Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Detached9 · 03-14-2002, 04:58 PM

Is the amount of suffering in the world worth the price of free will? Why or why not? Would it be better to have the illusion of free will and less suffering?

bd-from-kg · 03-14-2002, 05:03 PM

Define "free will" and explain why you think we have it.

Detached9 · 03-14-2002, 05:10 PM

By free will, I mean contra-causual freedom (CCF). Your actions are not caused by antecedent factors.

I'm a determinist actually, but some people argue that God gave us Free Will and that's why the amount of suffering in the world is not contradictory to God's omnibenevolence.

I don't want to argue the validity of free will in this post.

bd-from-kg · 03-14-2002, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Detached9:
By free will, I mean contra-causual freedom (CCF). Your actions are not caused by antecedent factors.

Good enough. Now I can answer your original question.

I can't imagine why anyone would want this kind of free will. As far as I'm concerned its value is less than nothing. Obviously I don't think it's worth any amount of suffering at all. And like you, I don't think we have it, although I have no opinion about determinism.

Samhain · 03-14-2002, 09:58 PM

You must first remember, though, regardless if people do or do not have free will, or even regardless if, universally, people do not accept the notion of free-will, there would still be suffering. Suffering is determined by how the subject views their current status or situation. Suffering, as morality should be, is dependant on what the person thinks and what the person believes. If we are determined, through a solid deterministic view, then any action we take is as if we could not have chosen, by any way shape or form, to do otherwise. We act only because we "must" act in that way. This of course would in turn rise to the suffering one would feel because they could not have helped what they have done, and if that is an "evil" action (I use evil reluctantly) then the person would suffer from the fact that they could not have chosen to be good in that situation, and hence, that person would feel "evil."
I am an advocate of free-will, but I still find it hard to accept to it's full view. I side more with soft-determinism, in which, many, but not all actions are somehow determined by factors of your environment. The problem with full determinism is that if one exception can be found in which a person has "free-will" then all of determinism crumbles. Unfortunately I have never found any example of this, but I have some kind of loose hope that I might someday. Another thing about solid-determinism is that it is too universal. It's the same thing as saying all humans must have oxygen in their blood in order to survive. Of course there are always some kind of contributing factors when it comes to making decisions, but do these factors CAUSE that decision to be made, or could we have chosen to do otherwise in that situation. Of course, one can not truly know, because after that action is taken, you cannot reverse time and re-make that action, and even if you could this would still be tied in, somehow, to contributing factors which lead to you making the other decision. But if the possibility is there that we COULD have chosen otherwise then determinism crumbles.
It's a moot point. Since we cannot re-make decisions one can never truly know. Agnostics will say the same thing about the existence of god, but this is not a moot point, because science has proved against it, and will continue to. But it is doubtful that time-REVERSAL (not travel) will ever be possible, so one can never truly know.
As far as free-will goes with suffering, though...If one has accepted free-will in it's entirety and does not fall into "bad faith," as Sartre puts it, then one would only have himself to blame and thus suffering is totally dependant upon how the person views their actions. If they do their actions with the best intentions possible and it goes array, then they could still say that they did what they thought was best, and they would not need to fall into the suffering of knowing that they could not have done otherwise to change it. The fact is: suffering will be there no matter what, but in the case of free-will or even soft determinism, it makes the burden of one's choices easier to bear, since a person truly believes that they had control...but this brings up the point if it really matters whether or not we have either, for if the universe is indifferent, then we do not matter either way, and our actions, whether they be determined or not, do nothing to truly effect time and the universe.

03-14-2002, 04:58 PM	#1
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	The Value of Free Will Is the amount of suffering in the world worth the price of free will? Why or why not? Would it be better to have the illusion of free will and less suffering?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2002, 05:03 PM	#2
bd-from-kg Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: King George, VA Posts: 1,400	Define "free will" and explain why you think we have it.

03-14-2002, 05:10 PM	#3
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	By free will, I mean contra-causual freedom (CCF). Your actions are not caused by antecedent factors. I'm a determinist actually, but some people argue that God gave us Free Will and that's why the amount of suffering in the world is not contradictory to God's omnibenevolence. I don't want to argue the validity of free will in this post.

03-14-2002, 09:58 PM	#5
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	You must first remember, though, regardless if people do or do not have free will, or even regardless if, universally, people do not accept the notion of free-will, there would still be suffering. Suffering is determined by how the subject views their current status or situation. Suffering, as morality should be, is dependant on what the person thinks and what the person believes. If we are determined, through a solid deterministic view, then any action we take is as if we could not have chosen, by any way shape or form, to do otherwise. We act only because we "must" act in that way. This of course would in turn rise to the suffering one would feel because they could not have helped what they have done, and if that is an "evil" action (I use evil reluctantly) then the person would suffer from the fact that they could not have chosen to be good in that situation, and hence, that person would feel "evil." I am an advocate of free-will, but I still find it hard to accept to it's full view. I side more with soft-determinism, in which, many, but not all actions are somehow determined by factors of your environment. The problem with full determinism is that if one exception can be found in which a person has "free-will" then all of determinism crumbles. Unfortunately I have never found any example of this, but I have some kind of loose hope that I might someday. Another thing about solid-determinism is that it is too universal. It's the same thing as saying all humans must have oxygen in their blood in order to survive. Of course there are always some kind of contributing factors when it comes to making decisions, but do these factors CAUSE that decision to be made, or could we have chosen to do otherwise in that situation. Of course, one can not truly know, because after that action is taken, you cannot reverse time and re-make that action, and even if you could this would still be tied in, somehow, to contributing factors which lead to you making the other decision. But if the possibility is there that we COULD have chosen otherwise then determinism crumbles. It's a moot point. Since we cannot re-make decisions one can never truly know. Agnostics will say the same thing about the existence of god, but this is not a moot point, because science has proved against it, and will continue to. But it is doubtful that time-REVERSAL (not travel) will ever be possible, so one can never truly know. As far as free-will goes with suffering, though...If one has accepted free-will in it's entirety and does not fall into "bad faith," as Sartre puts it, then one would only have himself to blame and thus suffering is totally dependant upon how the person views their actions. If they do their actions with the best intentions possible and it goes array, then they could still say that they did what they thought was best, and they would not need to fall into the suffering of knowing that they could not have done otherwise to change it. The fact is: suffering will be there no matter what, but in the case of free-will or even soft determinism, it makes the burden of one's choices easier to bear, since a person truly believes that they had control...but this brings up the point if it really matters whether or not we have either, for if the universe is indifferent, then we do not matter either way, and our actions, whether they be determined or not, do nothing to truly effect time and the universe.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.