Free Will vs. Freedom From Suffering

[Paul of Tarsus]

Many apologists argue that we must suffer in order to have free will. It's a trade off that even God must bow to--we can either be morally free or free of suffering, but we cannot have both. We are told, for example:

...God can create people who are not morally free. Such a person would never harm anyone else, never fail to do good in any setting, and always be a beacon of right behavior. However, that would be more a machine than a person. A machine is neither good nor bad; it just does as it is programed to do. For people to be capable of genuine good deeds they must also be capable of evil deeds.

The implication here is that free will is the greatest good for us; to have free will is better than to be free of suffering. Or to put it another way, free will is so wonderful that it's worth the cost of sadness, fear, hatred, pain, sickness, dying and death, of course.

I'm not so sure, but what is your preference and why? Which would you choose if you could?

A. Free Will Along with the Attendant Suffering
or
B. A Happy and Peaceful World Full of Robotic Beacons of Light
or
C. A Combination of A and B

[Miles]

.


In as much as free will is an illusion, any preference I might have would not come by way of choice but because of necessity.

Now, if apologists actually contend that we must suffer in order to have free will, fine. People also contend they were abducted by aliens and taken aboard flying saucers, which is also fine. Thing is, the two contentions have more in common than not.

What I find interesting about the proposition that god gave us free will is that it's suppose to be gift, but when people sometimes misuse it in violation of god's wishes, he hammers them . . . sometimes to death. People would be far better off if god just left free will out of his equation and let people enjoy life as it unfolds before them. Hold on!!! that's exactly what does happen.

As for bjs1's old and tired argument for the existence of evil "For people to be capable of genuine good deeds they must also be capable of evil deeds." needs a whole lot of evidence. Evidence I've yet to see presented.


.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]

To be clear, my argument is the free will is morally better, not that it is always preferable.

A person might prefer a reality which he has never had moral freedom and where there is no suffering. It might be preferable to have happiness forced upon us rather than needing to struggle with moral choices and deal with the consequences of bad choices.

However, it is morally better for us to have free will. The reason that it is morally better is that it allows us to do good. If we were never given any more choices then we could never do anything good. We would be like tools or machines, but not people.

Morally speaking we would be like stones. A stone is neither good nor evil. A stone can be used to build a shelter and it can be used to bash in a man’s head. The stone did nothing good or bad. It was the person using the stone who is holds all moral responsibility.

If God made people without moral freedom then God might be good or bad. We would be neither. For us to be able to do anything good or anything bad then at some point we have to be free to make a choice on our own – one that is not coerced, forced or programmed into us. Without that choice it is conceivable that we would be happier people, but we could never be better people.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]

I don't have to choose because moral free will vs freedom from suffering is a false dilemma. I accept the premise that for people to be capable of genuine good deeds they must also be capable of evil deeds, but that does not come with the implication that capability for evil deeds must be actuated. Without actuated evil deeds, we have both free will and freedom from suffering.

Having said that, I prefer B. A Happy and Peaceful World Full of Robotic Beacons of Light. As a life long atheist, I think of myself as a meat robot already, I don't see any practical difference between can't murder, and can murder but won't.

[nobspeople]

Many apologists argue that we must suffer in order to have free will. It's a trade off that even God must bow to--we can either be morally free or free of suffering, but we cannot have both. We are told, for example:

...God can create people who are not morally free. Such a person would never harm anyone else, never fail to do good in any setting, and always be a beacon of right behavior. However, that would be more a machine than a person. A machine is neither good nor bad; it just does as it is programed to do. For people to be capable of genuine good deeds they must also be capable of evil deeds.

The implication here is that free will is the greatest good for us; to have free will is better than to be free of suffering. Or to put it another way, free will is so wonderful that it's worth the cost of sadness, fear, hatred, pain, sickness, dying and death, of course.

I'm not so sure, but what is your preference and why? Which would you choose if you could?

A. Free Will Along with the Attendant Suffering
or
B. A Happy and Peaceful World Full of Robotic Beacons of Light
or
C. A Combination of A and B

Personally, I've never seen, heard or been told by a Christian or others, that Christians believe that to have free will is better than to be free of suffering. I've never been taught or told that free will has any major influence from or on suffering, though I'm sure, if free will is real, it's totally possible. I find the thinking that started the thread quite interesting - thanks for posting!

[Paul of Tarsus]

What I find interesting about the proposition that god gave us free will is that it's suppose to be gift, but when people sometimes misuse it in violation of god's wishes, he hammers them . . . sometimes to death. People would be far better off if god just left free will out of his equation and let people enjoy life as it unfolds before them. Hold on!!! that's exactly what does happen.

Yes. Telling people they are free to do something only to punish them if they do so is not what I would call free.

As for bjs1's old and tired argument for the existence of evil "For people to be capable of genuine good deeds they must also be capable of evil deeds." needs a whole lot of evidence. Evidence I've yet to see presented.

I think the fallacy in that argument is the assumption that doing good and doing evil is like the connections on a battery: there must be an anode and a cathode, a positive and a negative. However, it's demonstrably true that a person can do much good or evil without doing the other. Helping others is good even if hurting others is impossible, for example.

Anyway, the free-will defense of God against the prevalence of needless suffering is a very lame apologetic, in my opinion.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #6]

Telling people they are free to do something only to punish them if they do so is not what I would call free.

Technically, wouldn't saying 'you have free will' simply mean you're free to do 'this or that' but doesn't eliminate the possibility of punishment?
I mean, it would be dodgy if someone said 'you can do this or that', not mention a punishment, then punish you. But, according to many Christians, God does lay out a 'right and wrong' way of life, they say.
Now, that's not to say free will is real. If God has a plan, and people can't deviate from that plan, then free will isn't possible as people are acting out in accordance with his plan.
Then again, it's said Adam and Eve jacked up God's plan by sinning. But that would indicate either having God's plan jacked up WAS the plan, or God can't plan for anything and thus, not worthy of his deity status, I suspect.

he free-will defense of God against the prevalence of needless suffering is a very lame apologetic

That I can't find an argument against, TBH

[Paul of Tarsus]

To be clear, my argument is the free will is morally better, not that it is always preferable.

I understand that, but my point is that we would be better off without free choice if that free choice comes at the price of suffering.

A person might prefer a reality which he has never had moral freedom and where there is no suffering. It might be preferable to have happiness forced upon us rather than needing to struggle with moral choices and deal with the consequences of bad choices.

I can't speak for others, but you can force me to live a good, happy life anytime!

However, it is morally better for us to have free will. The reason that it is morally better is that it allows us to do good. If we were never given any more choices then we could never do anything good. We would be like tools or machines, but not people.

Yes, we might freely will to do good, but that same free will allows us to do evil too. So I don't see any clear moral improvements with free will. And there's a lot more to people than just what we choose to do, so contrary to what you say, we could all be very human even if we are not allowed to do evil. I wouldn't miss the option to do evil because I don't want it. Do you want to be able to do evil? Can you post some examples of evil you want to be able to do that you don't want to be denied?

Morally speaking we would be like stones. A stone is neither good nor evil. A stone can be used to build a shelter and it can be used to bash in a man’s head. The stone did nothing good or bad. It was the person using the stone who is holds all moral responsibility.

Then let's be as moral as stones. What's so terrible about that?

If God made people without moral freedom then God might be good or bad. We would be neither. For us to be able to do anything good or anything bad then at some point we have to be free to make a choice on our own – one that is not coerced, forced or programmed into us. Without that choice it is conceivable that we would be happier people, but we could never be better people.

If we cannot do evil, then that looks like a moral improvement to me.

I think you might be looking at this issue in black and white: We are either mindless robots or have free will. There are other possibilities. Why not just take away people's will to do evil while allowing them the capacity to do good? We'd still be very human yet doing good without evil.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]

I don't have to choose because moral free will vs freedom from suffering is a false dilemma. I accept the premise that for people to be capable of genuine good deeds they must also be capable of evil deeds, but that does not come with the implication that capability for evil deeds must be actuated. Without actuated evil deeds, we have both free will and freedom from suffering.

Having said that, I prefer B. A Happy and Peaceful World Full of Robotic Beacons of Light. As a life long atheist, I think of myself as a meat robot already, I don't see any practical difference between can't murder, and can murder but won't.

I was going to answer this. i.e. D. Free will AND freedom from suffering.

If there was actually a god, this would be trivial to implement.

Example:

Person A, using free will, decides to attempt to harm Person B. God (or an agent of god if the god is too busy) steps in and protects Person B. The attempt fails. Person A is now properly chastised, retrained, gotten rid of, etc as the god sees fit depending on the circumstances.

In other words, there are consequences for your actions, but they fall on YOU, not on any intended victims. You can attempt to harm someone, but any real harm will only fall back on you.

Of course this system is far better than we currently have and negates any god belief I know about. Primarily, I presume, because it offers a falsifiable belief. i.e. if someone believes this, it's easily shown whether it's true or not. Compare this to all current gods who remain invisible and undetectable regardless of our actions.

[JehovahsWitness]

Free will* can in my opinion exist in the absence of human suffering. A perfect person I believe, will always make the right choices but thay doesn't mean he lacks the ability to make a choice.

God is, I believe such a person, that doesnt make him a machine, he remains aware of what the wrong choices would be for any given situation.

*When I speak of free will I am speaking of the ability to make choices.

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE and ... RESPONSIBILITY