What do you mean by "free will?"

[Glaurung]

I would have programmed the will of my children if given the chance. Be loyal. Be honest. Be kind.

It wouldn't be loyalty, it wouldn't kindness, it wouldn't honesty. Unless there is free choice then it none of it is real; just a lie you're telling yourself. If you really think otherwise then you may as well marry a sex robot. She will be perfectly "faithful" by your reckoning.

 

[Tumah]

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?

According to my understanding, "evil" in Judaism, is represented by a system a part of which provides mankind with the desire to perform an act that causes one to move away from G-d (to put it in subjective terms). This is balanced by the "good" which is the system that provides mankind with the desire to perform an act that causes one to move towards G-d. Free-will is defined as the point at which the desire for good and the desire for evil are roughly equal, such that one still has to strive to choose one or the other. The purpose of free-will is to test man, so as to vindicate the state each individual will find themselves in, at the conclusion of the world.

If you remove step one (the evil desire), there is no free will. If you remove step three (the ability to actualize one's choice), the whole system (and creation) becomes pointless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you remove step one (the evil desire), there is no free will. If you remove step three (the ability to actualize one's choice), the whole system (and creation) becomes pointless.

So then we don't have free will? It's often the case that we don't have these things.

Here's an example:

The last time I was driving, it never even occurred to me that I could use my car to kill people. I never once thought to myself, "no, I shouldn't steer into the people on the sidewalk" because I never even thought to ask myself if this is something I should do.

And if I had decided to kill pedestrians with my car, it's entirely possible that they could have avoided me. Maybe some fixed object I failed to notice would have stopped the car before I could hit anyone. Or maybe I could have decided "okay - I'm going to run a pedestrian down," but I make the decision so late at night that there aren't any pedestrians out.

Does the fact that I don't think of every evil idea mean I don't have free will? As it is, uncountably many evil things that I could do never even cross my mind... and you seem to be saying that if evil things don't occur to us, then we don't have free will.

All else being equal, a lot of evil doesn't happen because it simply doesn't occur to us, or because the circumstances aren't favourable to it happening even if someone chose to do it (or because it's just physically impossible). All of this represents potential evil that has been prevented.

What I'm saying is that if even more evil just never occurred to us, or if circumstances were less favourable to evil acts more of the time, then less evil would be inflicted on the world. And since both of these things are just incremental changes to what we already have, I fail to see how we could have free will with the status quo but lose it in a slightly altered version of the status quo.

 

[Tumah]

So then we don't have free will? It's often the case that we don't have these things.

Here's an example:

The last time I was driving, it never even occurred to me that I could use my car to kill people. I never once thought to myself, "no, I shouldn't steer into the people on the sidewalk" because I never even thought to ask myself if this is something I should do.

And if I had decided to kill pedestrians with my car, it's entirely possible that they could have avoided me. Maybe some fixed object I failed to notice would have stopped the car before I could hit anyone. Or maybe I could have decided "okay - I'm going to run a pedestrian down," but I make the decision so late at night that there aren't any pedestrians out.

Does the fact that I don't think of every evil idea mean I don't have free will? As it is, uncountably many evil things that I could do never even cross my mind... and you seem to be saying that if evil things don't occur to us, then we don't have free will.

All else being equal, a lot of evil doesn't happen because it simply doesn't occur to us, or because the circumstances aren't favourable to it happening even if someone chose to do it (or because it's just physically impossible). All of this represents potential evil that has been prevented.

What I'm saying is that if even more evil just never occurred to us, or if circumstances were less favourable to evil acts more of the time, then less evil would be inflicted on the world. And since both of these things are just incremental changes to what we already have, I fail to see how we could have free will with the status quo but lose it in a slightly altered version of the status quo.

I don't know if this is a novel approach in comparison to other religions, but the difference in Jewish philosophy is that free-will is not something that's always active. So you're right, you don't always have free will. If it's something that's beyond the sphere of things you struggle with, then you don't have free-will in that thing. If it's something that's impossible to occur or prevented from occurring, your free will was negated for that thing. It's not just a general concept of having the ability to choose. It's a very specific point in the mentality of a person that tests a person in specific circumstances and facilitates growth or decline.

So the idea of different circumstances is a false one. Circumstances are arranged so as to test a person in the specific areas of their lives that require testing. It's not that circumstances aren't favorable to a specific evil, it's that the people to whom such an evil might have occurred did not require testing in that area for whatever reason.

 

[savagewind]

Free will needs to be not an order delivered to the self, but a desire chosen by the self to be free. That means that it must be indeterministic. It has no source or cause.Otherwise, what is free about it?
.

I like the essay and it is good imo.

A desire chosen by the self to be free is real.

It is about being born again. I don't know that Jesus is real, but I believe that when I choose to believe in him I am choosing by myself to be free. It is written.
I desire to follow Jesus to freedom.

So, maybe what they call free will isn't really a true construct, but if a desire chosen by the self to be free is really free will, then free will is real and some people have it.

 

[Sleeppy]

If you remove step one (the evil desire), there is no free will. If you remove step three (the ability to actualize one's choice), the whole system (and creation) becomes pointless.

1) Describing an equilibrium disturbed by some undescribed spontaneity.

2) Not necessarily pointless.

 

[Koldo]

The intellect. I use my intellect and temper my desires to be in accordance with morality and reason. It's admittedly not prefect, as temptation is an inescapable fact of this life.

Regardless, if you are a determinist, then my answer is meaningless. Since all our thoughts are determined, no one can be said to really "think" yet alone have an "intellect". It is all just gears in a machine.

In accordance with your morality and reason ?
Ok. How do you choose your morality ?

 

[Koldo]

If don't refrain from succumbing to these temptations, you become worse and worse each lifetime. There is no chance of liberation from this cycle of reincarnation on earth. Eventually of course, the earth itself dies and you may be a lost soul for ever - not a very pleasant fate.

Sure. But what would make you refrain from succumbing to them ?
One might be unaware of that consequence, or maybe one just doesn't care about being a lost soul forever.

That's exactly how you were made when you incarnated the first time on Earth. Just a like animal, who did not eat anything more if you were already full (only pets and humans are over weight). But after many lives of human existence, people have developed the tendencies of gluttony, avarice, acquisitiveness which eventually may lead to evil desires and actions.

Sure. But certainly God make it so people never develop those tendencies, couldn't he?

 

[Koldo]

It is through the heart of loves, cares, hates, and ambivalences. We become what we truly love in our hearts. Whether we choose compassion for goodness, or hatred without just cause is entirely up to the individual. Ultimately what you love is your free will choice. It comes through understanding and experience, and decision.

So what you love is what determines your choices.
How do you choose what you love ?

 

[Koldo]

According to my understanding, "evil" in Judaism, is represented by a system a part of which provides mankind with the desire to perform an act that causes one to move away from G-d (to put it in subjective terms). This is balanced by the "good" which is the system that provides mankind with the desire to perform an act that causes one to move towards G-d. Free-will is defined as the point at which the desire for good and the desire for evil are roughly equal, such that one still has to strive to choose one or the other. The purpose of free-will is to test man, so as to vindicate the state each individual will find themselves in, at the conclusion of the world.

If you remove step one (the evil desire), there is no free will. If you remove step three (the ability to actualize one's choice), the whole system (and creation) becomes pointless.

Why would one choose one way or another ?

 

[Poisonshady313]

If it's something that's impossible to occur or prevented from occurring, your free will was negated for that thing.

There's a simpler answer that too many people overlook when discussing this topic.

Will means choice. The uncontrollable circumstances of the universe have NOTHING to do with will. And the fact that there ARE uncontrollable circumstances does NOT negate will.

Free will and omnipotence are not the same thing, and people who argue against free will need to stop getting away with saying "we're not omnipotent therefore we don't have free will."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Will means choice. The uncontrollable circumstances of the universe have NOTHING to do with will. And the fact that there ARE uncontrollable circumstances does NOT negate will.

Exactly. This means that "free will" alone isn't enough to explain the existence of evil perpetrated on the world.

 

[osgart]

So what you love is what determines your choices.
How do you choose what you love ?

well good and evil are before you, and everybody, I can't speak for every heart. everyone has their own nature to consider, and their own way of going about that choice. Somewhere along the line you yourself might have made that choice.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So then we don't have free will? It's often the case that we don't have these things.

Here's an example:

The last time I was driving, it never even occurred to me that I could use my car to kill people. I never once thought to myself, "no, I shouldn't steer into the people on the sidewalk" because I never even thought to ask myself if this is something I should do.

If you did ever have that thought, you have the ability to choose to decline to act on that thought. Just because you've never come to a particular fork in the road doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to choose which way you would want to go.

And if I had decided to kill pedestrians with my car, it's entirely possible that they could have avoided me. Maybe some fixed object I failed to notice would have stopped the car before I could hit anyone. Or maybe I could have decided "okay - I'm going to run a pedestrian down," but I make the decision so late at night that there aren't any pedestrians out.

Having the freedom to choose to act on your inclination doesn't guarantee results.

When I go bowling, my free will allows me to roll the ball down the lane in the manner of my choosing. And it may be my intention to knock down all the pins. Failure to do so doesn't mean I don't have free will, it just means I suck at bowling.

The point I made in my previous post can't be emphasized enough: Free will does NOT equal omnipotence.

Does the fact that I don't think of every evil idea mean I don't have free will? As it is, uncountably many evil things that I could do never even cross my mind... and you seem to be saying that if evil things don't occur to us, then we don't have free will.

All else being equal, a lot of evil doesn't happen because it simply doesn't occur to us, or because the circumstances aren't favourable to it happening even if someone chose to do it (or because it's just physically impossible). All of this represents potential evil that has been prevented.

What I'm saying is that if even more evil just never occurred to us, or if circumstances were less favourable to evil acts more of the time, then less evil would be inflicted on the world. And since both of these things are just incremental changes to what we already have, I fail to see how we could have free will with the status quo but lose it in a slightly altered version of the status quo.

If you happen to engage in a pattern of making good decisions, and you rarely find yourself in a position where doing the bad thing is even a consideration, then congratulations on being a good person. But at no point were you devoid of the freedom to do bad things.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Exactly. This means that "free will" alone isn't enough to explain the existence of evil perpetrated on the world.

How does what I said mean what you said?

I'm not trying to be a jerk... I just want you to elaborate.

 

[Kenny]

By what means do you decide whether you want it or not ?
On what basis would you choose you don't want it ?

I guess that would vary from person to person.

At first, one would decide according to one's conscious. For others, it would depend on their faith. Perhaps there are other factors.

 

[Kenny]

I'm sure you can break things down into as many sub-steps as you want. My point is that the raw material that free will works on - our ideas and desires - aren't subject to "free will" but are necessary for deliberately evil acts to happen.

As an example: I find bananas revolting, so even if I had the opportunity to steal a banana, I wouldn't do it because I have no desire to have a banana. I had no choice in this matter - my dislike of bananas is reflexive and was never consciously chosen by me.

The evil of me stealing a banana will never happen, but free will was irrelevant to this. Regardless of whether I might want to steal, stealing a banana will not give me any benefit that I value. Nothing I chose caused this circumstance to happen.

Yes, there are nuances to everying but I'm not sure your example really flows. I find that you did exercise free will in that "I don't like bananas, I have no desire to have a banana, therefore by free will, I choose not to steal the banana". If someone said "I will give you $1 if you steal a bunch of bananas, you could freely, by choice of free will, steal it or decide, by free will, it still wasn't worth it.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm sure you can break things down into as many sub-steps as you want. My point is that the raw material that free will works on - our ideas and desires - aren't subject to "free will" but are necessary for deliberately evil acts to happen.

As an example: I find bananas revolting, so even if I had the opportunity to steal a banana, I wouldn't do it because I have no desire to have a banana. I had no choice in this matter - my dislike of bananas is reflexive and was never consciously chosen by me.

The evil of me stealing a banana will never happen, but free will was irrelevant to this. Regardless of whether I might want to steal, stealing a banana will not give me any benefit that I value. Nothing I chose caused this circumstance to happen.

Here's a question... as a person who doesn't have a desire to have a banana, is there anything preventing you from refusing a banana if offered one?

 

[soulsurvivor]

Sure. But what would make you refrain from succumbing to them ?
One might be unaware of that consequence, or maybe one just doesn't care about being a lost soul forever.

There is nothing that can force people into refraining from evil actions (although humans are also born with some degree of compassion, altruism, caring about others - so that may stop them.)

God sends teachers periodically to different parts of the world, so that people are made aware of consequences (some of these teachings may not be totally correct, because these teachers are human too).

Of course, there are people who don't care about losing their soul - that is their choice.

Sure. But certainly God make it so people never develop those tendencies, couldn't he?

What you are actually asking is why doesn't God just make everyone perfect to start with? That would not make for a very interesting universe would it?

I am not even sure if it possible. Why do we need to go through evolution? Why not create the Earth and humans immediately after the big bang? Everything including every human starts with imperfection and as an undeveloped entity, and eventually becomes perfect - in between is a struggle. The 'Gods' watch it happening with interest and compassion.

I think if you ever produced a movie, it would be a very boring one - everybody starts extremely happy and stays that way ever after.

 

[Koldo]

There is nothing that can force people into refraining from evil actions (although humans are also born with some degree of compassion, altruism, caring about others - so that may stop them.)

So, if a person is born with enough compassion and altruism that will stop them.
Then why aren't we born with enough compassion and altruism to always stop us ?

God sends teachers periodically to different parts of the world, so that people are made aware of consequences (some of these teachings may not be totally correct, because these teachers are human too).

Of course, there are people who don't care about losing their soul - that is their choice.

One might not believe those teachers.
What if they didn't choose not to care ? What if they just don't care ?
What would make them care ?

What you are actually asking is why doesn't God just make everyone perfect to start with? That would not make for a very interesting universe would it?

Not even that. You have said that,in a sense, at the very start we are perfect ( for instance, we only eat when we are hungry ), but that we tend to lose this perfection as time goes by. Why not make it so we don't lose this perfection as time goes by ?

I am not even sure if it possible. Why do we need to go through evolution? Why not create the Earth and humans immediately after the big bang? Everything including every human starts with imperfection and as an undeveloped entity, and eventually becomes perfect - in between is a struggle. The 'Gods' watch it happening with interest and compassion.

I think if you ever produced a movie, it would be a very boring one - everybody starts extremely happy and stays that way ever after.

Would you prefer to watch a movie with real people suffering ?