Free will vs. coerced choice

[Zzyzx]

.
According to CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry), free will is:

Free will is the ability to make choices without external coersion [sic].
https://carm.org/what-is-free-will

Coercion is defined as: the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

If a person is told they are free to choose to do or not do something but if they choose to do it they and their family will be tortured, imprisoned and/or executed, have they been coerced by intimidation or threat? Do they make a free will choice in that instance?

If a person is told that they are free to choose to worship one of the proposed gods or not, but if they choose not they will suffer unpleasant eternal consequences (or whatever the threat), have they been coerced by intimidation or threat?

Where, exactly, does free will (choice free of coercion) apply according to Christian beliefs?

[KingandPriest]

.

Free will is the ability to make a choice.

If so,"People have choices" (or simply 'choice') says all that is necessary.

Adding 'free' has no meaning, contributes nothing, is potentially misleading, and is no more than a religious platitude.

Free implies that it does not cost anything of value to make a choice.

How is it misleading? Do you have to pay in order to make a decision?

The only thing required is for you to weigh your options and choose. Is it misleading to imply that people have the ability to make choices? Is it misleading to communicate that this ability to make choices is a gift that our species has as a result of the design of our brains?

If it is just a religious platitude, why do courts all over the world focus so heavily on the choices and decisions people make to choose to follow or disobey the law?

Does order in a society depend on monitoring of "free will"?

[Justin108]

It might be. If his entire family is being attacked by home invaders, is he being immoral for defending one family member at a time (since thats all hes able to defend at a time)?

Don't try to alter the scenario to make it morally ambiguous. The scenario is this: you walk down the street. You find a man busy raping a child in an alleyway. This man is unarmed. Are you immoral for walking away and not intervening?

You cant answer that question; therefore, things arent as cut and dry as you say they are.

The above scenario is cut and dry.

Evil things are allowed because an inscrutable good is being accomplished.

An inscrutable good is being accomplished by a man raping a child? Is that your claim?

That we cannot possibly imagine what good a tragedy like this might affect doesnt mean we reject that one occurs.

With this logic, we should never intervene in these kinds of evil acts because what if such a tragedy ends up being an "inscrutable good" for the victim?

Furthermore, if an inscrutable good is being achieved by a man raping a child, then it means that this man is instrumental in achieving a greater good... making his act of rape a good thing, so we should applaud his rape

That you criticize theistic worldviews as unethical for trying to make sense of evil in the world is just . . . . absurd.

Yes because your conclusion is pretending that nothing bad really happens because "it's actually all part of an inscrutable good" and just pretending that everything will work out in the end. The fact that your world view is more rosy than mine has no bearing on its credibility. You just pretend that everything will be ok in the end.

[JLB32168]

The fact that your world view is more rosy than mine has no bearing on its credibility.

Of course youre right. Im just calling attention to the fact that you call one view abhorrent while yours says that A)most rapes will never be reported and that means that B)most perpetrators will escape scot-free and live happy lives after that.

[Justin108]

The fact that your world view is more rosy than mine has no bearing on its credibility.

Of course youre right. Im just calling attention to the fact that you call one view abhorrent while yours says that A)most rapes will never be reported and that means that B)most perpetrators will escape scot-free and live happy lives after that.

I'm calling your view inconsistent. The thing is mine gets to be flawed because my world view doesn't make the claim that there is a morally perfect omnipotent entity out there. For this world to have such an entity and still be as evil as it is makes your view inconsistant

[JLB32168]

I'm calling your view inconsistent.

Me: An inscrutable good is accomplished, which is why X is allowed; however, evil doers will still be punished in spite of the role in accomplishing an inscrutable and often confusing good.

Thee: Bad things happen. Most bad things dont get reported. Most evil doers will escape all consequences of their actions and live happy lives.

Yes, your views certainly are consistent.