What do you mean by "free will?"

[Koldo]

You do in fact have a great deal of control over your desires. It is called custody of the mind, wherein you make the conscious effort over time you inculcate a helpful disposition towards virtue. You do this by consciously rejecting bad impulses and going out of your way to act on good ones. But this requires you to take responsibility for your own internal state, which is often anathema to the modern mindset. Indeed, there's an entire industry predicated on getting people to do the exact opposite.

On what basis do you make this conscious effort ?
What makes you choose which desires you want to no longer have ?

 

[atanu]

There is no consensus regarding the nature of free will and agency in dharmic traditions. Here is an excerpt from a book. What do you think?

Traditions of contemplative practice are inherited and developed by
a number of classical schools including Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Buddhism,
Vedānta, and Kashmiri Śaivism. These schools’ analyses of free will and agency are profoundly influenced by such practice, which is taken to reveal a more accurate picture of selfhood and its capacities than ordinary experience. By appeal to both meditational experience and philosophical analysis, these schools deconstruct the empirical ego into various components and tie such components to more fundamental metaphysical realities and causal processes. Given such a deconstruction, where, if anywhere, are agency and responsibility to be located?Where is the seat of human willing and the origin of human action?
Abhidharma Buddhists argue personal agency and free will make sense from the conventional perspective but not according to the fundamental reality of momentary dharmas . Part of their challenge is to navigate between both registers to make sense of our felt sense of agency and its importance in the pursuit of enlightenment.

Sāṃkhya and Advaita Vedānta conclude that the will is ultimately extrinsic to selfhood, part of a psychological apparatus covering the ā tman with which we identify in our unenlightened way of thinking. These schools typically say that mistakes about agency are a fundamental part of spiritual ignorance. The notion that we are in control, that we are beings who act, is somehow a crucial aspect of the cognitive and affective disorders collectively called avidyā , existential ignorance.

Though it too is a monistic school, Kashmiri Śaivism radically differs from Advaita Vedānta over the issue of individual freedom. For the Advaitins, Brahman, the ultimate reality, does not act, as action implies change and Brahman does not undergo modification of any kind. Therefore, since we are identical to that fundamental reality, the notion of ourselves as volitional beings that can generate change is an illusion. For the Śaivas, however, our individual freedom is an expression of the creative spontaneity of the single reality of Śiva. The error that belies our unenlightenment is not our sense of volitional freedom, but rather our failing to see the identity of our
freedom with God’s own power.

Somewhat akin to the Śaivas, a number of theistic Vedāntins argue that our problem is not that we think we are agents, but rather that we ignore the fact that our agency is derivative of, and in constant negotiation with, the agency of God, who is the supreme Self. They further reflect on individual freedom in relation to a God who creates, sustains, and oversees the universe, yet responds to the loving entreaties of his devotees.

The above is an excellent summary of the issue.

To me, the issue of free will is layered and is answered by a query “ To whom is the free will”? Or, who is bound?

 

[PureX]

Even if a person recognizes that their action(s) will only lead to a negative result, this person might still do it.
For instance, a murderer might be fully aware of the negative consequences his actions might have, such as all the suffering and pain he is going to cause, and yet, still go ahead and do it.

So, the mere act of "recognizing that it will only lead to a negative result" is not sufficient to refrain from doing something.

No, it's only sometimes not sufficient. Most of the time, it is sufficient. To commit an act that one knows will have a net negative effect, one has to ignore what he knows to be so. As opposed to ignoring the desire to do it in the first place.

 

[Stevicus]

Not at all. We have the power to act.

Only if we can control our own minds. If we can't control our minds (i.e. memory, insomnia), then we can't control our will.

 

[Koldo]

No, it's only sometimes not sufficient. Most of the time, it is sufficient. To commit an act that one knows will have a net negative effect, one has to ignore what he knows to be so. As opposed to ignoring the desire to do it in the first place.

Not really. One can be fully aware of the negative consequences and still perform the act.
For instance, a murderer can simply not care about the negative consequences that his actions can bring about and, as such, still commit murders.

 

[PureX]

Not really. One can be fully aware of the negative consequences and still perform the act.

Yes, by ignoring the importance of those consequences.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, by ignoring the importance of those consequences.

Aha!
So, besides determining whether the consequences of a given action are negative, one must also recognize a certain degree of importance in them. And how do we recognize the importance, this value, that our actions and their consequence have ? How do we proceed to determine whether something is more important than something else ?

 

[Willamena]

Only if we can control our own minds. If we can't control our minds (i.e. memory, insomnia), then we can't control our will.

We ARE our minds. No asserting control is necessary. We are the controller.

We don't control will. Will is seen in us doing things. Will is the power to do things.

We can't do all things, but we still have the power to do what we do.

Edit: Having the power to act doesn't mean that we can do anything we want. I have the power to get in my car and go somewhere. That doesn't mean I am going to get in my car and go somewhere, it just means I have to the power to do so; and I have the power to do so because it's a possible thing. I can't flap my arms and fly, because that's impossible, so I also don't have the power to do that.

I have the power to act: action is a possible thing. Will is the power to act, and free will is specifically for me, as an free and independent agency, to act.

 

[PureX]

Aha!
So, besides determining whether the consequences of a given action are negative, one must also recognize a certain degree of importance in them. And how do we recognize the importance, this value, that our actions and their consequence have ? How do we proceed to determine whether something is more important than something else ?

We compare and contrast them relative to our value imperatives.

 

[Koldo]

We compare and contrast them relative to our value imperatives.

Our value imperatives ?
But does everyone have the same value imperatives ?
For instance, could that murderer have different value imperatives from us ?

 

[Willamena]

Our value imperatives ?
But does everyone have the same value imperatives ?
For instance, could that murderer have different value imperatives from us ?

Each has composed their self in memories, experience, and values uniquely. Much is shared, i.e. 'social,' but not all.

 

[Koldo]

Each has composed their self, hence their values, in memories, experience, and values uniquely. Much is shared, i.e. 'social,' but not all.

I agree.

 

[PureX]

Our value imperatives ?
But does everyone have the same value imperatives ?
For instance, could that murderer have different value imperatives from us ?

How is any of this relevant? Please just state your point and stop with the annoying leading questions.

 

[Stevicus]

We ARE our minds. No asserting control is necessary. We are the controller.

We don't control will. Will is seen in us doing things. Will is the power to do things.

We can't do all things, but we still have the power to do what we do.

Edit: Having the power to act doesn't mean that we can do anything we want. I have the power to get in my car and go somewhere. That doesn't mean I am going to get in my car and go somewhere, it just means I have to the power to do so; and I have the power to do so because it's a possible thing. I can't flap my arms and fly, because that's impossible, so I also don't have the power to do that.

I have the power to act: action is a possible thing. Will is the power to act, and free will is specifically for me, as an free and independent agency, to act.

I look at it from two different ways.

On the one hand, if humans are merely products of nature and evolution, then we are basically functioning as "animals." We have the power to make choices within the limitations of our bodies and the physical laws. A fly has the power to act and fly into your potato salad. All animals, even insects, can make choices and have the power to act. Even with humans, most of our actions are influenced by instinct and emotion. We use our "intellect" as an attempt at a justification after the fact, mainly as a pretense that there's some "logic" or "rationality" behind our decisions.

But "free will" is a religious concept and assumes that we were created by God and that God will hold humans responsible for their choices. If this is true, then I would submit that it's grossly unfair of God to pass judgment, since humans are mainly victims of a bad design and a poorly conceived "creation." Humans can't be held responsible for their "free will" if it's merely an illusion or outside of our positive control.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It means it is logically impossible for God to do evil. This is an example of a being that can only do good.

Always doing good does not equate to an inability to do harm, it's a choice as in the original point.

If you choose to never say a cross word to a loved one ever again, does this mean you lose the ability? Only by your own choice if at all

 

[Koldo]

How is any of this relevant? Please just state your point and stop with the annoying leading questions.

If people can have different moral imperatives, then a murderer can act fully knowing that his action will bring about negative consequences and yet do so not because he ignores these negative consequences, but rather because he doesn't find them important.

Which means that for someone to, consciously, refrain from doing an evil action, one must (a) be aware that the consequences of his actions can be evil and (b) you must have a moral imperative that will give enough importance to the matter to the point you don't do it.

But to what extent can someone choose his own moral imperatives ?
My stance is that such is a consequence of the blend between our feelings and our experiences.

 

[Koldo]

Always doing good does not equate to an inability to do harm, it's a choice as in the original point.

If you choose to never say a cross word to a loved one ever again, does this mean you lose the ability? Only by your own choice if at all

You are still not getting it.
You have equated doing harm with evil. Let me follow from that: According to the view I have presented you, if God harms someone, that is good, and not evil. It doesn't matter what God does, it will always be labeled as good.

 

[Daisies4me]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

(quote)
Hi
what the Bible teaches us:
God dignifies us with free will, the power to make decisions of our own rather than having God or fate predetermine what we do. Consider what the Bible teaches.

• God created humans in his image.((not his physical image)) (Genesis 1:26) Unlike animals, which act mainly on instinct, we resemble our Creator in our capacity to display such qualities as love and justice. And like our Creator, we have free will.
  
  
• To a great extent, we can determine our future. The Bible encourages us to “choose life . . . by listening to [God’s] voice,” that is, by choosing to obey his commands. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) This offer would be meaningless, even cruel, if we lacked free will. Instead of forcing us to do what he says, God warmly appeals to us: “O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river.”—Isaiah 48:18.
  
  
• Our success or failure is not determined by fate. If we want to succeed at an endeavor, we must work hard. “All that your hand finds to do,” says the Bible, “do with your very power.”(Ecclesiastes 9:10) It also says: “The plans of the diligent one surely make for advantage.”—Proverbs 21:5.
  

Free will is a precious gift from God, for it lets us love him with our “whole heart”—because we want to.—Matthew 22:37.

Doesn’t God control all things?
The Bible does teach that God is Almighty, that his power is not limited by anyone other than himself. (Job 37:23; Isaiah 40:26) However, he does not use his power to control everything. For example, the Bible says that God was “exercising self-control” toward ancient Babylon, an enemy of his people. (Isaiah 42:14) Similarly, for now, he chooses to tolerate those who misuse their free will to harm others. But God will not do so indefinitely.—Psalm 37:10, 11.
~excerpt taken from www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/free-will-in-the-bible/
may you have peace

(quote)

 

[PureX]

If people can have different moral imperatives, then a murderer can act fully knowing that his action will bring about negative consequences and yet do so not because he ignores these negative consequences, but rather because he doesn't find them important.

Thus, he doesn't find them "negative". You're still splitting hairs, to no reasonable end.

Which means that for someone to, consciously, refrain from doing an evil action, one must (a) be aware that the consequences of his actions can be evil and (b) you must have a moral imperative that will give enough importance to the matter to the point you don't do it.

These are one and the same condition. I still don't see why you're trying to split them up. To be conscious of an evil act one must be aware of evil as a significant negative value, and aware that an action will result in that evil. That's what being consciously aware, means, in this instance. So, once one is consciously aware of this "evil act" as a possibility, one can then ignore it as a possibility, or consider it as a possibility (thus calling upon step 2 of the OP). But if one simply ignores the possibility because it is evil, then the OP's step 2 becomes irrelevant.

But to what extent can someone choose his own moral imperatives ?

To any extent that one wishes to do so. That's 'free will'.

My stance is that such is a consequence of the blend between our feelings and our experiences.

Our you might have chosen to base your moral/value imperatives based on logic, only. Or maybe on pure intuition. Or simply on your unquestioned obedience to some religious dogma. But in any case, you are still choose to do so. And you are still being held responsible (by God and life) for the choice you've made. That's that 'other side' of having been given the gift free will.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

Free to do as you want, not free to want whatever you want. Can be viewed as a bondage of the will.
It takes a change of heart, a pouring out of God's love, a regeneration to change that coming outside of yourself. 'no one comes to Me unless the Father draws him" and he will be drawn by coords of love in a heart change process

Psalm 6 a sorrowful psalm