A question of "essentials"

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 120904


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> 4)  This leads to the fourth option, that free will is an illusion 
> and some people are good in essence and some evil in essence.  For 
> example, the will of person who was molested as a child who in turn 
> molests children is not really free, in that it is conditioned by 
> his/her own experience.  A truly free will would be one that isn't 
> conditioned, but that means it would operate purely at random and 
> without regard to reason or influence (which restrict its freedom), 
> which negates all idea of morality as generally understood.  This 
is 
> the famous argument of the Calvinist Jonathan Edwards against free 
> will.  Theologians and philosophers have been trying to get out of 
> Edwards' net for nearly three centuries, but if the argument is 
> stated correctly and in full (which I have not done by any means) 
> then it is impossible to refute using strictly logical analysis.  
You 
> are left with a definition of morality that is purely arbitrary and 
> given, generally things are morally right because God decreed them 
> that way, and people are moral or not because of factors beyond 
their 
> control.  Most religions and philosophies evade this by arguing 
that 
> strict logical analysis is an incorrect way to approach matters of 
> essence and morality, and thus invoke various degrees of mystical 
(I 
> don't mean that as a bad word) explanation.
> 


Actually, I gave a bad example here.  A better one would be a person 
who molests children due to desires that arise without a clear prior 
cause.  Is that person acting out of free will?  In this argument the 
answer is no.  The persons will is not free because it is conditioned 
by the desires.  In the same way a person who does not molest 
children because they feel disgust and horror at the very thought are 
not exercising free will.  Their will is conditioned by the disgust 
and horror.  Even a person who reasons logically to the conclusion 
that molesting children is bad for society is not exercising free 
will, because their will is conditioned by their logical thought 
process and conclusions.  Free will, if the definition is pushed to 
its logical foundations, becomes an illusion, in that no one's will 
operates outside of forces that condition, channel, and limit the 
will.

Lupinlore