of action but a computer can not do two of these:

  1. *]free will good
    *]free will bad
    *]unfree will good
    *]unfree will bad
Click to expand...

  1. There are only three cases. A unfree act is always rational therefore it is a correct act. Perhaps the problem between us resolves if we distinguish between correct and good act.
    Vico said:
    A person certainly does not always act in the best way since there is error. Now, this could be by reflex or habit or by choice.
    Click to expand...
    Considering habit or reflex into account a rational being always do the best if there is not free will.
 
STT said:
No, I have bad memory.

There are only three cases. A unfree act is always rational therefore it is a correct act. Perhaps the problem between us resolves if we distinguish between correct and good act.

Considering habit or reflex into account a rational being always do the best if there is not free will.
Click to expand...
I do not agree and there is no point in repeating any prior posts. You have not demonstrated your statements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top