E
Epsilon0
Enlightened
- Dec 28, 2019
- 1,874
I know that the subject of free will has been debated before, but, unless I am mistaken, I doubt that these two particular questions have been discussed in great detail:
How "free" is free will? And why is suicide an expression of free will?
Let's start from the definition of free will: free will is the freedom to make choices according to your preferences and desires. You are a free agent, and you control your choices, which in its turn means you exert control over your actions.
So far, so good. Now let's look at a simple example.
Mary is hungry and there is a basket with apples and pears on the table. Mary can chose an apple, or a pear, and up until the moment she actually takes a bit of the apple, she is completely free to change her mind, and go for the pear.
It follows then that Mary has free will. Or, does she?
As illustrated by the example, Mary's choice is based on options, and the problem I see with free will lies precisely in that options must come from somewhere. Free will may be the lack of constraint upon her decisions, but, even if there are no outside factors which predetermime Mary's choice, there are causal influences which affect and narrow her options, i.e. there only being two types pf fruits.
It could be argued that Mary might, actually, prefer prunes, but since there are no prunes in the basket, they are not an option. So, Mary is, in fact, hindered by the lack of other options, and her seemingly free choice, is not absolutely free.
This brings me to my next observation: we only have free will, if, and only if, we can make any and all decisions, and our free agency is not constrained by other factors, such as, for instance, options.
Furthermore, it follows that suicide is an expression of free will, because the decision to ctb presents two, and only two, options. There are no external conditions which might expand of narrow the field of options. It is a situation where the agent is in posession of all available options and can, thus, make a free decision.
Any thoughts on this? Feel free to find holes in my arguments. I love a good debate!
How "free" is free will? And why is suicide an expression of free will?
Let's start from the definition of free will: free will is the freedom to make choices according to your preferences and desires. You are a free agent, and you control your choices, which in its turn means you exert control over your actions.
So far, so good. Now let's look at a simple example.
Mary is hungry and there is a basket with apples and pears on the table. Mary can chose an apple, or a pear, and up until the moment she actually takes a bit of the apple, she is completely free to change her mind, and go for the pear.
It follows then that Mary has free will. Or, does she?
As illustrated by the example, Mary's choice is based on options, and the problem I see with free will lies precisely in that options must come from somewhere. Free will may be the lack of constraint upon her decisions, but, even if there are no outside factors which predetermime Mary's choice, there are causal influences which affect and narrow her options, i.e. there only being two types pf fruits.
It could be argued that Mary might, actually, prefer prunes, but since there are no prunes in the basket, they are not an option. So, Mary is, in fact, hindered by the lack of other options, and her seemingly free choice, is not absolutely free.
This brings me to my next observation: we only have free will, if, and only if, we can make any and all decisions, and our free agency is not constrained by other factors, such as, for instance, options.
Furthermore, it follows that suicide is an expression of free will, because the decision to ctb presents two, and only two, options. There are no external conditions which might expand of narrow the field of options. It is a situation where the agent is in posession of all available options and can, thus, make a free decision.
Any thoughts on this? Feel free to find holes in my arguments. I love a good debate!