Why is freedom a necessary attribute of a personal being?

[blase6]

In my reading of the CCC, Aquinas, this forum, etc. I constantly come across arguments which assume that a person is necessarily free.

I cannot understand how a contingent being can ultimately determine its own actions from itself. It contradicts my understanding of causality in the spiritual and physical world. Since I have grown tired of repeating incessantly my position on this matter, I will redirect those reading this to look up the “dilemma of determinism”. This is the most significant problem with the idea of free will.

My understanding of what personhood entails, for a creature, is that it has an awareness of spiritual matters, including its own identity as a spiritual creature, having a spirit as part or all of its being, and an awareness of God.

The Church claims that a person has the capacity to act ultimately of its own accord, without the necessitation of its actions from external factors. (At least in some instances; you can’t will or will not for your heart to beat.)

How this can coexist with the dilemma of determinism, and why this is a necessary attribute of all persons, is beyond me.

 

[TheSecondMile]

I have not studied this area well enough to be wholly confident in my reply but I will give it a shot.

I looked at the dilemma of determinism but I don’t find it initially convincing. The dilemma assumes that the truth of indeterminism necessarily implies chance. Maybe so for some things, but I don’t think this is always the case in persons that have a will. In the case of such persons, actions are originated in his or her will and not external forces, hence it is free and not random nor determined by something external.

Why is free will a necessary attribute for persons?

I think the reason it is considered a necessary attribute is because a person in this context is being defined as a spiritual entity, meaning it has an intellect and a will which is not an actuality of the body.

 

[Bahman]

In my reading of the CCC, Aquinas, this forum, etc. I constantly come across arguments which assume that a person is necessarily free.

I cannot understand how a contingent being can ultimately determine its own actions from itself. It contradicts my understanding of causality in the spiritual and physical world. Since I have grown tired of repeating incessantly my position on this matter, I will redirect those reading this to look up the “dilemma of determinism”. This is the most significant problem with the idea of free will.

My understanding of what personhood entails, for a creature, is that it has an awareness of spiritual matters, including its own identity as a spiritual creature, having a spirit as part or all of its being, and an awareness of God.

The Church claims that a person has the capacity to act ultimately of its own accord, without the necessitation of its actions from external factors. (At least in some instances; you can’t will or will not for your heart to beat.)

How this can coexist with the dilemma of determinism, and why this is a necessary attribute of all persons, is beyond me.

That is consciousness which the necessary attributive of any real person otherwise you are dealing with a philosophical zombie.

 

[blase6]

I have not studied this area well enough to be wholly confident in my reply but I will give it a shot.

I looked at the dilemma of determinism but I don’t find it initially convincing. The dilemma assumes that the truth of indeterminism necessarily implies chance. Maybe so for some things, but I don’t think this is always the case in persons that have a will. In the case of such persons, actions are originated in his or her will and not external forces, hence it is free and not random nor determined by something external.

Why is free will a necessary attribute for persons?

I think the reason it is considered a necessary attribute is because a person in this context is being defined as a spiritual entity, meaning it has an intellect and a will which is not an actuality of the body.

I cannot understand how an indeterministic cause would not involve at some point a degree of randomness. A random will is in a sense, determined by chance. So either way, freedom cannot coexist with causality.

 

[blase6]

That is consciousness which the necessary attributive of any real person otherwise you are dealing with a philosophical zombie.

Assertion without valid defense or reasoning. It doesn’t work.

 

[Bahman]

Assertion without valid defense or reasoning. It doesn’t work.

How could you be free if you don’t have consciousness?

 

[blase6]

How could you be free if you don’t have consciousness?

Most people here would agree that animals have some sort of consciousness, even if they have no spiritual soul or freedom.

 

[Bahman]

Most people here would agree that animals have some sort of consciousness, even if they have no spiritual soul or freedom.

Where is your spiritual soul? The only reality is that you are free because you make conscious decision. Hence, animal are free too. Most people think wrong.

 

[blase6]

Where is your spiritual soul? The only reality is that you are free because you make conscious decision. Hence, animal are free too. Most people think wrong.

You state different versions of this all the time, without offering any evidence for it.

 

[Bahman]

You state different versions of this all the time, without offering any evidence for it.

Evidence? Look at the way you make decision. You don’t know yourself well if you don’t understand what I am saying.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

A random will is in a sense, determined by chance. So either way, freedom cannot coexist with causality.

Not sure I understand you but are you suggesting that just because someone’s freely willed actions are ‘random’ it means that it’s all about chance?

Eh, not sure that adds up. Just because I don’t know what move you’re going to make doesn’t deny that it’s not random on your end. You know that you’re going to take step backward. I just can’t read your mind to predict that but it’s certainly not ‘random.’

 

[blase6]

Evidence? Look at the way you make decision. You don’t know yourself well if you don’t understand what I am saying.

Recognizing that you are the immediate cause of your own action is not a valid base for concluding that something else didn’t determine your choice.

 

[blase6]

Not sure I understand you but are you suggesting that just because someone’s freely willed actions are ‘random’ it means that it’s all about chance?

Eh, not sure that adds up. Just because I don’t know what move you’re going to make doesn’t deny that it’s not random on your end. You know that you’re going to take step backward. I just can’t read your mind to predict that but it’s certainly not ‘random.’

You act according to how you want to act. That is obvious. What causes you to want to act that way? Fate, or chance?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You act according to how you want to act. That is obvious.

So isn’t that enough to prove the necessity of freedom?

What causes you to want to act that way? Fate, or chance?

Just those two? What about personal happiness? Whims? Foresight? Religious conviction or even morality?

You’re not suggesting that all of the above motives (and more) are pigeon-holed to either just fate or chance, are you?

 

[Bahman]

Recognizing that you are the immediate cause of your own action is not a valid base for concluding that something else didn’t determine your choice.

You are first cause of your own action if you are conscious otherwise you are not free. Consciousness is the uncaused first cause. It is very you.

 

[TheSecondMile]

You act according to how you want to act. That is obvious. What causes you to want to act that way? Fate, or chance?

What about will?

EDIT: Also, it seems to me like you’re not really acting according to how you want to act if your actions are random or determined by fate.

I cannot understand how an indeterministic cause would not involve at some point a degree of randomness. A random will is in a sense, determined by chance. So either way, freedom cannot coexist with causality.

I’m not sure what “random will” means, it sounds like a contradiction to me. Willing is an act that originates in the person. How can it be random if it is determined by the person?

 

[blase6]

So isn’t that enough to prove the necessity of freedom?

Just those two? What about personal happiness? Whims? Foresight? Religious conviction or even morality?

You’re not suggesting that all of the above motives (and more) are pigeon-holed to either just fate or chance, are you?

You act according to how you want to act. The “want” is what we call the will. If the will is predetermined it is not free. Neither is it free if it is due to chance. All the other factors are contributions to one’s will.

 

[blase6]

What about will?

EDIT: Also, it seems to me like you’re not really acting according to how you want to act if your actions are random or determined by fate.

I’m not sure what “random will” means, it sounds like a contradiction to me. Willing is an act that originates in the person. How can it be random if it is determined by the person?

Your own actions are determined by your will. The question is about whether your will is predetermined, or random.

I have already said that if a person’s will is not predetermined, then it can be said to be “determined” by chance. So either way, you can see that your will is determined in some way outside of your person.

 

[John_Martin]

In my reading of the CCC, Aquinas, this forum, etc. I constantly come across arguments which assume that a person is necessarily free.

I cannot understand how a contingent being can ultimately determine its own actions from itself. It contradicts my understanding of causality in the spiritual and physical world. Since I have grown tired of repeating incessantly my position on this matter, I will redirect those reading this to look up the “dilemma of determinism”. This is the most significant problem with the idea of free will.

My understanding of what personhood entails, for a creature, is that it has an awareness of spiritual matters, including its own identity as a spiritual creature, having a spirit as part or all of its being, and an awareness of God.

The Church claims that a person has the capacity to act ultimately of its own accord, without the necessitation of its actions from external factors. (At least in some instances; you can’t will or will not for your heart to beat.)

How this can coexist with the dilemma of determinism, and why this is a necessary attribute of all persons, is beyond me.

Actually, you do will your heart to beat, your digestive tract to move, your chest to push out air and relax to inhale.

The soul desires life in its composition with its body, and moves all the body’s movements, every one, willfully, not just conscious thought or actions. Life is defined as a body that moves itself, whether in interaction with an outside stimulus from another body, or due to reasoned choice of a movement that is desired.

And you know how cliché’s often indicate a reality. That saying “He’s lost the will to live” is often followed by death of the body, the heart and breathing stopping.

Oh, and a person is simply an individual of rational being, whether free or not. And rational would require consciousness as one of the persons attributes.

Freedom is a sticky term. It is always relative to something else. But with rational creatures there is willingness and unwillingness in acts.

All animals are always “hungry”, always moving to satisfy hunger, including the individual rational animals (the human persons). The person has not only physical hungers but also rational understanding of what would be good to take into the self, and hungers for that. With that understanding is not just the understanding of one thing, but of many things, often contradictory things.

And there is the understanding that there must be some most desirable thing to consume. So, the movement to satisfy seeks to consume (to unite to) any and, if not contradictory, all desirable rational objects.

And if the ultimate rational thing is understood, that is sought for consumption to the exclusion of all that would be contrary (this would be God and contrary temporal goods).

Now, the nature of seeking to consume is not a matter of freedom - that is “programmed” (I program software). But, there is freedom in finding a best way to achieve the consumption. Lack of freedom would be some external interference forcing the consumer to unite to (consume) what is contrary to what is desired for satisfaction of the rational hunger.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I have already said that if a person’s will is not predetermined, then it can be said to be “determined” by chance. So either way, you can see that your will is determined in some way outside of your person.

And this eliminates freedom… how? An inability to prevent circumstances is not the same as the inability to freely choose responses to them. Sure, you can’t always have the best choices (even though the pervasiveness of such situations is absurdly rarer than most people think but that’s another topic). That doesn’t mean you are always 100% without a choice in anything that happens to you.

It’s unrealistic to say you’re being completely controlled by chance. More likely you grapple with it but the grappling is on your end too. If chance was in such complete control, there would be no need to fight, to choose. I’d dare say you’re just arguing for one side of the same coin.

You act according to how you want to act. The “want” is what we call the will. If the will is predetermined it is not free. Neither is it free if it is due to chance. All the other factors are contributions to one’s will.

Happenstance is not predetermination. No offense but what you’re implying is a rather overly simplistic (if not demeaning) view of life. A poor man may have been born into his status but that doesn’t take away his decision to either change that or stick with his sour lot. You might argue that his situation was ‘predetermined’ but whatever choice he makes in response to it cannot be called chance! It’s his own exercise of freedom!