I don't see how slapping the word "moral" on the front of "free will" makes what you're saying any more reasonable. We're still talking about free will as freely choosing actions.
As opposed to choosing to violate natural law. We don't have the freedom to step off a cliff and choose not to fall. We also have the free will to choose to skip lunch today or not, but that's of no philosophical importance.
BTW: it seems to me that defining free will (or "moral free will") the way you did implies that the defining characteristic is our ability to deliberately make each other miserable. That's messed up.
There are examples in the news every day. A Jihadist could choose not to kill a bunch of people today or not. And besides choosing not to do evil, we can choose to do good--but those aren't choices involving morality unless you're preventing an evil act. Acts of kindness and maintaining personal integrity etc. involve virtue, not morality. I know those words are often used interchangeably, but to do so only confuses the issue--which is the intent for many people I'm sure.
If our choices aren't our own, we're merely the puppets (angels?) of who or whatever created us. And again, if we weren't created and our spirit dies with our body, this whole exercise is irrelevant.
That isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking what's "free" about free will that's constrained by natural law, our desires, and all the other factors that we don't control?
But we do control our desires, not that we have them, but whether we choose to pursue them or not. We may desire the hot lookin' chick next door, but we either chose to force ourselves on her if she resists, try to win her over, or just do nothing. The first is immoral, and the last is the unvirtuous quality of cowardice, but that isn't immoral.
I don't know what you're looking for there, a discussion of quantum mechanics?
All that's relevant to this discussion is that our desires aren't chosen by us, but impact and constrain our choices. We may choose among options, but we don't choose what our options are.
So you're saying that we do choose between the options available. I certainly agree with that. Some of those options involve violating the rights of another. Choosing to do them or not are moral choices.
There's a quote from Penn Jillette that's something like "I rape and murder exactly as much as I want: zero." You do believe that Penn Jillette has free will, right?
How would free will be violated if, like Penn, everybody had no desire to rape or murder?
If he's truly not tempted, then no, there's no desire, lucky him. Others do have that desire and either follow up on it or not. And we all have our temptations, usually following up on envy or lying to avoid blame--which I think we've all done.
But pursuing desires doesn't necessarily mean that those desires are fulfilled.
You mean like if you tried to rape or murder someone but failed? You still had evil intent. There should be no difference between murder and attempted murder, or for that matter 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree murder. If your attempted to kill someone, they're all equally immoral. Why should we be given leniency for not controlling our passion? All too often we "think" with our passions instead of controlling them with reason.
Fulfilling negative desires toward others is what causes the suffering. Someone could spend their entire life pursuing the goal of killing people with his thoughts without ever hurting anyone.
I agree. There's no such thing as an immoral thought. And, btw, it's not immoral to hurt another's feelings, even if you do it for the thrill. All the "victim" needs to do is to consider the unvirtuous source.
That's the leap you haven't even tried to address: to try to explain how free will necessitates suffering, it isn't enough to talk about choices; you also need to address putting those choices into actions that have the desired effect.
I have, but it may have been elsewhere. It's complicated. And it's all going to be offputting to an atheist or nihilist.
First off, if there is no God, there is no test, and the whole question is irrelevant. But if God (the spiritual embodiment of Truth) does exist and wanted other self-aware creatures with which It could interact, God would have to test them to see what the true character of each soul was, without It's divine influence which would include even knowing that It exists. And being Truth, It couldn't create the universe as a lie that would indicate that It didn't exist. The stage for this test has to be rational so that rational decisions, including rational moral decisions, could be made. And to determine the moral worth of each soul, they had to be able to make rational moral choices. The choice to do evil would necessarily involve pain and suffering and death, otherwise there'd be no evil. And in a dynamic universe there's always the possibility of disasters, so if God intervened supernaturally it would undermine that all important rational natural law. Plus keep in mind, it's assumed that this test is for a hereafter for the souls who can live for eternity (or whatever) with who and what they were/are. Against that backdrop, we are but a blink. And the price we have to pay for this test, beyond the suffering, is the ignorance and doubt about our ultimate fate, and the "Why?" of it all.
... but this is in an environment where our choices often aren't translated into actions that have our desired effects; "the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley."
When trying to explain why people are murdered, "free will" can't be the whole story, because people who choose to murder often don't actually murder.
If you chose to murder someone, you choice condemns you whether or not you succeed. If you only thought about it, no harm, no foul.
Our choices don't cause suffering unless they lead to the desired outcomes, and they often don't.
If Hitler had given the go ahead for the final solution, but then the allies got the bomb early and ended the war before the Holocaust, would that decision have been any less evil. If someone was pointing a gun at a would be victim but the police shot him first, why wouldn't the attempt be evil? And our actions do often cause suffering in the prevention of immoral acts, aka collateral damage. Never forget, Life Ain't Fair--in this life anyway.
