Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Argument against Plantingas free will defence

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 11:24:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a self-devised argument I just thought up aimed to counter-act Plantingas free-will defence.

The free-will defence posits morally significant free-will would not exist if God just simply made us perfect because then we could only ever choose the good path and would therefore have no choice in our moral actions. I will attempt to demonstrate how morally significant actions would still exist even if God eleminated all possibility of commiting evil.

To start off, let's fit moral actions into three categories.

1. Acting against duty

2. Acting in accordance with duty

3. Acting beyond duty.

Objective morality you could say, posits simple moral duties for the human race to follow. Being fair to your customers for example, would be a simple moral duty. That would be an act applied to number two. Cheating your customers however is acting contrary to duty and thus is an immoral act and would fit into the category of number 1. Giving your items away to customers for free however is not an act motivated by duty. It is beyond duty and would fit into number three. That is the most morally significant act.

Now if God created man as perfect beings it would be impossible for us to commit number one. We could never go against duty. All our actions would have to correspond with duty. However just because we would have no choice but to commit acts in accordance with moral duty does not mean morally significant free-will would not exist. We would have no obligation whatsoever to commit acts going beyond duty. Every creature would be bound to follow our moral duty. Yes we would always have to choose the morally correct path, but we would not have to commit acts going further than what is morally correct. Morally significant free will would therefore very much exist.

Thus in a world in which God made us perfect from our very beginning we would not have free will in choosing to sin. We would however still have morally significant free will as there is only an obligation to commit acts corresponding with duty while there is no obligation to commit acts that go beyond duty. These acts are the morally significant ones. We would have no obligation to give random strangers gifts, and those type of actions are where our moral free will exist.

Furthermore it would be just as affective or even more affective to say number two is not a morally good act but a morally neutral act. Only number three is where the good act rests.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 11:49:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I probably should have specefied, Plantingas free will defence is an attempt to refute the problem of evil.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 11:45:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.

Did you read the whole post? If you're making a deal with a person, your duty would be to make it a fair deal. Cheating him would be impossible if God made us perfect. However we couldn't say making a fair deal would be the only path for you to take. You could go beyond duty and make the deal better for him than it is for you. We would still very much have morally significant free will in the fact that we would not be required to go beyond our duty. The least moral persons in such a world would be those who only ever acted in accoradance with duty but never went beyond duty. The most moral persons would be those who acted above their requirements.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 5:45:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Analysis/complaints/agreements appreciated.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 4:31:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 11:24:37 PM, phantom wrote:
This is a self-devised argument I just thought up aimed to counter-act Plantingas free-will defence.

The free-will defence posits morally significant free-will would not exist if God just simply made us perfect because then we could only ever choose the good path and would therefore have no choice in our moral actions. I will attempt to demonstrate how morally significant actions would still exist even if God eleminated all possibility of commiting evil.

To start off, let's fit moral actions into three categories.

1. Acting against duty

2. Acting in accordance with duty

3. Acting beyond duty.

Objective morality you could say, posits simple moral duties for the human race to follow. Being fair to your customers for example, would be a simple moral duty. That would be an act applied to number two. Cheating your customers however is acting contrary to duty and thus is an immoral act and would fit into the category of number 1. Giving your items away to customers for free however is not an act motivated by duty. It is beyond duty and would fit into number three. That is the most morally significant act.

Now if God created man as perfect beings it would be impossible for us to commit number one. We could never go against duty. All our actions would have to correspond with duty. However just because we would have no choice but to commit acts in accordance with moral duty does not mean morally significant free-will would not exist. We would have no obligation whatsoever to commit acts going beyond duty. Every creature would be bound to follow our moral duty. Yes we would always have to choose the morally correct path, but we would not have to commit acts going further than what is morally correct. Morally significant free will would therefore very much exist.

Thus in a world in which God made us perfect from our very beginning we would not have free will in choosing to sin. We would however still have morally significant free will as there is only an obligation to commit acts corresponding with duty while there is no obligation to commit acts that go beyond duty. These acts are the morally significant ones. We would have no obligation to give random strangers gifts, and those type of actions are where our moral free will exist.

Furthermore it would be just as affective or even more affective to say number two is not a morally good act but a morally neutral act. Only number three is where the good act rests.

The problem of evil is that we now believe we can judge what evil is independently of God; the fruit (end result) of the tree (sin) of good and evil. (human judgment)

This is, of course, Satan's will (which is to oppose Gods will; to call black white) masquerading as our own.
The Cross.. the Cross.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 11:31:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 4:31:22 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Was wandering when you were guna show up.

The problem of evil is that we now believe we can judge what evil is independently of God; the fruit (end result) of the tree (sin) of good and evil. (human judgment)

No, actually the problem of evil is an argument against a personal, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. I think you're confused.

This is, of course, Satan's will (which is to oppose Gods will; to call black white) masquerading as our own.

So Satans deceiving us into not knowing what evil is? I don't think that very likely. When I hear about a father chopping his daughters head off and parading it around the city(actually happend a few days ago), I don't think it is Satan deceiving me into thinking that is evil.

Also what are you saying; that evil is an illusion and doesn't actually exist??

Also, you do realize this is all irrelevant to Plantingas free will defence?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 11:58:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 11:45:59 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.

Did you read the whole post? If you're making a deal with a person, your duty would be to make it a fair deal. Cheating him would be impossible if God made us perfect. However we couldn't say making a fair deal would be the only path for you to take. You could go beyond duty and make the deal better for him than it is for you. We would still very much have morally significant free will in the fact that we would not be required to go beyond our duty. The least moral persons in such a world would be those who only ever acted in accoradance with duty but never went beyond duty. The most moral persons would be those who acted above their requirements.

Still though, your range of possible actions is limited. You still have the same problems of synthetic love. After all, people would worship God only because they were programmed to. They might be able to wrship him more then others, but their love for him would be entirely synthetic.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 12:49:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.
I agree. I think the problem is that (3) is actually a subset of (2). In other words, (3) is your duty and then some: it is (2) + something extra.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 4:31:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 11:58:06 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/18/2012 11:45:59 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.

Did you read the whole post? If you're making a deal with a person, your duty would be to make it a fair deal. Cheating him would be impossible if God made us perfect. However we couldn't say making a fair deal would be the only path for you to take. You could go beyond duty and make the deal better for him than it is for you. We would still very much have morally significant free will in the fact that we would not be required to go beyond our duty. The least moral persons in such a world would be those who only ever acted in accoradance with duty but never went beyond duty. The most moral persons would be those who acted above their requirements.

Still though, your range of possible actions is limited.

Which would be a good thing considering the alternative.

You still have the same problems of synthetic love. After all, people would worship God only because they were programmed to. They might be able to wrship him more then others, but their love for him would be entirely synthetic.

Who says moral perfection entails belief in God?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 4:36:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 12:49:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.
I agree. I think the problem is that (3) is actually a subset of (2).

In a sense. So?

In other words, (3) is your duty and then some: it is (2) + something extra.

It's not simply your duty plus more. It's not acting according to duty. It's acting beyond duty.

You haven't said anything that defends Plantingas free will defence. Show that morally significant free will would not exist if God made us perfect.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 4:55:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 4:36:44 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/19/2012 12:49:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.
I agree. I think the problem is that (3) is actually a subset of (2).

In a sense. So?
So that means there would be no difference in a world with only (2) and a world with (2) and (3).

In other words, (3) is your duty and then some: it is (2) + something extra.

It's not simply your duty plus more. It's not acting according to duty. It's acting beyond duty.
That is a contradiction to (3) being a subset of (2). If (3) is a subset of (2) then all (3) are (2) but not all (2) are (3). Please make up your mind.

You haven't said anything that defends Plantingas free will defence. Show that morally significant free will would not exist if God made us perfect.
I have but you have both agreed and disagreed with me, so if you make up your mind then I can answer your questions.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 5:48:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 11:58:06 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/18/2012 11:45:59 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.

Did you read the whole post? If you're making a deal with a person, your duty would be to make it a fair deal. Cheating him would be impossible if God made us perfect. However we couldn't say making a fair deal would be the only path for you to take. You could go beyond duty and make the deal better for him than it is for you. We would still very much have morally significant free will in the fact that we would not be required to go beyond our duty. The least moral persons in such a world would be those who only ever acted in accoradance with duty but never went beyond duty. The most moral persons would be those who acted above their requirements.

Still though, your range of possible actions is limited. You still have the same problems of synthetic love. After all, people would worship God only because they were programmed to. They might be able to wrship him more then others, but their love for him would be entirely synthetic.


Huh?..

No one loves God more then any other person.. God's elect are programed to love him..

Free-will is an illusion we created.

Why does everyone think that free-will has to exist in order for God to be good? or that it's needed to refute the POE?..
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 10:37:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 4:55:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/19/2012 4:36:44 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/19/2012 12:49:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.
I agree. I think the problem is that (3) is actually a subset of (2).

In a sense. So?
So that means there would be no difference in a world with only (2) and a world with (2) and (3).

Um, let me demonstrate the nonsense of this statement with a previous analogy I used. Suppose you were making a deal with someone. In a world with just (2) the only option you could take would be to make it a fair deal. In a world with (2) and (3) you could take the option of making it fairer for him than for yourself.


In other words, (3) is your duty and then some: it is (2) + something extra.

It's not simply your duty plus more. It's not acting according to duty. It's acting beyond duty.
That is a contradiction to (3) being a subset of (2). If (3) is a subset of (2) then all (3) are (2) but not all (2) are (3). Please make up your mind.

You clearly have a different view of subset than I so for arguments sake I will simply retract my statement that (3) is a subset of (2).

You haven't said anything that defends Plantingas free will defence. Show that morally significant free will would not exist if God made us perfect.
I have but you have both agreed and disagreed with me, so if you make up your mind then I can answer your questions.

Or you could just respond to the original post instead of another person who responded to this thread.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 10:42:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 5:48:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/19/2012 11:58:06 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/18/2012 11:45:59 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.

Did you read the whole post? If you're making a deal with a person, your duty would be to make it a fair deal. Cheating him would be impossible if God made us perfect. However we couldn't say making a fair deal would be the only path for you to take. You could go beyond duty and make the deal better for him than it is for you. We would still very much have morally significant free will in the fact that we would not be required to go beyond our duty. The least moral persons in such a world would be those who only ever acted in accoradance with duty but never went beyond duty. The most moral persons would be those who acted above their requirements.

Still though, your range of possible actions is limited. You still have the same problems of synthetic love. After all, people would worship God only because they were programmed to. They might be able to wrship him more then others, but their love for him would be entirely synthetic.


Huh?..

No one loves God more then any other person..

So you love God just as much as the person who curses him? That makes no sense.

God's elect are programed to love him..

Oh so God simply chooses who gets to go to heaven while the rest are sent to hell for reasons other than they could govern. That sounds just.

Free-will is an illusion we created.

How can we create something if we don't have free-will?

Why does everyone think that free-will has to exist in order for God to be good?

Who asserted that?

or that it's needed to refute the POE?..

There are plenty of arguments other than the free will defence against the POE.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 10:59:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 11:24:37 PM, phantom wrote:
This is a self-devised argument I just thought up aimed to counter-act Plantingas free-will defence.

The free-will defence posits morally significant free-will would not exist if God just simply made us perfect because then we could only ever choose the good path and would therefore have no choice in our moral actions. I will attempt to demonstrate how morally significant actions would still exist even if God eleminated all possibility of commiting evil.

To start off, let's fit moral actions into three categories.

1. Acting against duty

2. Acting in accordance with duty

3. Acting beyond duty.

Objective morality you could say, posits simple moral duties for the human race to follow. Being fair to your customers for example, would be a simple moral duty. That would be an act applied to number two. Cheating your customers however is acting contrary to duty and thus is an immoral act and would fit into the category of number 1. Giving your items away to customers for free however is not an act motivated by duty. It is beyond duty and would fit into number three. That is the most morally significant act.

Now if God created man as perfect beings it would be impossible for us to commit number one. We could never go against duty. All our actions would have to correspond with duty. However just because we would have no choice but to commit acts in accordance with moral duty does not mean morally significant free-will would not exist. We would have no obligation whatsoever to commit acts going beyond duty. Every creature would be bound to follow our moral duty. Yes we would always have to choose the morally correct path, but we would not have to commit acts going further than what is morally correct. Morally significant free will would therefore very much exist.

Thus in a world in which God made us perfect from our very beginning we would not have free will in choosing to sin. We would however still have morally significant free will as there is only an obligation to commit acts corresponding with duty while there is no obligation to commit acts that go beyond duty. These acts are the morally significant ones. We would have no obligation to give random strangers gifts, and those type of actions are where our moral free will exist.

Furthermore it would be just as affective or even more affective to say number two is not a morally good act but a morally neutral act. Only number three is where the good act rests.

You are basically saying, why do evil actions have to exist, why can't there just be varying degrees of good actions? The simply answer is by defining your duty as the morally neutral sets a standard that all must abide to in order to be morally good. If there is a standard and one has free will, there must be a choice which will break this standard otherwise a morally good action is no longer morally good as that would require one to want to commit that action. Not be forced..
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 11:48:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 10:42:46 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/19/2012 5:48:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/19/2012 11:58:06 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/18/2012 11:45:59 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.

Did you read the whole post? If you're making a deal with a person, your duty would be to make it a fair deal. Cheating him would be impossible if God made us perfect. However we couldn't say making a fair deal would be the only path for you to take. You could go beyond duty and make the deal better for him than it is for you. We would still very much have morally significant free will in the fact that we would not be required to go beyond our duty. The least moral persons in such a world would be those who only ever acted in accoradance with duty but never went beyond duty. The most moral persons would be those who acted above their requirements.

Still though, your range of possible actions is limited. You still have the same problems of synthetic love. After all, people would worship God only because they were programmed to. They might be able to wrship him more then others, but their love for him would be entirely synthetic.


Huh?..

No one loves God more then any other person..

So you love God just as much as the person who curses him? That makes no sense.

How come? Because you maybe think, you love God? What does our love matter if it's not with all our mind, strength, and soul? You are right, from us, humans, sinners, no love for God is present, just like the ones who curse him.

God's elect are programed to love him..

Oh so God simply chooses who gets to go to heaven while the rest are sent to hell for reasons other than they could govern. That sounds just.

Depends. Is your concept of 'Just' from a few books or lexicons, or from God's word and actions?

Because, i thought, the God of the bible determines whats Just, not us.. ANNND, for the 230497810374 time. How do you explain Ephesians 1 and Romans 9 & 12??

says it pretty clearly there that he picks who he wants to save, and picks(yes chooses) he doesn't want to.. so, in other words, he created some people, for a purpose of his, that ultimately leads to hell.. GASP!! you don't say!??

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."


Free-will is an illusion we created.

How can we create something if we don't have free-will?

Because we can only create Sin. We have not the will to do good..

Why does everyone think that free-will has to exist in order for God to be good?

Who asserted that?

Plenty of people.. ? lol i see it everywhere.. free-will this, chose God's gift that.. heresy!

or that it's needed to refute the POE?..

There are plenty of arguments other than the free will defence against the POE.

I'm with you on that one.. cause free-will is pretty weak, imo.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 12:36:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 11:24:37 PM, phantom wrote:
This is a self-devised argument I just thought up aimed to counter-act Plantingas free-will defence.

The free-will defence posits morally significant free-will would not exist if God just simply made us perfect because then we could only ever choose the good path and would therefore have no choice in our moral actions. I will attempt to demonstrate how morally significant actions would still exist even if God eleminated all possibility of commiting evil.

To start off, let's fit moral actions into three categories.

1. Acting against duty

2. Acting in accordance with duty

3. Acting beyond duty.

Objective morality you could say, posits simple moral duties for the human race to follow. Being fair to your customers for example, would be a simple moral duty. That would be an act applied to number two. Cheating your customers however is acting contrary to duty and thus is an immoral act and would fit into the category of number 1. Giving your items away to customers for free however is not an act motivated by duty. It is beyond duty and would fit into number three. That is the most morally significant act.

Now if God created man as perfect beings it would be impossible for us to commit number one. We could never go against duty. All our actions would have to correspond with duty. However just because we would have no choice but to commit acts in accordance with moral duty does not mean morally significant free-will would not exist. We would have no obligation whatsoever to commit acts going beyond duty. Every creature would be bound to follow our moral duty. Yes we would always have to choose the morally correct path, but we would not have to commit acts going further than what is morally correct. Morally significant free will would therefore very much exist.

Thus in a world in which God made us perfect from our very beginning we would not have free will in choosing to sin. We would however still have morally significant free will as there is only an obligation to commit acts corresponding with duty while there is no obligation to commit acts that go beyond duty. These acts are the morally significant ones. We would have no obligation to give random strangers gifts, and those type of actions are where our moral free will exist.

Furthermore it would be just as affective or even more affective to say number two is not a morally good act but a morally neutral act. Only number three is where the good act rests.

The Fool: I don't get how he makes the Leap to God. Its out of nowhere. He is preaching to the converted only. I don't even use the argument from evil. but The obvious point of the argument of evil is that why even do that in the first place. Why have the concept of morals? Why do we need free will at all? it begs the question of free will at all. Why the possiblity at all!! Why not just have Good all the time. He suppose to be omnipotent. Why any imperfect at all anywhere at anytime. Why come as a frial and weak Jesus, who can die so easily, he ought to no them days were rough times. Why the possiblity of sin? Why spend time in a womb for nine month?(what was he thinking in there with all that time?)
Why not just pop the Fuc*k up!!! Why play interpretation games? why make it possible to be confuse? Why just talk to a certian group of people? None of it at all makes an rational sense. Not even a little bit.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 8:17:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 10:59:22 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2012 11:24:37 PM, phantom wrote:
This is a self-devised argument I just thought up aimed to counter-act Plantingas free-will defence.

The free-will defence posits morally significant free-will would not exist if God just simply made us perfect because then we could only ever choose the good path and would therefore have no choice in our moral actions. I will attempt to demonstrate how morally significant actions would still exist even if God eleminated all possibility of commiting evil.

To start off, let's fit moral actions into three categories.

1. Acting against duty

2. Acting in accordance with duty

3. Acting beyond duty.

Objective morality you could say, posits simple moral duties for the human race to follow. Being fair to your customers for example, would be a simple moral duty. That would be an act applied to number two. Cheating your customers however is acting contrary to duty and thus is an immoral act and would fit into the category of number 1. Giving your items away to customers for free however is not an act motivated by duty. It is beyond duty and would fit into number three. That is the most morally significant act.

Now if God created man as perfect beings it would be impossible for us to commit number one. We could never go against duty. All our actions would have to correspond with duty. However just because we would have no choice but to commit acts in accordance with moral duty does not mean morally significant free-will would not exist. We would have no obligation whatsoever to commit acts going beyond duty. Every creature would be bound to follow our moral duty. Yes we would always have to choose the morally correct path, but we would not have to commit acts going further than what is morally correct. Morally significant free will would therefore very much exist.

Thus in a world in which God made us perfect from our very beginning we would not have free will in choosing to sin. We would however still have morally significant free will as there is only an obligation to commit acts corresponding with duty while there is no obligation to commit acts that go beyond duty. These acts are the morally significant ones. We would have no obligation to give random strangers gifts, and those type of actions are where our moral free will exist.

Furthermore it would be just as affective or even more affective to say number two is not a morally good act but a morally neutral act. Only number three is where the good act rests.

You are basically saying, why do evil actions have to exist, why can't there just be varying degrees of good actions? The simply answer is by defining your duty as the morally neutral sets a standard that all must abide to in order to be morally good. If there is a standard and one has free will, there must be a choice which will break this standard otherwise a morally good action is no longer morally good as that would require one to want to commit that action. Not be forced..

Why exactly would there have to be a moral standard which we can break in order for us to perform good actions? In the world that I presented, we would have to do our simple duty, or the least moral action that is still moral. You can't say that going beyond our duty is not a morally good action just because we can't contradict out duty.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 8:31:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 11:24:37 PM, phantom wrote:
This is a self-devised argument I just thought up aimed to counter-act Plantingas free-will defence.

The free-will defence posits morally significant free-will would not exist if God just simply made us perfect because then we could only ever choose the good path and would therefore have no choice in our moral actions. I will attempt to demonstrate how morally significant actions would still exist even if God eleminated all possibility of commiting evil.

To start off, let's fit moral actions into three categories.

1. Acting against duty

2. Acting in accordance with duty

3. Acting beyond duty.

Objective morality you could say, posits simple moral duties for the human race to follow. Being fair to your customers for example, would be a simple moral duty. That would be an act applied to number two. Cheating your customers however is acting contrary to duty and thus is an immoral act and would fit into the category of number 1. Giving your items away to customers for free however is not an act motivated by duty. It is beyond duty and would fit into number three. That is the most morally significant act.

Now if God created man as perfect beings it would be impossible for us to commit number one. We could never go against duty. All our actions would have to correspond with duty. However just because we would have no choice but to commit acts in accordance with moral duty does not mean morally significant free-will would not exist. We would have no obligation whatsoever to commit acts going beyond duty. Every creature would be bound to follow our moral duty. Yes we would always have to choose the morally correct path, but we would not have to commit acts going further than what is morally correct. Morally significant free will would therefore very much exist.

Thus in a world in which God made us perfect from our very beginning we would not have free will in choosing to sin. We would however still have morally significant free will as there is only an obligation to commit acts corresponding with duty while there is no obligation to commit acts that go beyond duty. These acts are the morally significant ones. We would have no obligation to give random strangers gifts, and those type of actions are where our moral free will exist.

Furthermore it would be just as affective or even more affective to say number two is not a morally good act but a morally neutral act. Only number three is where the good act rests.

The way I look at it is this: Our choices are ALREADY limited and in a way that constrains our moral choices.

For example:

1. There are evil things which I cannot do because I am unable to do. Now, I know there are some schools of thought that thinking is as immoral as doing, but that doesn't completely negate this point.

Consider a paralyzed individual. It is unlikely he will ever commit murder, as he is physically unable. Yet some might say he can still sin my either trying to commit murder or merely wishing to commit murder. And this may certinaly be true in some cases. However, my abilities invariably constrain not only the choices I can act upon, but also the choices I even seriously consider!

At some point, his way of thinking is going to be limited by his physical ability such that the choices he makes and the things he desires, will conform to his physical limitations.

However, even if we allow that "thinking about murder" is still a sin, there are still issues which I will get to later.

2. There are evil things which I will not do because of innate aversion. I don't think it is in me to... say... rape a person. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm a poor judge of my own character. Maybe there exist some set of circumstances under which I would rape someone else. Even then, I'm not in those circumstances. So, it is clear that people are influenced by circumstances out of their control that reduce my propensity for sin.

3. There are evil things which I will not do because I'm not aware that they exist. Here, I think, is the kicker. In the previous points (which are valid), one could argue for the intention or potential to sin. However, that doesn't apply here. There could be sinful acts that I'm not aware of. I can't commit them because of my lack of awareness.

So, we have three instances in which my capacity for sinning is already limited. Physically, Willfully, and Epistemically. These limitations to my capacity for evil already exist. Since they already exist, then clearly they are not contrary to any sort of morally-significant free will.

So the question remains, if some evil acts are eliminated via these limitations, why not construct us and the world such that all evil acts are eliminated via these limitations? Why the half-assed job?

Even if you say sin cannot be completely eliminated via these means, since the desire and potential for sin can still exist (in the cases of #1 and #2) you could still, nevertheless, minimize the magnitude of sin. Certainly wanting to commit murder is not as bad as wanting and committing murder. So why not make murder physically impossible?

Lastly, even if morally-significant free will was eliminated. So what? Why not give us that choice?

If God cares about Free Will so much, why didn't he give us the will to voluntarily choose it, with full knowledge of the consequences, before thrusting involuntarily onto us?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 9:53:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 10:37:45 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/19/2012 4:55:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/19/2012 4:36:44 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/19/2012 12:49:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.
I agree. I think the problem is that (3) is actually a subset of (2).

In a sense. So?
So that means there would be no difference in a world with only (2) and a world with (2) and (3).
Um, let me demonstrate the nonsense of this statement with a previous analogy I used. Suppose you were making a deal with someone. In a world with just (2) the only option you could take would be to make it a fair deal. In a world with (2) and (3) you could take the option of making it fairer for him than for yourself.
If this is so, then what's even more nonsense is you replying: "In a sense." Regardless, let's look at it from another perspective:

Is (2) a fair or unfair deal for the seller? Answer: Fair.
Is (3) a fair or unfair deal for the seller? Answer: Unfair.
Here we can see that (3) is actually UNFAIR to the seller and thus not morally preferred. Voila!

**************************

At 6/19/2012 11:48:01 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/19/2012 10:42:46 PM, phantom wrote:
Free-will is an illusion we created.
How can we create something if we don't have free-will?
Because we can only create Sin. We have not the will to do good..
That's an excellent point! Too bad it was sneakily avoided!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 10:34:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 8:31:32 AM, drafterman wrote:


The way I look at it is this: Our choices are ALREADY limited and in a way that constrains our moral choices.

For example:

1. There are evil things which I cannot do because I am unable to do. Now, I know there are some schools of thought that thinking is as immoral as doing, but that doesn't completely negate this point.

Consider a paralyzed individual. It is unlikely he will ever commit murder, as he is physically unable. Yet some might say he can still sin my either trying to commit murder or merely wishing to commit murder. And this may certinaly be true in some cases. However, my abilities invariably constrain not only the choices I can act upon, but also the choices I even seriously consider!

At some point, his way of thinking is going to be limited by his physical ability such that the choices he makes and the things he desires, will conform to his physical limitations.

However, even if we allow that "thinking about murder" is still a sin, there are still issues which I will get to later.

2. There are evil things which I will not do because of innate aversion. I don't think it is in me to... say... rape a person. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm a poor judge of my own character. Maybe there exist some set of circumstances under which I would rape someone else. Even then, I'm not in those circumstances. So, it is clear that people are influenced by circumstances out of their control that reduce my propensity for sin.

3. There are evil things which I will not do because I'm not aware that they exist. Here, I think, is the kicker. In the previous points (which are valid), one could argue for the intention or potential to sin. However, that doesn't apply here. There could be sinful acts that I'm not aware of. I can't commit them because of my lack of awareness.

So, we have three instances in which my capacity for sinning is already limited. Physically, Willfully, and Epistemically. These limitations to my capacity for evil already exist. Since they already exist, then clearly they are not contrary to any sort of morally-significant free will.

So the question remains, if some evil acts are eliminated via these limitations, why not construct us and the world such that all evil acts are eliminated via these limitations? Why the half-assed job?

Even if you say sin cannot be completely eliminated via these means, since the desire and potential for sin can still exist (in the cases of #1 and #2) you could still, nevertheless, minimize the magnitude of sin. Certainly wanting to commit murder is not as bad as wanting and committing murder. So why not make murder physically impossible?

Lastly, even if morally-significant free will was eliminated. So what? Why not give us that choice?

If God cares about Free Will so much, why didn't he give us the will to voluntarily choose it, with full knowledge of the consequences, before thrusting involuntarily onto us?

Good points! I've actually mentioned this before but you put it very well.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 10:43:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 9:53:45 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/19/2012 10:37:45 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/19/2012 4:55:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/19/2012 4:36:44 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/19/2012 12:49:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:30 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
You're still only capable of doing what your "duty" is.
I agree. I think the problem is that (3) is actually a subset of (2).

In a sense. So?
So that means there would be no difference in a world with only (2) and a world with (2) and (3).
Um, let me demonstrate the nonsense of this statement with a previous analogy I used. Suppose you were making a deal with someone. In a world with just (2) the only option you could take would be to make it a fair deal. In a world with (2) and (3) you could take the option of making it fairer for him than for yourself.
If this is so, then what's even more nonsense is you replying: "In a sense." Regardless, let's look at it from another perspective:

Like I stated, I simply don't view the word subset the same way you do.

Is (2) a fair or unfair deal for the seller? Answer: Fair.
Is (3) a fair or unfair deal for the seller? Answer: Unfair.
Here we can see that (3) is actually UNFAIR to the seller and thus not morally preferred. Voila!

If we put it in the right context your objections are irrelevant. (3) is unfair to the seller by his own volition. If the buyer purposefully made it unfair for the seller that would be a different matter, but that is clearly not the case with the analogy I used. Purposefully making something unfair for yourself so that the other person gets a fairer deal is an act of generosity. How could we even suggest it might be immoral.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 11:10:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 10:43:35 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/20/2012 9:53:45 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If we put it in the right context your objections are irrelevant. (3) is unfair to the seller by his own volition.
That's irrelevant as volition does not determine what is moral and what is not.

If the buyer purposefully made it unfair for the seller that would be a different matter, but that is clearly not the case with the analogy I used.
But then a deal that was "more than fair" for the seller and "unfair" to the customer YET accepted by his own volition, would be moral as well.

Purposefully making something unfair for yourself so that the other person gets a fairer deal is an act of generosity.
Ergo, a deal that was "more than fair" for the seller and "unfair" to the customer YET accepted by his own volition, would be moral and an act of generosity by the customer.

How could we even suggest it might be immoral.
You did! See above.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 11:27:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 11:10:24 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2012 10:43:35 AM, phantom wrote:
At 6/20/2012 9:53:45 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
If we put it in the right context your objections are irrelevant. (3) is unfair to the seller by his own volition.
That's irrelevant as volition does not determine what is moral and what is not.

Giving money to a beggar runs allong the same lines of giving someone else the fairer deal. It's a selfless act. Volition is very rellevant in moral acts. Otherwise a homeless man stealing from someone would be the same as accepting money from the person.

If the buyer purposefully made it unfair for the seller that would be a different matter, but that is clearly not the case with the analogy I used.
But then a deal that was "more than fair" for the seller and "unfair" to the customer YET accepted by his own volition, would be moral as well.

You're just switching it around which changes nothing. So yes.


Purposefully making something unfair for yourself so that the other person gets a fairer deal is an act of generosity.
Ergo, a deal that was "more than fair" for the seller and "unfair" to the customer YET accepted by his own volition, would be moral and an act of generosity by the customer.

Yes indeed.

Who are you saying is commiting the immoral act? If you say the customer is commiting an immoral act in making the deal fairer for the seller than we clearly don't agree on morality. If you say the seller is committing the immoral act, which I suspect you do, than I would again disagree. The only thing the seller is doing is letting someone else be nice to him. A homeless person does not commit any sin by accepting money from a passerby. The seller likewise commits no sin by letting the buyer be generous to him.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 11:41:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 9:53:45 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

At 6/19/2012 11:48:01 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/19/2012 10:42:46 PM, phantom wrote:
Free-will is an illusion we created.
How can we create something if we don't have free-will?
Because we can only create Sin. We have not the will to do good..
That's an excellent point! Too bad it was sneakily avoided!

An excellent point, eh?

Do you think this point - that we can only create Sin, and have no will to do good - supports, refutes, or has nothing to do with Plantingas Free Will defence?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 12:34:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we?

(Q1) What is the moral difference between (2) and (3)?
(A1) There isn't any: they are both moral.

(Q2) If (2) and (3) are both moral, then how could there be "morally significant free will"?
(A2) There CAN'T be.

Resolved.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 12:47:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 12:34:09 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we?

(Q1) What is the moral difference between (2) and (3)?
(A1) There isn't any: they are both moral.

Rather confused at how you came to that conclusion. I think any random observer would be able to point out that going beyond your duty is very different than acting by duty.

(Q2) If (2) and (3) are both moral, then how could there be "morally significant free will"?
(A2) There CAN'T be.

Resolved.

You didn't really respond to what I last said and I would also advise to re-read/read the original post since you don't seem to get the simple differences between 1 and 2.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 12:57:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 12:47:24 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/20/2012 12:34:09 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we?

(Q1) What is the moral difference between (2) and (3)?
(A1) There isn't any: they are both moral.

Rather confused at how you came to that conclusion. I think any random observer would be able to point out that going beyond your duty is very different than acting by duty.
Nice strawman, but I didn't ask if there was any differences at all, I asked if there were any MORAL differences.

(Q2) If (2) and (3) are both moral, then how could there be "morally significant free will"?
(A2) There CAN'T be.

Resolved.
You didn't really respond to what I last said and I would also advise to re-read/read the original post since you don't seem to get the simple differences between 1 and 2.
(A) I do not see me referencing anything about (1) above; consequently, I do not know what you mean by me not understanding the differences between 1 and 2. Now if you are referring to Q1 and Q2, then you need to be more specific.

(B) If you ARE referring to Q1 and Q2, then I suggest you answer them instead of the strawman that you presented.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 3:31:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 12:57:57 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2012 12:47:24 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/20/2012 12:34:09 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we?

(Q1) What is the moral difference between (2) and (3)?
(A1) There isn't any: they are both moral.

Rather confused at how you came to that conclusion. I think any random observer would be able to point out that going beyond your duty is very different than acting by duty.
Nice strawman, but I didn't ask if there was any differences at all, I asked if there were any MORAL differences.

My statement was meant to imply moral diferences.

And even if our current morality does not seem to you like there is much of a difference, God would still be able to form a morality very similar without differences. God could just make there be morally neutral acts and morally good acts. In that world there would clearly be morally significant freewill because we would never be forced to do a good act. And if you deny that God could form such a morality you clearly don't view him the same way as most.


(Q2) If (2) and (3) are both moral, then how could there be "morally significant free will"?
(A2) There CAN'T be.

Resolved.
You didn't really respond to what I last said and I would also advise to re-read/read the original post since you don't seem to get the simple differences between 1 and 2.
(A) I do not see me referencing anything about (1) above; consequently, I do not know what you mean by me not understanding the differences between 1 and 2. Now if you are referring to Q1 and Q2, then you need to be more specific.

I was talking about the 1 and 2 of the argument. And your statements about them being the same morally is what brought me to that statement.

(B) If you ARE referring to Q1 and Q2, then I suggest you answer them instead of the strawman that you presented.

It wasn't a strawman. You just thought it was.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)