Free Will and the Nature of Heaven

[aelf]

How successful do you think a society would be where one can kill another without repercussions because he gave him a funny look. What use is it to try to gather resources when society deems it no problem when someone else comes along and is free to nick it, again without consequences. These moral values have evolved because they benefit a society.

You're talking about a country, but it's larger than that. And the time scales involved make our concepts of "countries" merely a speck in the total picture. If the majority of a species thought it would be ok to murder others of it's species, guess what will happen to that species. There will be a lot less of them. Even animals generally don't kill each other for no reason.

Is this in reply to me? If so, then I'm surprised to hear this because I certainly know of societies where unjust acts were accepted and widely practiced. And those societies didn't necessarily pay the price for their crimes. In fact, some of them are still alive and kicking.

I don't understand why when it comes to morality, people would rather stick their heads in the sand. I'd chalk it up to an adverse reaction towards moral absolutism. A case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I suppose.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I guess it would be the fact that who is better is irrelevant.

Good thing I never asked who is better. I asked which situation is better: one in which a person with a sterling character freely does a good thing, or one in which a typical human as we know them struggles over what to do and winds up deciding to do good. Here's a hint: since it's the same for the recipient of the good deed, which one is better for the doer? Here's another hint: it feels good to seize an opportunity (here, helping the person) which one immediately recognizes as such; it feels stressful to be torn in two directions.

That said, I'd actually say that the Christian God can't be omnipotent because he after giving humanity free will, he couldn't stop humans from falling into sin. Then the parable of the prodigal son makes great sense, since God would be more pleased than anything that his lost children return to him.

There might be good reasons to interpret the Christian God as non-omnipotent, but you're leaving out an important part of the story. An omnipotent God could have given humans both free will and sterling characters, thereby avoiding the whole issue. Since humanity doesn't have sterling characters, then we can conclude that if there's a God, it's not a 3-O (omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient) one.

 

[aelf]

Good thing I never asked who is better. I asked which situation is better: one in which a person with a sterling character freely does a good thing, or one in which a typical human as we know them struggles over what to do and winds up deciding to do good. Here's a hint: since it's the same for the recipient of the good deed, which one is better for the doer? Here's another hint: it feels good to seize an opportunity (here, helping the person) which one immediately recognizes as such; it feels stressful to be torn in two directions.

Your "hints" sound like either these are some big secrets or I'm too stupid to see them...

Well, no. In this situation, asking which situation is better is not very much different from asking who is better. The conclusions are still the same, at any rate. In the eyes of God, he's apparently indifferent to which is better. And it's not totally unreasonable. A lifetime of indecision still counts for nothing when compared to an eternity in heaven. Hume's criticism of the concept of hell cuts the other way here. And, as for the recipient, all clues point towards the fact that he's not too concerned about what you get from other people, but about what decisions you make yourself.

There might be good reasons to interpret the Christian God as non-omnipotent, but you're leaving out an important part of the story. An omnipotent God could have given humans both free will and sterling characters, thereby avoiding the whole issue. Since humanity doesn't have sterling characters, then we can conclude that if there's a God, it's not a 3-O (omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient) one.

Again, isn't this pretty much saying the same thing? I said that he couldn't give free will and made sure humanity didn't choose to do wrong. One would think that having sterling characters would entail not choosing to be bastards...

 

[Greizer85]

So what's your conscience based on?

Evolution? Sure, indoctrination can alter it substantially, but the basic things are (nearly) always there: namely, don't willfully insult or abuse others. Or you'll have a bad conscience, no matter how you rationalize it.

Again, the unspecified "we". Who's the subject? Relative is arbitrary when the subject is the one with the power to decide. But since you maintain that everything is relative, this just winds up to be the case, since someone or some people would have the power to decide.

What warpus said. I cannot decide my biology. Plus there are traditions to consider; whether they're reasonable or not (the traditions I mean), no one wants to become a social outcast.

So what do you think the logic is about? You think ethics isn't logical?

Now that I think more of it, we're talking about the exact same thing.
How much and what kind of ethics is needed seems to be the matter of contention.

After all, it is ethical in itself to follow your own conscience... For the individual it would make more sense to ignore it in certain situations (as is done quite often).

Tradition, as well as the threat of force, is the answer.

And common sense.

And funny that you should think animal instincts would doom us when you defended evolutionary theory earlier. See the contradiction?

They would doom civilization, not the species. At this point, following animal instincts would be horrendously ineffective to ensure the survival of the human race. For one thing, population would rapidly decline. And the possibility of colonizing other planets would be lost forever. It may be said that humans govern their own evolution, or at least will in a very real sense very soon (through genetic engineering).

Well, go read about it more. I'm sure even the wiki entry says more than that, if you don't just zoom in on the criticisms. Basically, virtue ethics is about virtues. Ever heard of murder being called a virtue?

Why could it not be a virtue? If a murderer could roam freely without the risk of getting caught, wouldn't it only be natural for him to murder? If he sincerely believed that all the murdered go to paradise in heaven, wouldn't it be immoral from his point of view to not commit as many murders as possible?

It's funny that you continue to make assumptions about something you don't know and then stamp your foot when told you're wrong. Doesn't have a complimentary effect on yourself.

In any case, I'm beginning to doubt you're really capable of holding a proper discussion if you think that what I'm saying is you can't be moral because you're godless. I'm sorry, but discussing with people who exhibit willful ignorance always annoys me.

It's called humor. As for the willful ignorance, yes I sometimes do think of myself more highly than I have the right to. I don't always notice it. But I think even despite all my errors, you still haven't explained a few things satisfactorily (in the "not-go-read-a-book" sense). The reason I 'stamp my foot' is mostly to shake these answers out of you.

I'm sorry, but that statement is just wacky. When I say best, I don't mean best in the myopic mind of someone who can't see past his nose.

What is virtuous to a sociopath then? Does he have no virtues at all? Are virtues always about looking past oneself? If so, why must it be like that? If one has no conscience, 'living the good life' translates in my mind to whatever makes me feel the most pleasure. If that happens to be murder (for pathologic reasons), then so be it.

And your arguments are becoming more and more incoherent. Who's ever excluding your conscience from the picture? If your point is we must have a good conscience to have a good life, well, yes, duh. You imagine that by being virtuous we might not have a good conscience?

Why? That we may help others? Why must that be everyone's virtue? If a virtue is such for everyone, doesn't the whole word lose its meaning?

Edit: Wait... You said we must have a good conscience, not a conscience for a good life. I can see how a good conscience can be better than a constant neutral feeling (no conscience at all). In that it is more pleasurable. But what if murder produces enormous personal pleasure?

Lastly, I don't care what you think. I'm not trying to sell you a product. You can believe in whatever you want. I'm not a Christian trying to convert you. You wanna be an idiot and think nonsense about something because you can't be bothered to find out for yourself? That's your problem. Have fun.

I am, thank you very much. Since I cannot squeeze satisfactory answers out of you, perhaps I really should go read a book. However, there are a lot of books to read in this world, which is why I was hoping you could provide some answers, since you've read some of these 'moral' books. I think it is a matter of either my thick-headedness and none-educatedness, your unargumentativeness, you/me/us missing something essential, or quite likely a mix of these three. If you'll answer me one more time and I still won't 'get it', I'll then promise to read one good book on the matter if you can recommend one.

 

[MrPopov]

Here's a dilema.

You love your spouse very deeply. You have been together for many years and have always been faithful. You both die but upon reaching the afterlife, you learn that your spouse is to be sent to hell since he/she had a very dark secret they kept from you in their past. They did something unspeakable and never repented and now they are to be sent to hell.

I wonder what kind of heaven that would be for me to be completely seperated from my spouse for all of eternity.

 

[Greizer85]

Here's a dilema.

You love your spouse very deeply. You have been together for many years and have always been faithful. You both die but upon reaching the afterlife, you learn that your spouse is to be sent to hell since he/she had a very dark secret they kept from you in their past. They did something unspeakable and never repented and now they are to be sent to hell.

I wonder what kind of heaven that would be for me to be completely seperated from my spouse for all of eternity.

Most likely God would help you to 'see the error of your ways'... But I'd like to hear an answer from a believer to this as well. Thank you for bringing the thread back on track (even if I am one of its destroyers).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is this in reply to me? If so, then I'm surprised to hear this because I certainly know of societies where unjust acts were accepted and widely practiced.

"Unjust acts" is a little vague. Show me one society where you can and it is custom to kill each over the drop of a hat.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Again, isn't this pretty much saying the same thing? I said that he couldn't give free will and made sure humanity didn't choose to do wrong. One would think that having sterling characters would entail not choosing to be bastards...

You are saying the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that people can have free will and still be reliable, even (to a sufficiently knowledgeable observer) predictable. An omnipotent being could, if He wanted, create free people who predictably do good things. Freedom doesn't have to be random.

“For in order to be free, there is no need for me to be capable of moving both ways; on the contrary, the more I incline in one direction – either because I clearly understand that reasons of truth and goodness point that way, or because of a divinely produced disposition of my inmost thoughts – the freer is my choice.” -Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy

 

[Danielos]

Here's a dilema.

You love your spouse very deeply. You have been together for many years and have always been faithful. You both die but upon reaching the afterlife, you learn that your spouse is to be sent to hell since he/she had a very dark secret they kept from you in their past. They did something unspeakable and never repented and now they are to be sent to hell.

I wonder what kind of heaven that would be for me to be completely seperated from my spouse for all of eternity.

Maybe you could act like a total jerk in heaven, say pulling up the skirts of the angels or put a silent-but-deadly close to Jesus, and they will kick you out and you could rejoin your beloved in Hell?

 

[aelf]

I am, thank you very much. Since I cannot squeeze satisfactory answers out of you, perhaps I really should go read a book. However, there are a lot of books to read in this world, which is why I was hoping you could provide some answers, since you've read some of these 'moral' books. I think it is a matter of either my thick-headedness and none-educatedness, your unargumentativeness, you/me/us missing something essential, or quite likely a mix of these three. If you'll answer me one more time and I still won't 'get it', I'll then promise to read one good book on the matter if you can recommend one.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to explain everything, which is why I keep recommending that you read up. The most concise source would be Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but I'm not sure if you can get easy access to it. I personally found Nussbaum very enlightening on the subject of virtue ethics.

In any case, why do you even need specific recommendations? I'm sure wiki lists a number of writers and sources. Look at them and decide where you want to start.

"Unjust acts" is a little vague. Show me one society where you can and it is custom to kill each over the drop of a hat.

Why must it be to kill each other randomly? How about killing a specific group of people for no good reason? If you think of unjust killings only in terms of people killing each other randomly, then, yeah you're right. But, obviously, that's not the only possibility.

You are saying the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that people can have free will and still be reliable, even (to a sufficiently knowledgeable observer) predictable. An omnipotent being could, if He wanted, create free people who predictably do good things. Freedom doesn't have to be random.

I don't get how it's "opposite" . I don't think we understand each other here.

 

[El_Machinae]

I have a harder time being a kind and loving person if I'm hungry. Does it make me 'more good' to intentionally be hungry, so that I can be a kind and loving person in a more difficult state? Or should I endeavour to be properly fed, so that I have an easier time being kind and loving.

Serious question!

 

[Greizer85]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to explain everything, which is why I keep recommending that you read up. The most concise source would be Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but I'm not sure if you can get easy access to it. I personally found Nussbaum very enlightening on the subject of virtue ethics.

In any case, why do you even need specific recommendations? I'm sure wiki lists a number of writers and sources. Look at them and decide where you want to start.

Well, I asked from you because I thought as a philosophy student you've read a lot of philosophical books, and could recommend the best/most concise ones. As you did. I'm quite sure my library doesn't have the Stanford Encyclopedia (I'm in Finland and not in the capital... Damn this hick country, if it isn't trees or lakes or fields it's always in the capital! ), but I'll try to look up Nussbaum or some alternative encyclopedia. I read one essay by Nussbaum once (I'm fairly sure she's the same one) concerning wacko feminisim. I think she was easy enough to read, and to boot had a fairly reasonable stance towards wacko feminism (namely that it's wacko).

I don't get how it's "opposite" . I don't think we understand each other here.

If I'm allowed to jump in here... (Probably not a good idea) What if God created Bob and Adolf... Bob would be naturally strongly inclined to not commit wrong acts (such people exist right now so it would be no problem); he would freely choose not to jaywalk on an empty street 3 am in the morning - because it would make him feel bad, because it would be against his moral ideals to break a just law under any circumstances, etc. He would cry in his sleep as baby seals and Africans are dying. He would dedicate his life to charity and goodness, just as Jesus did. Of course he would still 'sin', but he would strive so hard not to, that he would commit very few if any grave sins. Most of his errors would be called that only because he couldn't see the outcomes of his actions in time. Adolf - whom God also fashioned out of fresh clay on the same day He made Bob - on the other hand, would have all the characteristics of the last really famous guy named Adolf (for the sake of brevity, I assume you know them ).

Aside from God finding wusses boring - why not create a billion Bobs and not a single Adolf - nor anything in between? Optimality ftw - free will exists and everyone goes to heaven. And the world is a lot better place to boot.

I think it has to do with how we view Bob's strong conscience: is it an obstruction to his free will? What if he couldn't step out the door because he was too afraid he'd kill ants with his footsteps? What if he couldn't sleep, because on his skin, bacteria were being mass-murdered by their bobetic kin? I think conscience is a limiting factor on our free will - but so are our minds in general. Also, you could view it from another angle: wouldn't having no conscience limit our ability to freely choose to do good deeds? What is understood by freedom, anyway? If it's only about acting freely within our current predicaments (which I guess is a reasonable boundary), then it comes to whether sociopaths have more free will in absolute terms (I am sure God could measure it ) than 'normal' people. And whether that is relevant. I'd rather have a little less free Bob and his billion wuss clones and star-travel in 1000 A.D. than a world where maximum freedom exists and babies are raped to cure aids and people are led by Adolf into 'strange showers' by the millions...

 

[Ayatollah So]

I don't get how it's "opposite" . I don't think we understand each other here.

Maybe not. Please explain again your basic answer to the OP, concentrating on the selected parts I quote below.

Yet it is undeniable that evil and suffering exist in this world, even though a truly good God would not allow such things. In a partial attempt to resolve this dilemma, apologists for these traditions often rely on the so-called "free will defense". [...]

1. There is both sin and free will in Heaven.
2. There is sin but no free will in Heaven.
3. There is free will but no sin in Heaven.
4. There is neither free will nor sin in Heaven.

Together, these four options exhaust all possibilities [...]

[comment for those who choose #3]
(i) By (3) above, it is possible for God to create free-willed beings without the possibility of evil.
(ii) According to the free will theodicy, evil arises from the actions of free-willed beings.
(iii) By (I) and (II), God deliberately chose to create free-willed beings who would commit evil acts, even though he had the option of doing otherwise.
Conclusion: God wanted evil to exist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I have a harder time being a kind and loving person if I'm hungry. Does it make me 'more good' to intentionally be hungry, so that I can be a kind and loving person in a more difficult state? Or should I endeavour to be properly fed, so that I have an easier time being kind and loving.

Serious question!

Neither is better. Whatever path one takes to being a kinder and more loving person is a correct one. Typically, being kinder and more loving involves sacrificing ones own wants and desires for the sake of another. It is so difficult to lessen the influence of personal wants, that one should not quibble too much about how a person tries to do so.

 

[aelf]

Well, I asked from you because I thought as a philosophy student you've read a lot of philosophical books, and could recommend the best/most concise ones. As you did. I'm quite sure my library doesn't have the Stanford Encyclopedia (I'm in Finland and not in the capital... Damn this hick country, if it isn't trees or lakes or fields it's always in the capital! ), but I'll try to look up Nussbaum or some alternative encyclopedia. I read one essay by Nussbaum once (I'm fairly sure she's the same one) concerning wacko feminisim. I think she was easy enough to read, and to boot had a fairly reasonable stance towards wacko feminism (namely that it's wacko).

The SEP is available online.

Maybe not. Please explain again your basic answer to the OP, concentrating on the selected parts I quote below.

Nah, I think I've had enough of religious threads for a while.

 

[Greizer85]

The SEP is available online.

I read the entry on virtue ethics from that online encyclopedia. It has a number of issues that are not explained very well. It seems that virtues are virtues 'just because'; the good life is a virtuous one 'just because'. It also doesn't address the problem that if you are born non-virtuous, nothing can be done for you. Sure, there is the whole 'practical wisdom' angle. That everyone has inherent virtues but to follow them correctly you need practical wisdom, which comes mostly from life experience. It is saying the same things I have said in different words, although it doesn't mention conscience at the basis of it all. To some satisfaction not all virtue ethicists seem to subscribe to non-relative moral values. Could it be, I dunno, because they cannot explain where these absolute values come from?

Fwiw, I think life teaches most people to abandon their virtues and become more and more predator-like; grab an easy buck by using other people's noses as stepping stones. It's what gets you ahead in life. Perfection gave a startlingly good summation of the current Western mentality in another thread: "I need cash now." That is really the essence of our time, and I share your concern for the lack of solid moral values in people's lives. I just don't think they can be conjured up so easily without appealing to a divine being - and thanks to science people's belief in God and consequently in Hell seems to be waning, so they do all it takes to make a Heaven for themselves here on Earth. I'm not saying most people are evil; just inconsiderate. Maybe it's my cynical Finnish nature but I cannot see how many people value virtues that highly. Most value them exactly so much that they can still get a good night's sleep. Which is not enough imo. (Mostly because we cannot, and don't want to see the final consequences of each trivial act we do each day. If everyone was omniscient, no one would ever sleep well at night, if at all I suspect.)

You ofc might say that that is neither here nor there. Or that I read the article 'with the devil sitting on my shoulder'. Which I suppose I may have. How does one tell? Bulverism, I think it is called. Bringing your own conclusion with you. You philosophers have a term for everything.

Oh well. I suppose I may read Nussbaum later on. For now I will take my emotivist approach and stick to it; maybe I'll come to my senses with books and old age, maybe not. I am a very impulsive person and to think of a rule or even a set of rules (or dispositions; the article did mention to its credit that sometimes virtues may conflict each other irresolvably) that would fit every unique situation seems absurd to me. Tbh it seems boring. If no one ever got insulted, the world would be a tremendous bore. I suspect if there is a God, that may be one reason why He allows evil to exists - although He could sure as hell tone it down a little bit. I mean, I'm a-ok with Hitler jokes, but the real Hitlers should've and could've been avoided, imo.

Nah, I think I've had enough of religious threads for a while.

So have I. I may think twice before entering a debate about something I disagree someone with yet don't have much knowledge about. Fwiw, I've had fun arguing with you, as taxing as it has also been. As I suspected, no one's mind has been changed by this thread about anything. But gradual change may still be possible. I have investigated a number of issues mentioned on this forum over my lurking years here. Who knows, maybe I'll read up on virtue (and other) ethics, if it seems like I may need it. Right now I'm (thankfully) in a situation where I'm not responsible for anyone but myself. I admit I am a very immature person, sometimes by choice because maturity is so absurd. You could say that I'm 'emo' even though I hate the hair and the music.
And I admit I'm a little too old for it.

 

[aelf]

I read the entry on virtue ethics from that online encyclopedia. It has a number of issues that are not explained very well. It seems that virtues are virtues 'just because'; the good life is a virtuous one 'just because'. It also doesn't address the problem that if you are born non-virtuous, nothing can be done for you. Sure, there is the whole 'practical wisdom' angle. That everyone has inherent virtues but to follow them correctly you need practical wisdom, which comes mostly from life experience. It is saying the same things I have said in different words, although it doesn't mention conscience at the basis of it all. To some satisfaction not all virtue ethicists seem to subscribe to non-relative moral values. Could it be, I dunno, because they cannot explain where these absolute values come from?

I kind of lost track of the discussion now, but what were you expecting the answer to be? God? Indeed, this seems to be inevitably the Thomistic conclusion.

Otherwise, asking for their source is not really the right question. Virtues are what we need to have a good life. This is as sure as any incontrovertible law of nature - where do laws of nature come from? Is the answer essential to the fact that they are true? And likewise virtues are universal, so their essence never really changes. Only the approaches towards them as manifested in human practices change. There's not just a choice between absolutism and relativism, you know.

 

[Greizer85]

I kind of lost track of the discussion now, but what were you expecting the answer to be? God? Indeed, this seems to be inevitably the Thomistic conclusion.

Otherwise, asking for their source is not really the right question. Virtues are what we need to have a good life. This is as sure as any incontrovertible law of nature - where do laws of nature come from? Is the answer essential to the fact that they are true? And likewise virtues are universal, so their essence never really changes. Only the approaches towards them as manifested in human practices change.

Collectively, bolded is true. Virtues are convenient in that they help form organized society. I don't really think they have any basis other than a biological one. A different type of sentient creature with a different brain, different cultural history and consequently different social practices may have a very different set of virtues. We have evolved to have a conscience, and have extrapolated all kinds of systems from that. That is what I've been saying all the time. Our values are convenient to have in order to avoid anarchy, but there is no objective basis for them. They are ultimately subject to our biology.

There's not just a choice between absolutism and relativism, you know.

What is in between them, then? I've never seen it called by any name. Either something is relative (depends on the circumstances, but not necessarily arbitrarily) or absolute (doesn't change with circumstances).

 

[aelf]

Collectively, bolded is true. Virtues are convenient in that they help form organized society. I don't really think they have any basis other than a biological one. A different type of sentient creature with a different brain, different cultural history and consequently different social practices may have a very different set of virtues. We have evolved to have a conscience, and have extrapolated all kinds of systems from that. That is what I've been saying all the time. Our values are convenient to have in order to avoid anarchy, but there is no objective basis for them. They are ultimately subject to our biology.

You're confused. How does this equate to relativism? Speculating about whether this ultimately depends on our biology is nice, but it doesn't change the fact that it's universal anyway.

What is in between them, then? I've never seen it called by any name. Either something is relative (depends on the circumstances, but not necessarily arbitrarily) or absolute (doesn't change with circumstances).

By the logic, even moral absolutism may be said to be relative, since it's, for example, relative to what God really is like. Obviously, when things get this confused, you can probably tell you're conflating something somewhere.

And like I said earlier, I don't really care to explain everything in the world here. If you want to think that there's only absolutism and relativism, then by all means think that. If you want, you can read up on it. If not, I don't think it really matters. To me, at least.

 

[Greizer85]

You're confused. How does this equate to relativism? Speculating about whether this ultimately depends on our biology is nice, but it doesn't change the fact that it's universal anyway.

You mean that we have actually agreed about this the whole time and yet argued pointlessly for so long? I thought it was all about grounding your moral beliefs in something rock-solid (well, God-solid is more apt). If you agree that human conscience and convenience are enough, then there is really nothing to argue about.

By the logic, even moral absolutism may be said to be relative, since it's, for example, relative to what God really is like. Obviously, when things get this confused, you can probably tell you're conflating something somewhere.

How would you define those terms then? So as to avoid future confusion.

Edit: I am aware that by my definition only God would be absolute, since He is perfect and unchanging. Everything else relies on something else, and ultimately on God Himself, and is therefore relative. If there is no God, then there is nothing that is absolute. Natural laws may seem to be so, but we cannot know for sure what causes them.

Edit2: A clarification. In my mind, relative = relies on something else; not self-sufficient.
Arbitrary = whimsical; relative only to the whims of the agent. Things that are arbitrary are always relative, but things that are relative are not always arbitrary. Such as moral values. They have a definite basis, i.e., morality is derived from biology. I can't believe this has been about semantics the whole time.

And like I said earlier, I don't really care to explain everything in the world here. If you want to think that there's only absolutism and relativism, then by all means think that. If you want, you can read up on it. If not, I don't think it really matters. To me, at least.

You don't have to explain everything in the world to me, just what is between absolutism and relativism. A few words would be enough.