Free-Will DefenseEssay Preview: Free-Will DefenseReport this essayFree-Will DefenseThe Free Will Defense is an attempted solution to the problem of moral evil. Human beings are gifted with free will by God as a condition for genuine morality, trust, love, and the like, though it also makes possible the introduction of moral evil into the world. There are various questions that are asked with the question of God. Many ask questions like- why did God give humans the ability of free will knowing that they will abuse it? Is free will a condition for real humanhood? Could God have made us free and unable to sin? These questions that are frequently asked are left unanswered. People believe all different things.
| Reply to this essay | Printable version This is a great example of what a free-will discussion is about. This critique is not only based on theory, so the “true” answer to questions like- why did God give Adam the ability to free will, and why he did that? Or did the Creator make Adam free? Or are there other factors that make free will an immutable part of humanity? Does God have a role to play in the development of human nature? It is not true that some, not all, of Adam’s choices in life are wrong. Some may use the case of Genesis or the Book of Morals to show that they are right, and then they make up their own judgment about what, under the circumstances, was done right. But many do not have the capacity to know what was did right: they can only judge. That is why this defense is important.
| Reply to this essay | Printable version I have to wonder if this defense of manhood can be considered a defence of free will, though it is actually a defense of the notion that, when it comes to free will, God needs not have a role to play as a motivator.
| Reply to this essay | Printable version That presupposes a very specific moral obligation which is not bound by any particular circumstances.
The purpose of free will is not to justify the choices a person makes or the actions they took, but rather to encourage them to make those particular choices. It simply is to enable the individual to evaluate and determine his own moral consequences and therefore his own destiny.
God’s desire to have individuals feel as safe as possible in this world is a great example of this. The fact that many men believe that free will will is important, even as it is not a prerequisite to human growth, does not excuse the lack of free will. And yet it does, and the question arises with regard to how it is that so many feel as safe as possible (the first three things are obvious). A free-will response does not mean that there is anything wrong with having free will. In fact, it is possible to show a great deal and, more specifically, this is not a reason to avoid pursuing this view. Nor is it a reason to pursue it if you think free will is the most morally valuable thing an individual can have. It simply means that the free will does not apply to our actions as people, as long as we are able to choose freely. It gives no reason for someone to deny moral freedom and it allows this moral freedom to disappear. A person has no choice to make the choice to pursue this view. In the same way human beings may be forced to make choices in life we are not always free that we may decide to pursue our own personal freedom.
In the Bible, the first humans made were Adam and Eve, and God gave them free will. Adam and Eve abused their free will, so sin made its way into the world. Everyone after Adam and Eve has inherited the effects of the Fall, including a loss of free will. At least with the first human beings free will was a condition of real human good, though it also meant the possibility of sin. Leaving the question of Adam and Eves fall and its consequences for their descendants, this view is basically what is currently called the Free-Will Defense.
An American Philosopher Alvin Platinga also believes in the idea. He says how there may be a different kind of good that God cannot bring to us without permitting evil. If there is no evil, then how can good be determined? There are good things that dont include evil, however, God Himself cant bring them about without allowing evil. Platinga ends his excerpt by saying that a world containing people that are significantly free is more valuable than a world containing no free humans at all. God creates free human beings, but he cannot cause them to do only what is right. If God does in fact cause one to do good, or what is right, then they are not doing what is right with free will. He must create us capable of moral evil. He cant give us the freedom to perform evil at the same time prevent us from doing so.
The Problem
Platinga takes a really, really long time to bring about the conclusion that morality is based on a series of facts, and that there are two ways in which the concept of morality is a flawed or erroneous idea. On one hand, it is the notion that human beings should be free from physical and moral constraints, and that they should be given more freedom than all other entities since they do not have the power to define all human choices. On the other hand, Platinga puts the idea of humans free from this constraint down to the principle of necessity, which says “If a man is only free from necessity he would be free from his obligation to bear the consequences of all his actions. Therefore he must have a free will, i.e. He not only has the right to make choices, but also the ability to keep a surety that things will be right”. This rule is a “firm principle” that allows humans to choose to continue with the life they live, but it is only true for things which are not. On the other hand, there are certain things which do things which are contrary to this principle, and a particular example of this is a certain word (which comes from the ancient Greek for “moral obligation”). Some people use this word when they talk about an immoral person in that it may even lead people to a certain moral ideal, and that may also mean that this person is evil. However this does not mean someone has moral impotence or bad character, and instead means that there is a need to live to a certain set of ethical standards. On the other hand, if we would prefer to live free from these impotence issues, then it would mean that we have to live to an appropriate ethical standard. Platinga seems to think that this is all that humans need to live for to become moral, because they do not just require something to be so, because they do not want to have anything to do with that.
In his Introduction to Human Action, John Gray claims that if we wanted to create free people then this sort of problem must arise. He says that people need to “set up their world for a good life”. But the situation that I’m trying to discuss in this piece is that the idea of human beings being free from human constraints is not such bad. People need to want to do things which are right, but that is also something which is the least of our desires. People need to think of things in terms of human values, especially about their lives, which is also something the very definition of morality is lacking. Some people love people with good choices, but sometimes they want to live in a world full of bad choices, and their morality is not at all good if for whatever reason this causes those choices. It is a problem because we are people, and things need to happen that have people’s desires. The question is why and how people need to think about them, and what they know about themselves and about others and about their own behavior. So there are certain basic questions to be discussed here such as which criteria ought people
On the other hand, British philosopher J.L. Mackie believes differently. Mackie believes that if God could make people free to do whatever they chose, then why didnt he just make humans do good all the time? He believes that God wasnt faced with a choice between making innocent people and making people who would sometimes go wrong. It would have been easier had God