How important is free will?

[jacknife]

"Choice" is one of those things that seems simple until you start to think about it. And it interacts with the idea that the future might, in some way, be determined by the past, or in some other way "written." Even at a purely personal level: are my choices determined by my thoughts, feelings, past history, etc., or are they random?

The main philosophical approaches are (oversimplifying greatly):

• Libertarian free will -- I made one choice, but in the "garden of forking paths" that is the future, I might equally well have made another (for example, my choice might have been random).
• Compatibilist free will -- my choice might have been determined, at least at a personal level, but nevertheless I made the choice that I wanted to.

Of course, the second option,and perhaps also the first, raise the question @Apologetic_Warrior asked: what does it mean to want something? Who or what is it that does the "wanting"?

Everybody does the wanting, heck even animals want things, the feelings we call desire or want are likely are just results of brain function.

 

[Radagast]

Everybody does the wanting, heck even animals want things, the feelings we call desire or want are likely are just results of brain function.

Fair enough. But what does "choice" mean then?

If "wanting" is just biochemical, you get a philosophically quite simple version of compatibilist free will mixed with physical determinism. So simple, in fact, that "free will" is just an illusion.

 

[durangodawood]

How important is it? Should someone be free to make choices that would surely result in harm nor even their demise?

I wonder what the alternative would look like, where self destructive choices are not permitted?

 

[zephcom]

How important is it? Should someone be free to make choices that would surely result in harm nor even their demise?

How important is free will? That is an interesting way of opening a discussion on the topic. Typically the discussion only revolves around whether it even exists or not. It seems from your question, you are presuming that it exists. Then the question presumes that some mechanism within humanity could, somehow, remove it or not.

I would suggest that -if- it exists, humanity does not have the ability to remove it. Humanity only has the ability to punish those who use it wrongly to harm others.

 

[zephcom]

I wonder what the alternative would look like, where self destructive choices are not permitted?

I suppose it would depend on how the algorithm was designed to consider what is 'self-destructive'.

For instance, maybe it is designed to prevent you from committing suicide in the next fifteen minutes but did allow you to commit suicide by smoking tobacco.

 

[Kaon]

How important is it? Should someone be free to make choices that would surely result in harm nor even their demise?

I don't believe there is such a thing as "free will", but I believe everyone has the limited ability to respond to stimuli/life. We do not control our destiny, and we don't make our own heaven or hell.

The idea of free will is part of emergent physics - with the implication that "will" is mathematically chaotic.

 

[Soul-searching]

How important is it? Should someone be free to make choices that would surely result in harm nor even their demise?

Free will is important i think, it is through that we learn, through experience. If there was no free will we would never learn anything, we would not take responsiblility for our actions, or know right from wrong. We learn from the bad, as we learn from the good, everything has a purpose even the bad.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yet I place a great deal of importance into the idea of free will, so much so I dont find things such as suicide to be immoral because in the end it was your choice. I find it regrettable but still.

But you wouldn't find suicide a problem like a Christian might because your beliefs don't include an understanding of Though shalt not kill, like some Christians do..

I don't happen to think think it immoral either in many cases...depends on the situation.

 

[jacknife]

I wonder what the alternative would look like, where self destructive choices are not permitted?

In a chair 22 hours a day, unable to choose your food or even drink regular liquids, unable to leave, kind of like a nursing home I guess. Heck in my line of work I've even kept people alive who wish to be dead. I revived a 90 year old lady only for her to shake her head and say " why did you bring me back?". I knew she didn't want to be brought back, but I had to do it anyways. It's got me thinking about free will.

 

[Tharseo]

How important is it? Should someone be free to make choices that would surely result in harm nor even their demise?

This is a really good question and I want to express my view without going into too much theoretical details.

Free will is, IMO, one of the most important thing in anyone's life. Our "free will", or in other words, our ability to make decisions, allows us able to make "good" and "bad" decisions. Now you might think that if a person is allowed to make bad decisions like you say, then it is not "good", because it would hurt the person himself/herself and other people.

But what if, no one is allowed to make "bad" decision that will surely hurt oneself/others? Can you imagine how the world would be?

You might think, oh come on, there could be nothing wrong, right? Everyone will live in peace and harmony, since there will be much less wrongdoings in the world.

You are right. There will be much less lawless things in the world, but it comes with a cost: love will decline in this world as well.

Why? Because the depth of love cannot be extended any further if there is no harming in this world. We cannot love a person deeply when he/she could not hurt/be hurt all the time, because he/she requires no mental needs (or I would say spiritual needs). Love will become superficial that we will only help other people's physical needs.

For example, if a man is in depression, but never in risk of hurting himself, will we be worried about him? Maybe, but probably not that much. But if he could choose to hurt himself or even suicide, we will have a much greater desire to help him to get over it.

If a man is always angry, but is never allowed to shout at or hurt others, will we even care about him? Probably not. But if he is allowed to, we would find ways to bring calmness to him, in hope that he would not be a person who brings uncomfort and danger to others. The depth of love cannot be seen and experienced when people cannot harm themselves/others.

Let's go back to the real world. Is it then a good thing to harm others/ourselves, so that people can have a deeper love to others? No, because it is a bad thing for the offender. It makes him a person cannot love. He would not find the joy and satisfaction to love others.

IMO, God has put us in this wicked world, for a purpose that we could truly love one another, and choose not to harm. And He will choose the ones who can love one another as oneself to enter the kingdom of Him. People in this kingdom will therefore know how to love deeply. I can assure you, that this kingdom will be a better place than a kingdom in which people can never choose harm.

 

[AllThingsWorkForGood]

Yet I place a great deal of importance into the idea of free will, so much so I dont find things such as suicide to be immoral because in the end it was your choice. I find it regrettable but still.

So does that mean you think that because somebody chose to do something harmful that that is a moral choice? Surely not? But if you say that suicide is not immoral because someone chose that then you are essentially saying that choice itself is intrinsically moral, no matter how harmful that choice.

But that cannot be because choice can be totally immoral and evil, because that is the choice that God gives us, since we disobeyed Him and listened to the Snake instead. The only reason we are aware of evil is because we chose to go down that path in the Garden. So by becoming aware of the actual existence of evil, we chose to define between good and evil. So every day, in our fallen state, we are in the quandary of free will for good or free will for evil.

Free will is our choice as created beings. Even Satan had free will in Heaven to disobey God (where it all started) and he chose to let his pride get the better of him and wanted to dethrone God to become like God. But God knew his heart and kicked him out of Heaven to the Earth with his legion, and Lucifer, the glorious worship leader of Heaven, then became a distorted, ugly, fallen creature who then went on to corrupt Mankind with his volatile rage at and hatred of God.

So yes we have freewill to now use our will for good or evil. The entire Christian story and agony of Christ cannot be separated from the angst of choice. It is supremely important and even Christ wrestled with his own will versus that of the Father. However, ultimately, Christ was God incarnate, filled with the Holy Spirit and so was able to overcome the struggles of the will, flesh and the devil, triumphing over carnal humanity and Satan by the Cross. Thereby, giving all believers, through his resurrection power, the similar ability to overcome human weakness leading to ineffective and destructive choice, instead having the ability to choose LIFE.

 

[RDKirk]

Choice.

So you get a choice of door number one, door number two, or door number three, but you don't get your real choice, which is a date with the girl standing by the doors.

Is that free will?

 

[RDKirk]

How important is it? Should someone be free to make choices that would surely result in harm nor even their demise?

The question is only important if it actually makes a difference. Is there anyone here who is refusing to get out of bed until that question is answered? Is there anyone here who will refuse to do anything on his or her agenda until that question is answered?

If not, then it's not really a particularly important question, because nobody's waiting with 'bated breath for the answer.

It doesn't even make a difference in salvation. If Calvinists are completely right, who among the elect will choose to be unelect? Well, of course, none.

But what if Calvinist are wrong? Who that have chosen to be among the elect are going to choose to be unelect because Calvinists are wrong? "Oh, heck, I was following Jesus because I thought I He had chosen me, but now that I see I have a choice, then I'm dumping Jesus!" Really?

"A difference that makes no difference is no difference." -- Mr Spock

 

[jacknife]

So you get a choice of door number one, door number two, or door number three, but you don't get your real choice, which is a date with the girl standing by the doors.

Is that free will?

The girl standing by the door has the free will to say no, so I guess yeah.

 

[Radagast]

I revived a 90 year old lady only for her to shake her head and say " why did you bring me back?". I knew she didn't want to be brought back, but I had to do it anyways.

Earlier on, you said that "the feelings we call desire or want are likely are just results of brain function."

 

[jacknife]

Earlier on, you said that "the feelings we call desire or want are likely are just results of brain function."

Yes

 

[Chesterton]

How important is it?

There's nothing more important. People often say that if we ever encounter intelligent alien life it will change the human condition forever. No, it wouldn't. We'd get used to it. What would change the human condition forever is if anyone were ever able to actually prove we don't have free will. Everything we think and feel about love and hate and right and wrong and crime and punishment and politics and war and peace...everything would be rendered meaningless, as would our own consciousnesses.

 

[RDKirk]

There's nothing more important. People often say that if we ever encounter intelligent alien life it will change the human condition forever. No, it wouldn't. We'd get used to it. What would change the human condition forever is if anyone were ever able to actually prove we don't have free will. Everything we think and feel about love and hate and right and wrong and crime and punishment and politics and war and peace...everything would be rendered meaningless, as would our own consciousnesses.

What would you do differently?

 

[RDKirk]

The girl standing by the door has the free will to say no, so I guess yeah.

You don't get to ask her.

 

[Radagast]

Yes

Well, then it's really simple. Your brain keeps functioning (following the laws of physics) until you die, then it stops.