god given free will and kidnapping

[sthitapragya]

God gives us free will. We can choose to obey God or disobey him. However, if we disobey God, at the end of our life we will be punished for our disobedience. This is supposed to be free will.

Given the above, if A kidnaps B and then tells him, "You can leave whenever you want. But if you leave, I will kill you." Isn't that free will too? A has given B a choice. B can choose to go or stay. B has free will and is free to go whenever he chooses. A just might kill B if he does. How has A taken away B's free will?

[Harbal]

I would say this is a question about choice, rather than free will.

[sthitapragya]

I would say this is a question about choice, rather than free will.

That is the point I am trying to make here. If you believe in an interventionist God who plans to punish you for your actions, you don't have free will. You just have a choice.

[Greta]

I see those old theist views as related to the experience of childhood when your parents would enforce all these inexplicable rules - to a child's mind. It's absurd to imagine a deity giving humans free will and then punishing them for using it. If any kind of deity exists, it will surely be a whole lot more advanced and decent than any of us are. If it doesn't, c'est la vie.

[Ginkgo]

Given the above, if A kidnaps B and then tells him, "You can leave whenever you want. But if you leave, I will kill you." Isn't that free will too? A has given B a choice. B can choose to go or stay. B has free will and is free to go whenever he chooses. A just might kill B if he does. How has A taken away B's free will?

As Kant would say moral responsibility requires that our actions be free. If we are coerced then we are not acting as free agents

[Harbal]

If you believe in an interventionist God who plans to punish you for your actions, you don't have free will. You just have a choice.

Choice requires free will, you can't make a choice without it.

[sthitapragya]

If you believe in an interventionist God who plans to punish you for your actions, you don't have free will. You just have a choice.

Choice requires free will, you can't make a choice without it.

Oh. OK, you need to explain that.

[Harbal]

Choice requires free will, you can't make a choice without it.

Oh. OK, you need to explain that.

Surely, it is self evident. Choice is to be presented with two or more options and have the freedom to decide between them. It is this element of freedom that qualifies your decision as a choice.

[Immanuel Can]

Choice requires free will, you can't make a choice without it.

Oh. OK, you need to explain that.

Surely, it is self evident. Choice is to be presented with two or more options and have the freedom to decide between them. It is this element of freedom that qualifies your decision as a choice.

I'm guessing from the case as he puts it that he's thinking that a genuine choice must have two options with no consequences, or perhaps consequences of equal value. A is not offering B a "choice" he might say, because the consequences to B are very bad. However, it's very hard to think of a single case where that would ever happen in real life. In real life, all choices have consequences -- some are bad, some are good, and very, very few can be said to be genuinely equal.

Maybe a counter-case goes like this: A says to B, "If you smoke, you will die of lung cancer; if you eat well and don't smoke, you will not get cancer and will live a long life." (Now, of course in real life both are merely probabilities or averages...but let's say they work. Or let's say that A is a super-physician, who can actually foretell these things.) Regardless of the knowledge of A, and indeed, regardless of the knowledge of B, it looks to me as though B's choice to smoke is a real one. Nothing about the attached consequences seems to me to make any part of his choice "unreal" or even "unfair." In fact, it looks to me like the kind of choice millions of people make every day.

Does anyone have a different view of that?

[Harbal]

In the AB scenario it may well be the case that B would choose death over remaining in captivity, or at least, decide it is no worse.

[Immanuel Can]

In the AB scenario it may well be the case that B would choose death over remaining in captivity, or at least, decide it is no worse.

Yep. Lots of folks reason exactly that way. Facing the prospect of Parkinson's Disease, Robin Williams decided to kill himself. Whatever we think of the choice to die, I doubt many of us would say he didn't actually make a choice. It looks like he did. And it looks like it was an exercise of his free will.

[sthitapragya]

Choice requires free will, you can't make a choice without it.

Oh. OK, you need to explain that.

Surely, it is self evident. Choice is to be presented with two or more options and have the freedom to decide between them. It is this element of freedom that qualifies your decision as a choice.

Okay. In such a case, if B has freedom to choose, is he free? Would it mean that his freedom has not really been curtailed? What is the difference between B and a man who has not been kidnapped and has a choice of either stepping out of his own home or staying in?

[Ginkgo]

Oh. OK, you need to explain that.

Surely, it is self evident. Choice is to be presented with two or more options and have the freedom to decide between them. It is this element of freedom that qualifies your decision as a choice.

Okay. In such a case, if B has freedom to choose, is he free? Would it mean that his freedom has not really been curtailed? What is the difference between B and a man who has not been kidnapped and has a choice of either stepping out of his own home or staying in?

The difference is that B is being coerced so he is not a free agent.

[sthitapragya]

Surely, it is self evident. Choice is to be presented with two or more options and have the freedom to decide between them. It is this element of freedom that qualifies your decision as a choice.

Okay. In such a case, if B has freedom to choose, is he free? Would it mean that his freedom has not really been curtailed? What is the difference between B and a man who has not been kidnapped and has a choice of either stepping out of his own home or staying in?

The difference is that B is being coerced so he is not a free agent.

A free agent is someone who has no commitments that restrict his actions. A gun to the head is not a commitment. It is a clear and present danger or threat.

[Ginkgo]

Okay. In such a case, if B has freedom to choose, is he free? Would it mean that his freedom has not really been curtailed? What is the difference between B and a man who has not been kidnapped and has a choice of either stepping out of his own home or staying in?

The difference is that B is being coerced so he is not a free agent.

A free agent is someone who has no commitments that restrict his actions. A gun to the head is not a commitment. It is a clear and present danger or threat.

I would say that a gun to the head is a very strong commitment to do what one is told.