Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil; Free Will

[beowulf]

What's the importance of the term 'free will' in human dealings?

[andrewcriddle]

What's the importance of the term 'free will' in human dealings?

Our criteria for praising blaming rewarding and punishing tend to assume some notion of free will.

Andrew Criddle

[Mental flatliner]

I would appreciate references to scholarly commentary and/or your thoughts, opinions as to why God would gift man with Free Will, but create man without the knowledge of good & evil. Free Will seems to have little meaning without this knowledge.

(For the sake of argument, let's assume Free Will exists, and is defined as the capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. As it regards moral acts, an act of Free Will carries with it responsibility for the consequences on the agent's part).

I think you're confusing knowledge with choice.

Idiots make choices more easily than scholars, that alone demonstrates there is no connection between the two.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Choices can have no moral relevance without moral knowledge.

Having said that, free will is a logically incoherent and regressive concept anyway.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Choices can have no moral relevance without moral knowledge.

Having said that, free will is a logically incoherent and regressive concept anyway.

Yet even instincts can be said to work in a moral way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

To your first I would say yes and no.

You are correct from the perpetrators POV. To be culpable, they must know that what they are doing is evil. We as observers thought can say that something done was immoral even if the one who did it is not aware of the immorality of it.

This often happens with young children.

I do not agree with your last at all.
Without free will, you would likely be dead. You might not decide to eat.

Regards
DL

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Libertarian free will is incoherent because it requires an infinite regression of "deciders." To say that people only seem to have free will does not mean that they are automatons, or that they don't have will, but that they logically can't choose what that will is going to be. We can control what we choose, in a sense, but we can't control what we want to choose. We will always choose what we want to most, but we have no control over what we will want the most. In order to choose to want something, you have to want to choose to want something, and something has to cause THAT want. Will cannot be self-chosen without a regression problem.

I also disagree that animals or small children can do things that are immoral. I don't see how it makes any sense to say that a dog is being immoral for being a dog. A dog might hurt somebody, but that's no more "immoral" than a tornado hurting somebody.

[Tonto Goldstein]

Diogenes,
When you write:

"In order to choose to want something, you have to want to choose to want something, and something has to cause THAT want."

Why is the "something that causes the want", not “me”? Even if it's my subconscious or an impulse generated by my amygdala, isn't that still “me”? Maybe the infinite regression is the result of a category error caused by labeling some parts of the decision making process part of the “self” and others not.

I wholeheartedly agree that volition is a critical element for morality.

Respectfully,
Rich

[Mental flatliner]

Choices can have no moral relevance without moral knowledge.

Having said that, free will is a logically incoherent and regressive concept anyway.

You're misinterpreting the tree.

In Genesis 1, God built "all knowledge of good and evil" into the stars and creation. The tree added nothing. It was a test, not a source of knowledge.

As for freewill being "logically incoherent", this is only true when guilt is present. Your mind will tell you that you're not responsible, and the only way to make your crime go away is to delude yourself into thinking that free will itself can't be real.

Having said that, you exercised free will be posting your response. You've already demonstrated it with your own actions and choices of words. Your response, therefore, is demonstrably "logically incoherent".

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Diogenes,
When you write:

"In order to choose to want something, you have to want to choose to want something, and something has to cause THAT want."

Why is the "something that causes the want", not “me”? Even if it's my subconscious or an impulse generated by my amygdala, isn't that still “me”?

Maybe, but it would still be non-volitional. The will is still a dependent variable and cannot chosen or changed without another will to do so. If the decider is a willful decider, then something has to determine THAT will, and another decider is required and that decider needs to have a will and something has to cause THAT will and on it goes and it's turtles all the way down.

[Mental flatliner]

Diogenes,
When you write:

"In order to choose to want something, you have to want to choose to want something, and something has to cause THAT want."

Why is the "something that causes the want", not “me”? Even if it's my subconscious or an impulse generated by my amygdala, isn't that still “me”?

Maybe, but it would still be non-volitional. The will is still a dependent variable and cannot chosen or changed without another will to do so. If the decider is a willful decider, then something has to determine THAT will, and another decider is required and that decider needs to have a will and something has to cause THAT will and on it goes and it's turtles all the way down.

How is will EVER dependent on a variable of any kind?

Are you arguing for the non-existence of abstract thought?