Taffy Lewis

I believe theists can consistently argue that we lack incompatibilist (ie. libertarian) moral freedom in heaven and yet it is important that we possess it in this life.

Libertarian moral freedom is not intrinsically good. If it were then God would possess it. Yet God is perfectly good and thus lacks libertarian moral freedom. God possesses compatibilist moral freedom.

Libertarian moral freedom is instrumentally good. It is a necessary condition for our being responsible for the moral nature of our character. We can choose between good and evil courses of action and by doing so form our characters for good or ill. If all of our actions are determined then God is responsible for everything we do and our character would not be genuinely our own. However, if we possess libertarian moral freedom then our moral choices genuinely originate with us and it can be said that our character (good or evil) is our own.

If we lack incompatibilist moral freedom in heaven then it is only because we have exercised our libertarian moral freedom in this life in such a way that we will eventually lack such freedom. In other words, we choose (in a libertarian sense) to put ourselves into a position such that we no longer have moral freedom.

bgponder

Why is this important as regards the Existence of God? There is still the problem of how good and evil are defined, whether the nature of humankind as created by the God predisposes the damned to their fate, etc.

Please elaborate.

Sincerely, BarryG

Vorkosigan

Nonsense. God is an Evil Trackster deity. The purpose of Free Will is to permit enough good things to happen in the world so that we will understand Evil and freely choose it. God just wants us to choose evil; there is no Heaven. That is just one of his many tricks and jokes, like inventing Star Wars and then giving it to George Lucas to bring to the screen....

anonymousj

Taffy,

You said, It would be helpful to me if you would explain these remarks a bit.

I am familiar with the notions 'compatibilist'/'incompatibilist' understood in the following way: A compatibilist believes free will to be consistent (compatible) with the (alleged) fact that every event is caused, while the incompatibilist believes that free will is not consistent with this (alleged) fact. If this is your understanding, well and good; if not, then will you please explain.

In any case, I don't follow the inference from 'God is perfectly good' to 'God lacks libertarian moral freedom'. Perhaps if you fill things in a bit more, I will be able to follow.

In advance, thanks,

anonymousj

abe smith

Taffy, as your implicit/initial "god/assertion" is unsubstantiated & so-far unsubstantiated, .........

bgponder

Taffy,

Furthermore, the strict definition of compatibilism cannot be applied to God (and, since you have referenced "heaven" in this moralistic sense, I am assuming you refer to the Judeo-Christian God et.al.):

From the II Library:

(emphasis mine)

God in your context also is the cause, and therefore cannot be considered to have compatibilitst moral freedom, i.e. He causes the events in which He excercises choices.

Also re the Bible in which God sends evil spirits, makes Job to suffer at Divine whim to prove a point with Satan, allows the Israelites to utterly slaughter men, women, children and animals in his name, etc. thus breaking his own commandments.

Peace and cornbread, BarryG

mattbballman

To first post,

I agree with what you said about the instrumental
value of libertarian freedom in the formation of
character. As well as its culmination in the lack
of such freedom, due to the inculcation of
character through habit.

My only problem is with your statement that God
lacks morally significant freedom in toto. God
lacks it with regard to duties, (he is not free
to do wrong) but he is morally free to perform
acts of supererogation.

matt

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Taffy Lewis

I think you have a good account here. No criticisms.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by mattbballman :

I would think a being is morally better if it's obligated to perform acts of supererogation.