buddyIV
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,057
- Reaction score
- 0
I've been thinking about this question a great deal recently, and just wondered what anyone else thought about it...
I do think that we have free will, but that it's a reduced freedom. For example, We choose to be free members of a particular culture and society, but in so doing we accept that we have to generally comply to the (majority of) agreed laws within that culture and society: if we break the law we are no longer part of that society. Similarly, we choose to engage in a particular relationship and accept that this might entail certain restrictions on our behaviour (like being monogamous, expecting certain levels of respect and intimacy, sharing certain duties etc.). We choose who we are, where we live, who we're with, but in choosing we invoke restrictions upon ourselves. The upshot being, we're free, but in a reduced sense.
Another reason for thinking that our freedom is limited in some way is the simple physical law that every event has a cause. So, given a particular event, there's only a few ways that things can go. However, I don't think that this means that a cause will always, necessarily, lead to one single event. I think there's a finite ways things could go, so free will can't be completed unlimited.
A major motivation for me believing that we do have free will is my conviction in moral responsibility. If everything was predetermined (or fated) to turn out a particular way, then how could anyone ever be expected to do other than that which they did? i.e. if fate is genuine, and we have no control over the outcome - and the outcome is certain - how can we blame a murderer for shooting the victim? After all, it was fated that the victim was going to die that way, so how is the shooter guilty of any wrong doing?
I think that we have a choice, even within limits, about what we're going to do. And because we have a choice, we are responsible for the outcome of our actions.
What do y'all make of this?
I do think that we have free will, but that it's a reduced freedom. For example, We choose to be free members of a particular culture and society, but in so doing we accept that we have to generally comply to the (majority of) agreed laws within that culture and society: if we break the law we are no longer part of that society. Similarly, we choose to engage in a particular relationship and accept that this might entail certain restrictions on our behaviour (like being monogamous, expecting certain levels of respect and intimacy, sharing certain duties etc.). We choose who we are, where we live, who we're with, but in choosing we invoke restrictions upon ourselves. The upshot being, we're free, but in a reduced sense.
Another reason for thinking that our freedom is limited in some way is the simple physical law that every event has a cause. So, given a particular event, there's only a few ways that things can go. However, I don't think that this means that a cause will always, necessarily, lead to one single event. I think there's a finite ways things could go, so free will can't be completed unlimited.
A major motivation for me believing that we do have free will is my conviction in moral responsibility. If everything was predetermined (or fated) to turn out a particular way, then how could anyone ever be expected to do other than that which they did? i.e. if fate is genuine, and we have no control over the outcome - and the outcome is certain - how can we blame a murderer for shooting the victim? After all, it was fated that the victim was going to die that way, so how is the shooter guilty of any wrong doing?
I think that we have a choice, even within limits, about what we're going to do. And because we have a choice, we are responsible for the outcome of our actions.
What do y'all make of this?