[quote=josh987654321]Okay, before I continue it’s probably a good idea for me to ask whether you agree with the premise of the argument that there is a problem of evil? Because I believe without that premise, the ‘free will’ defence is moot.
The so called “problem of evil” only occurs if one presumes an all-loving, all-caring, omnibenevolent God. In a godless universe there is no problem of evil, though, of course “evil” acts happen. Now that does not mean that we should be indifferent to the actions of other people. We must do everything we can to minimalize the “evil”. The problem is that we are mostly powerless. All we can do is react, but cannot be proactive (most of the time). But if and when we can foresee an “evil” act, and happen to have the power to prevent it, we are obliged to do so. One can be guilty by comission and guilty by omission, and there is very little difference - if any.
[quote=josh987654321]Yea something like that, because love nor hate are in a vacuum, they are confirmed through works.
You are perfectly right. If someone loudly proclaims one’s love, but that “love” is not manifested in actions, then all we have a few empty words, without substance. (And a hypocrite, too.)
[quote=josh987654321]I beg to differ with Larry Niven, maybe one can’t be violent when one is filled with joy, happiness and peace, but one can certainly be evil. Some of the Nazi’s could have easily been filled with joy, happiness and peace with what they were doing I believe.
I did not explain it well, it seems. The “weapon” imposes “ecstasy” on the violent person, the kind which one can feel as the pinnacle of a sexual act. In such a state there can be no violence.
[quote=josh987654321]I beg to differ, I believe obviously it would, If one is not free to perform deeds of ‘lack of love’ (hate) than one is also not free to perform deeds of love.
What does “freedom” have to do with anything? A good, helping, benevolent act remains good, helping and benevolent even if the person is not “free” to act otherwise. I would urge you to think it over again: “what does the ability to kill someone else ADD to your love for your child (or anyone else)”? What is this nebulous “extra” that is gained from this freedom? Because I am unable to see it. Moreover, I am not talking about love as an emotion. Emotions are not volitional, they are either there, or not. So I am not talking about "eros, “filia” or “storge” - but about something usually called “agape” - a selfless action on behalf of someone else.
[quote=josh987654321]Yes it does I believe. Because she was forced to do a particular action.
Your usage of the word: “forced” is interesting. Let me give a real life scenario. I have been brought up in a family where I learned that one should always get up on the bus and pass one’s seat to an elderly person. Even today, when I am quite old, I cannot stay seated when I see someone who needs that seat more than I do. Theoretically, I am “free” to stay seated, but psychologically I find it impossible to do so. Now, because I was “brainwashed” into being polite… how does it diminish the value of my politeness? Am I “forced” by my upbringing? And if I am, what does the other person care? She would be happy to take that seat.
[quote=josh987654321]Of course it does, if one is not free to be bad, one is not free to be good.
That is simply not true. Let’s represent the “goodness/badness value” of deeds with numbers to visualize the question. Let positive numbers represent good deeds, negative numbers stand for bad (evil) deeds, and let zero stand for neutral (neither good, nor bad) deeds. The “big” numbers represent very good (or very bad) actions, while the small numbers are just mildly good or mildly bad ones. Of course we are already “limited” in our choices, the laws of physics do not allow ultra-super-extremely good or bad actions. So even if some power (maybe God) would not allow us to perform negative actions, we would still be free to decide to perform good actions of some kind. Since we are already curtailed in our options, what is the problem of making them even more limited? To put it bluntly: “what is wrong with having ONLY good people”? Or even more bluntly: “what is so desirable about having psychopaths and sociopaths”? Because when you argue for “freedom”, you argue for the freedom to commit murder, torture, rape, for the ability to cause needless and useless pain and suffering.
As a society we routinely put criminals in jails and prisons to prevent them from acting on their “will”. Would you argue to let them go free, so their freedom would not be as limited as it is now?
I argue for limited freedom, more limited than we have now. An analogy: usually we are “free” to wear jeans and t-shirts in most circumstances. For a formal occasion we might be expected to wear a suit and a tie. Yet we have freedom to wear a red tie or a blue one. Our freedom is more limited, but it is not “gone”. Even if one is prevented to kill and rape, one is still free to do all sorts of good or neutral actions.
[quote=josh987654321]They are glad they have food, but that does not negate that yes they absolutely do care what the reason was (or lack thereof) for giving it.
How could you know that? If I were in such a predicament, I would not care “why” someone wanted to help me. Let me clarify: does the freedom NOT to render help make that bread taste better or worse, or is the taste the same? Also: does the freedom NOT to give have an effect on the nutritional value of that bread? All the recipient can see is a kind gesture on the part of the giver. She has no access to what the giver thinks. So how could they “care” about the motivation of the giver?
Have a nice day.