Board index ‹ The Problem of Evil and Suffering

[Dominator]

Having a choice isn't free will. Being able to make any choice you desire is.

[jimwalton]

It sounds like you're saying that unless you get to choose the options AND the potential outcomes, it's not free will. So I could go into an ice cream shop where there are 20 flavors, but if they don't have the one I desire, it's not free will?

[Dominator]

never said anything about potential outcomes. if you go to the Ice cream shop and all the flavors are available, but they only let you choose from 3, it's not free will.

[jimwalton]

> never said anything about potential outcomes.

You actually have been: "If my actions have weight that will only lead to 2 places, one good and one bad, you don’t have free will. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to do something, you don’t have free will." But we'll move on.

> if you go to the Ice cream shop and all the flavors are available, but they only let you choose from 3, it's not free will.

But what if there are only 3 flavors, and you can choose from any of the 3, is that free will? What if there are only 2—then is it still free will for you to pick the one you want?

[Dominator]

> But what if there are only 3 flavors, and you can choose from any of the 3, is that free will?

You have all choices available to you with no restrictions on them and no punishment for choosing the wrong one. Free will.

> What if there are only 2—then is it still free will for you to pick the one you want?

If you are being restricted, not free will

[jimwalton]

So if you choose to speed on the highway and get caught and subsequently punished, that wasn't a free will choice? There were only two choices: drive within the speed limit or drive exceeding it, knowing that there could be a punishment for the latter choice. So when the cop stops you, you can say, "I had no free will. It wasn't my choice. There were only two options and there was a punishment for choosing the wrong one, so I'm not to blame. I was being restricted, so there was no free will here." Yeah, see how THAT plays in traffic court.

[Dominator]

> So if you choose to speed on the highway and get caught and subsequently punished, that wasn't a free will choice?

No because I was aware I could be punished for the action. If I could speed with no issues it would be free will.

> So when the cop stops you, you can say, "I had no free will. It wasn't my choice.

Again, just because a choice is available doesn't mean it's free will.

> THAT plays in traffic court.

Traffic court does not look at free will. They look at if you broke the set of rules that are laid out.

[jimwalton]

> just because a choice is available doesn't mean it's free will.

This doesn't make sense to me. How can you make a volitional choice (you choose the choice you make) that isn't free will? It's like you want your cake and eat it, too: I get to decide, but I didn't decide. I think you'll say it's because your choices were limited, but our choices are always limited. Ultimately, having 57 choices is qualitatively no different than having two. The only difference is that in one scenario, reality gives 57, and in the other, reality gives 2. But truth is truth, and choice is choice. I have to make a choice among the alternatives offered me by truth and reality. Regardless, the choice is still mine to make via free will.