|
|
Post by rainshine87 on Feb 7, 2008 14:19:15 GMT -5
The definition of free-will as 'being able to choose between right and wrong' is, I believe, a mistake. No person can choose between right and wrong, they simply must judge between the possibilities which are apparent to them, and whichever to them seems to fit their own definition of 'right' is the one that they choose. Therefore, a man may rape someone, but he has not chosen to do 'wrong', rather his understanding of right was 'what is most beneficial to me', not 'what is most beneficial to everyone involved'.
What I mean is that free-will is not 'freedom to choose between right and wrong', but 'freedom from objectivity', in that a man does not do evil not for evil's sake, but because he has judged that it is the good. To knowingly choose between right and wrong, one would have to know exactly what these were. Humans do not.
Therefore, free-will is not being free to do right and wrong, but being free from knowing the objective right and wrong. Free-will, then, is subjectivity.
According to this definition, free-will is inevitable to any creature which is not absolutely objective and all-knowing. The religious question of why God gave man free-will is a bit foolish, it seems to me. Because if it were any other way, that is, if man were objective, then he would be God, and there would be no man. Therefore, man can only have free-will, otherwise he does not exist as man. God could only have created man with free-will, otherwise he would be creating himself.
This may be nonsense, but I was just thinking it over, and thought I may as well post it to see what other people think.
|
|
nickelfire
Global Steward
slighted and scorned
Posts: 142
|
Post by nickelfire on Feb 7, 2008 14:55:42 GMT -5
Certainly not nonsense, it makes perfect sense to me, thanks for posting it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kwan Yu on Feb 7, 2008 17:16:32 GMT -5
Time is relative.
All that has happened and ever will happen has already happened.
|
|
murex
Global Steward
Posts: 117
|
Post by murex on Feb 8, 2008 23:58:55 GMT -5
Time is relative. All that has happened and ever will happen has already happened. True. I prefer to say anything that can be imagined can, will, or does exist. |
|
|
|
Post by rainshine87 on Feb 9, 2008 21:50:09 GMT -5
Time is relative. All that has happened and ever will happen has already happened. Time is a way of measuring movement. Is movement relative? |
|
|
|
Post by Trivium515 on Feb 11, 2008 11:09:31 GMT -5
To knowingly choose between right and wrong, one would have to know exactly what these were. Humans do not. I don’t agree that people can’t know the difference between “right” and “wrong”. And while I agree that nobody does wrong for wrong’s sake, when someone rapes another human being, for instance, they know that what they are doing isn’t right. I can see how one’s definition of right and wrong can become distorted, but I think there is an underlying ancient “sense” that what you are doing is a trespass. And I think that whether or not one shows self control and restraint is free will, provided that they are willing to take on the karmic consequences of their actions. |
|
|
|
Post by MagnetMan on Feb 11, 2008 13:10:05 GMT -5
I think that whether or not one shows self control and restraint is free will, provided that they are willing to take on the karmic consequences of their actions. Well said Glacier.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kwan Yu on Feb 11, 2008 14:00:10 GMT -5
Time is a way of measuring movement. Is movement relative? Movement requires object + space Object is illusion Therefore: Time + Space + Obect = relative Only consciousness is Truth Truth = Love |
|
|
|
Post by Jupiter on Feb 15, 2008 18:38:00 GMT -5
The definition of free-will as 'being able to choose between right and wrong' is, I believe, a mistake. No person can choose between right and wrong, they simply must judge between the possibilities which are apparent to them, and whichever to them seems to fit their own definition of 'right' is the one that they choose. Therefore, a man may rape someone, but he has not chosen to do 'wrong', rather his understanding of right was 'what is most beneficial to me', not 'what is most beneficial to everyone involved'. thought I may as well post it to see what other people think. Disagree disagree disagree………I consider myself a pretty average person and I have done wrong for wrongs sake…come on…who hasn’t? No matter how petty or slight a crime might be…you punch someone you shouldn’t have, made fun of someone…..stole ore vandalized something just to see if you could get away with it….free will..and rape come on who are you trying to kid? You cant convince me that anyone who commits an act of violence on an innocent human being doesn’t know its wrong, unless they are a complete social mutuant I gotta go with Glacier on this one…. you have a choice somewhere along the line how to conduct yourself. Whether environmental factors led you to the wrong that you do maybe another story, but you have a free will to decide if you are going to hurt someone or something “cuz your mama didn’t love ya” and you can decide how you are going to exact your revenge.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kwan Yu on Feb 16, 2008 15:33:37 GMT -5
Every trespass
great or small
brings twinge of conscience
rational mind can try to find excuse
but no one is immune
from consequence
|
|
|
|
Post by Jupiter on Feb 17, 2008 11:17:05 GMT -5
Every trespass great or small brings twinge of conscience rational mind can try to find excuse but no one is immune from consequence Couldn't have said it better Kwan Yu. |
|
|
|
Post by Kwan Yu on Feb 19, 2008 19:24:54 GMT -5
Couldn't have said it better Kwan Yu. You and me get to be big buddie |
|
|
|
Post by Jupiter on Feb 20, 2008 18:31:07 GMT -5
Couldn't have said it better Kwan Yu. You and me get to be big buddie  |
|
|
|
Post by rainshine87 on Feb 29, 2008 13:17:06 GMT -5
I don’t agree that people can’t know the difference between “right” and “wrong”. And while I agree that nobody does wrong for wrong’s sake, when someone rapes another human being, for instance, they know that what they are doing isn’t right. You are presumably thinking of what society calls 'right' and 'wrong'. That is, a man rapes someone despite the fact that society tells him that it is wrong. But he may have a different idea of right and wrong. For him the supreme good may be what makes him feel good. Whether or not there is an objective right and wrong, we are still ruled by subjectivity, therefore our idea of right and wrong can vary. |
|
|
|
Post by rainshine87 on Feb 29, 2008 13:23:30 GMT -5
Disagree disagree disagree………I consider myself a pretty average person and I have done wrong for wrongs sake…come on…who hasn’t? No matter how petty or slight a crime might be…you punch someone you shouldn’t have, made fun of someone…..stole ore vandalized something just to see if you could get away with it….free will..and rape come on who are you trying to kid? You cant convince me that anyone who commits an act of violence on an innocent human being doesn’t know its wrong, unless they are a complete social mutuant If you did something to see whether you could get away with it, you considered 'seeing whether you could get away with it' as the 'right' choice in that situation. You didn't do it for the sake of doing evil, but because you considered 'seeing whether you could get away with it' as a worthy reason for doing something - and so a 'right' choice. Again, you mention the world 'social'. Just because a man knows what society considers right and wrong, doesn't mean he agrees with it. |
|
