Free Choice and Judgment. Post #3
I appreciate the diversity of viewpoints and the thought that people put behind their comments to this blog. I started to write a reply to one of you in the comments section of my last post, and then realized that the comment and my reply is a post in itself. It summarizes a lot of what’s been said so far, and at the same time looks at how free choice bears on the issue of passing judgment. Lucy, along with a number of other commentators, favors the idea that when we do wrong, it’s primarily a matter of free choice rather than primarily a matter of limited moral knowledge or awareness.
Lucy: “Paul, I am not trying to pass judgement on anyone. God makes the ultimate judgement on each and every soul. Judge not lest ye be judged. You are talking about the grey area between good and bad choices, or that is what it seems to me. Maybe we just understand things differently.”
Paul: I’m saying that it’s impossible to prove that we do or do not have free moral choice (or free will in any other aspect of our lives.) I'm also acknowledging that most people who’ve posted comments, myself included, do feel that we have a measure of freedom in moral decision making. However, the prevailing view seems to recognize strong influences that bear on how we come to arrive at moral decisions, to the effect that our degree of choice is far from completely free. My personal view is that the degree appears highly limited.
If, instead of seeing moral choice as quite limited, we see it as perhaps not perfectly free, but nearly so, then this conduces to judging other persons, and not just their actions. We view them as doing evil not because “they know not what they do,” but because, although they have full moral awareness, they choose evil. This allows us to blame them deeply as persons – to judge them. At the same time, it allows us to see ourselves as highly virtuous free-choosers of the good. All this represents a big payoff for the ego.
So when, as in your previous comment, somebody says something like, "I know that there are some sicko's out there that are so weak that they can't make a good choice," it sounds highly judgmental. Like you say, you’re not passing ultimate judgment in the sense of deciding who’s going to heaven and hell. But when the Bible says to judge not, not to throw stones, etc., these lines aren’t meant to dissuade Christians from trying to wrestle Jesus Christ out of his throne on Judgment Day! That’d hafta be really hard!
I think the lines are telling us not to pass moral judgment on other persons; not to consider ourselves experts on their minds, their hearts, their souls, what they’ve been through in life – not only in the outer world, but also in the private world where they developed whatever sense they came to have of themselves in relation to others. Just because I wouldn’t or couldn’t have done what some other person did doesn’t give me insight that he or she freely chose it. We are not to consider ourselves the measure of others. Judge not.
Btw, I’m casting no stones in your direction, Lucy, and appreciate your comments and patience. And I only know something about ego because I have one…
Lucy: “Paul, I am not trying to pass judgement on anyone. God makes the ultimate judgement on each and every soul. Judge not lest ye be judged. You are talking about the grey area between good and bad choices, or that is what it seems to me. Maybe we just understand things differently.”
Paul: I’m saying that it’s impossible to prove that we do or do not have free moral choice (or free will in any other aspect of our lives.) I'm also acknowledging that most people who’ve posted comments, myself included, do feel that we have a measure of freedom in moral decision making. However, the prevailing view seems to recognize strong influences that bear on how we come to arrive at moral decisions, to the effect that our degree of choice is far from completely free. My personal view is that the degree appears highly limited.
If, instead of seeing moral choice as quite limited, we see it as perhaps not perfectly free, but nearly so, then this conduces to judging other persons, and not just their actions. We view them as doing evil not because “they know not what they do,” but because, although they have full moral awareness, they choose evil. This allows us to blame them deeply as persons – to judge them. At the same time, it allows us to see ourselves as highly virtuous free-choosers of the good. All this represents a big payoff for the ego.
So when, as in your previous comment, somebody says something like, "I know that there are some sicko's out there that are so weak that they can't make a good choice," it sounds highly judgmental. Like you say, you’re not passing ultimate judgment in the sense of deciding who’s going to heaven and hell. But when the Bible says to judge not, not to throw stones, etc., these lines aren’t meant to dissuade Christians from trying to wrestle Jesus Christ out of his throne on Judgment Day! That’d hafta be really hard!
I think the lines are telling us not to pass moral judgment on other persons; not to consider ourselves experts on their minds, their hearts, their souls, what they’ve been through in life – not only in the outer world, but also in the private world where they developed whatever sense they came to have of themselves in relation to others. Just because I wouldn’t or couldn’t have done what some other person did doesn’t give me insight that he or she freely chose it. We are not to consider ourselves the measure of others. Judge not.
Btw, I’m casting no stones in your direction, Lucy, and appreciate your comments and patience. And I only know something about ego because I have one…
posted by Paul @ 2:18 PM
38 Comments:
It is a human inclination to assume you can figure others out, and then pass judgment based on your own experience. But it always fails, because there is so much that impacts our way of being.
For example, in the outstanding book, Winter In The Blood, by James Welch, one can read that book 3 times and not really get into the inner sanctium of what it is really like to grow up on the Montana Prairie, with its desolation and constant deprivations. Its only after there is a kind of 'consecration' to be open to the essence of the writers story that we can really engage in a meaningful understanding of the book.
Life is like that process - it requires consecration and selflessness if we are to do it, and those around us, justice.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul, you asked in the last post for input from law enforcement people. I spent 20 years working in the prison system, retiring from the maximum security jail on Rikers Island as a captain. I had many conversations with inmates about their lifestyle choices and most admitted that they chose actions they knew were against the law. In most cases they made their choices based on greed and being unwilling to work for the amount of money they could earn. Many didn’t get much of an education because at the time they chose to have fun rather than study, leaving them without the qualifications for a better paying job. Many could barely read. In other words, they didn’t care for the consequences of their previous choices. They had learned nothing from them and continued making bad choices. The only true rehabilitation came from ageing. Many an inmate told me, “ I gotta stop coming to jail. I’m getting too old for this”. The fact is most inmates are below the age of 38.
Some inmates, more than you would imagine, displayed compassion for other inmates and were often very helpful to them. I used to ask them why they didn’t act like that in the street because if they did they would be successful in their employment and life. Their answer usually was, “These people are the only family that care for me”.
As far as “We have a prison system where prisoners are allowed to rape and stab other prisoners, but who cares? They’re getting what they deserve.” is concerned, that was true with a small percentage of officers. The vast majority tried to do their job and protect the inmates from other inmates.
The real problem was and often still is the overcrowding. In the maximum security jail I was in there were 240 inmates in each cellblock with three officers – two were locked in with the inmates and the third was on the bridge on the other side of the gates to handle all the paperwork, answer the phone and handle the incoming and outgoing inmates as well as the free phones calls they inmates were allowed to make. They also had to keep an accurate count of all the inmates in that block.
The overcrowding could very easily be eliminated by helping people with substance abuse problems rather the locking them up. About 65-75% of all inmates were in because of drugs. It costs much, much more to incarcerate an inmate than it would cost to set up programs to help them overcome their bad choices. The real problem lies in the fact that many people demand punishment for offenders rather than compassion, which would allow help for them. By helping those that are the least of our brethren we would be helping ourselves just as much. Unfortunately, judgment on our part doesn’t allow for sane thinking.
Reading Matt's comment, made me think of that Joan Baez song - there but for fortune go you or I. (deleted my earlier comment).
BONITA: Good analogy. It isn't an easy process, or a fast one - or even one that necessarily ends. That is, becoming less of a judger of the souls of others, so to speak.
CRYSTAL: Practically speaking I think it makes no difference except that when we do not assume that we know what goes on in others' hearts, minds, and souls, we may be less prone to acts of vengeance or "punishment" of grownups that just makes them more dangerous in the end.
Noting patterns and being forewarned about criminals falls into the same category as locking them up to keep others safe, which I mentioned last post by way of showing how it isn't necessary to be judgmental about people in order to recognize that their actions are harmful and to do what's practically needed for the benefit of society.
As far as "knowing by the fruits" goes, it's possible to suppose that "know" means to judge. But in light of all the stuff against judgment, it seems to me it's more likely Jesus is saying that people are best understood by their actions and not just by what they say, or by public shows of piety.
To me the NT is best looked at as a whole. And even then, with such a multi-authored and complex text, there's a lot of room for interpretation and emphasis. Maybe how we interpret it and what we emphasize matters a lot. It strikes me that the NT as a whole challenges us to "have ears to hear." The NT and certainly the Bible as a whole is no more straightforward, I think, than a parable...
well asusual,really touching and very educational posts.i wont tire of visiting and reading your blog paul :)
you always impressed me with your wods. thanks i really need it!
I definitely don't think that everything is fully left up to choice. For example, when a child hurts another child- they don't fully understand what they're doing- it's not an "evil" choice at that point. And even when older people hurt one another- yes it's a BAD choice, but a lot of WHY they did whatever they did might be because of a bad childhood (and thus not a fully free choice). I don't agree with the theory that we should punish the parents of each criminal, but I think factors like that need to be taken into account when trying to understand those criminals and why they did what they did. It goes back to the point about putting criminals in jail or in an environment where they can actually change. I don't think anyone starts out as an "evil" or bad person. I don't think people make a conscious decision to become "evil", but I definitely think there are things that can cause people to make bad choices or do "evil" things. For example, when a child is abused and grows up to abuse their own children. It doesn't make it right, but we can see that since that person didn't have a good role model while growing up, that may be why they abuse their child. Nobody would choose to abuse a child without having a similar experience. Then there's the matter of mental disorders that cause people to commit crimes. Those people didn't make a choice to become evil either. I'm not saying that knowing someone's history or background in any way excuses their actions, because despite what caused them, they still remain CHOICES. Bad choices, but choices nonetheless that are motivated strongly by circumstances or conditions.
I think calling someone "evil" or "good" is pointless unless you understand where they're coming from and what their motivations for their actions are. Sure, I remember making a lot of choices in my youth that I thought at the time were good choices, only to realize years later that they were in fact not the best choices I could've made at the time. There are some choices you're not even mentally capable of making or understanding as a child, and you can't say you were "evil" because of that.
It's late and I'm tired, I hope this makes sense. :)
Isn't Free Choice really about each human being being 'allowed' to make their own choices? For better or worse? I think that even Jesus recognized that the people hanging on the cross with him and those crucifying him made some bad choices, but one thing that he did that we find so hard is to have compassion, understanding and forgiveness, and that we don't always make the best choices and are not always aware of why we are making the choices we are. Just because we don't know the law, doesn't mean we are not making choices. They are just uninformed and maybe even unhealthy choices. People who smoke cigarettes may know all of the risks of smoking, but for some reason still smoke. They are still chosing to smoke. When their lungs collapse they might understand why they should have quit smoking when they were younger. Wisdom doesn't always come to people when they are in the middle of trying to figure out life. It is still free choice though. Just as it's our choice to be compassionate and forgiving or not.
John
Elvis bought a monkey, dont any of you egg heads give a shit?
I think, too, anonymous, that when we talk about choice, we get all hung up on the "right choice" that people "should have" made, and we neglect to take a good look at what the other choices were (because you can't have choice unless there's something to choose between...or among...or, well, the grammar people may feel free to chime in...), and what they were in the context of that other person's life.
Smoking is, on the surface, not the wisest choice. However, I know people who are living under so much stress that not smoking just might kill them, and I've heard doctors say this, too, believe it or not.
I do believe we have free will, but it takes a tremendous amount of strength and courage to exert it all the time. Yes, we all have histories and backgrounds fraught with influences, both good and bad, but at some point we must take responsibility for ourselves and decide whether or not we're going to continue to allow those influences to dictate our choices.
You know, damn the torpedos and full speed ahead...
But you will find that most people who do choose to buck the past and take their lives into their own hands are not looked upon favorably by most of society. For a country founded by rugged individualists, we've gotten awfully marshmallow-y and the same rugged individualists who shaped this country centuries ago would probably make a lot of people really nervous right now.
Hubris, judging others I believe makes us guilty of that insidious fault
BTW, a wrenching comment you made on Barbs blog...blessings
ah, so deep. choice, every moment we choose to hold on to, or to let go.
I have recently started visiting on a regular basis. Please forgive me if I am making or repeating a point that has already been made. :S
Unless one believes in the inerrant word of God (The Bible), proving free choice is a challenge.
The youth group that my husband and I lead talked about choices and consequences for the past two Sundays.
The choices one makes have consequences on the person and/or others around them. The choices other people make also have consquences to us.
I really enjoyed reading Matt's account of "Life with Offenders." If that doesn't make one angry about the breakdown of the family, I don't know what will.
Marissa, I have to respectfully disagree with what you said about "I don't think anyone starts out as an 'evil' or bad person. I don't think people make a conscious decision to become 'evil', but I definitely think there are things that can cause people to make bad choices or do 'evil' things."
At the core of all of us is God's love and God's law. When we're born, we all start out evil, thanks to sin being introduced into the world. No person or event from yesterday determines what I do at this moment. The only thing that causes people to do evil things is sin--evil isn't any more complex than that.
Also, we want to blame our actions on good or bad role models that we did or didn't have. Jesus is timeless--He is the only role model for our behavior we should have in everything. Not Mom. Not Dad. Not mentor. To base our actions on earthly role models is pointless.
I'm amazed that we fall all over ourselves trying to complicate matters. We don't want to suffer the consequences of our bad choices. We want to blame it on abuse as a child, on fathers that weren't around, or on a myriad of reasons. We don't want to blame the evil inside of us. Confronting the weakness and bad places inside is difficult, uncomfortable, and quite honestly, uglier than I ever thought possible.
I can cite a personal example that will carry over to others reading this. I was raised in a two-parent home, primarily by my mother. My father didn't have much to do with us other than bringing home money for us to have stuff. He never once told me that he loved me. As a teenager, I went looking for love in all the wrong places. Virtually every night in college was a new quest to have sex. I tried blaming it on my dad for not loving me, but the fact is that I still sinned. I still slept with men that weren't my husband. That's my sin. Thank God I don't have to offer retribution for any of them.
One of the most painful milestones to pass as a parent is watching my children suffer the consequences of their sinful choices. The sinful part of me wants to step in and save them: run their forgotten lunch to school, run home to get their ballet clothes, run to their bag at the ice rink for their gloves. But what am I teaching them? I am teaching them that they won't have to suffer the consequences to their bad choices. Only in the case of Jesus taking their sins on the cross will they escape the consequences meant for them.
Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in.
MATT, I appreciate your pespective here. I was thinking, as I read your comment, how it's so easy to use the word "choose" in talking about moral issues. And when you hear that word, at least to me, it connotes complete free choice, or at least a very high degree of it, and the kind of judgmentalism that can follow.
But I don't hear any of that in your comment, which actually points directly or indirectly to many sorts of influences and limitations on inmates' freedom of choice.
I couldn't agree more with your perspective on overcrowding and substance abuse. Great to hear this from someone who's worked inside the prison system.
CRYSTAL: Exactly... Btw, it's a good thing, Ms. Comment Deleted, that you didn't go in for police work. If that thing was a trigger instead of a "Login and Publish" button, just think of the consequences for society...
EDEN: Thanks - and same to you. Your words on your most recent post, as I commented, sure said a lot very succinctly. I've just added a link to your ERCHOME blog on my blogroll...
MARISSA: Makes sense to me. You point to many of the kinds of factors that make our choices less than "free" or even nearly so.
I tend to agree that there's some degree of choice too, but even if there really isn't, as I've mentioned in the post and in comments to Crystal, this would do nothing to change society's obligation to protect itself from persons who do harm to others. We could theorize all day about whether a serial killer that it turns out is living next door really had free choice, but if it turns out he's a killer, we want him locked up! That's non- theoretical!
JOHN/ANONYMOUS: Thanks so much for your comment. For some reason this free choice topic attracted many more comments than usual, and I've kind of been over this already (and actually, a number of times) in recent posts and comments - don't know how much you had time to read, especially since the comments are lengthy.
So just to pick up on one thing you said: to me the lines, "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do," sound like, "Forgive them Lord because they're acting out of ignorance" - not, "Forgive them Lord because I can see they freely chose to crucify me."
DLAK: Thanks for the reminder of how much the world could use more people who put thought into their words and actions.
LIPSTICK GIRL: Do rugged individualists choose to be rugged individualists? How do they get that way? Are they born? Are they made? Did they birth themselves? Did the "self-made" freely choose their self making characteristics?
I happen to be someone with a lot of willpower. I never remember choosing to be that way.
But I think you're right about there being a degree of conscious choice, even though I don't think it can be proven. Yet the degree of choice is limited by influences of the kind many of us have pointed to; and my idea of choice is not exactly the kind of thing you're describing and that people usually do seem to imply by words like "responsible."
MALLORY: Me too - I also see judgmentalism as a fault. One that I'm not free of. And thanks.
RHEIN: You'd need to elaborate for me to know what you mean... Meanwhile, as for me, moment by moment I notice a lot of things, but one of them isn't choosing anything in complete or near complete freedom...
JOY: You're right. None of this is complicated or requires us to bring our own hearts and minds to bear on free choice, or a great many other topics - like your belief that we're basically evil - so long as we accept that our church's interpretation of the Bible is "inerrant," meaning tantamount to God himself telling us what is and isn't so.
It's tough for me to understand this point of view. Historically, churches have made any number of mistaken interpretations of the Bible, even putting people to death over matters like the view that the sun does not revolve around the earth.
So I don't understand how we can believe that everything the church teaches today is necessarily correct. Meaning, imo, that we need to bring our own hearts and minds to scripture and, in general, to issues of spirituality and morality, as part of our best attempt at hearing God's word.
No one, I think, would doubt your perception that actions have consequences. What's in question for those who don't view their church's reading of scripture as infallible is whether actions are freely chosen.
It is entirely possible to seek greater awareness of our weaknesses and faults and strive to improve without sharing belief in your interpretation of Christianity. Buddhists, Jews, and Muslims, for example, do this too. So do most human beings with no religious affiliation.
I agree, as you originally state, that in the here and now we do suffer the consequences of our bad choices - I would say always at the spiritual level, but not always at a material level.
As to teaching our children that they don't have to worry about any ultimate consequences for their sins - that Jesus will save them from going to hell - that's definitely comforting if one believes in hell.
My own preference would be to foster our children's developent in a manner that helps them grow into adults who come to find that their spiritual focus transcends interest in their personal salvation.
Well Paul, I guess you gave me a blistering! When I used the term:"I know that there are some sicko's out there that are so weak that they can't make a good choice," I supposed I should not have used the word "sicko". I was talking about a child rapist in Florida that moved across the street from a 12 year old girl and ended up killing her. He was a known sex offender. I don't know what the reasons for his illness were. I don't know what he had been taught as a child. The point is that I don't know what makes him do what he does... All I know is that he killed a 12 yr old girl. Maybe he couldn't help himself, maybe he could. God will have to judge him for his crimes/actions. I sit here and wonder "why?" Now he will go back to prison and pay his debt to society. A 12 yr. old girl is dead....Do you think he had no choice in his decision to kill Her? I'm sure there are mitigating circumstances, but should he not pay his debt to society because of that? He has a long record of child molestation.
I am not perfect, as none of us are. I fall into the trap of sometimes laying judgement when I shouldn't. I work on that daily, but doesn't mean I am an evil person....One day, I will get my final judgement and I pray that the Lord will look at me and give me a fair judgement. I wonder, Have you made some kind of judgement of me?
LUCY: No blistering intended, sorry you felt that way. Thought I made it clear in the post why I found your comment helpful.
"A 12 yr. old girl is dead....Do you think he had no choice in his decision to kill Her? I'm sure there are mitigating circumstances, but should he not pay his debt to society because of that? He has a long record of child molestation."
I've stated my position on free choice and summarized the views of others. Since we're looking at our views on free choice where it comes to human behavior generally, I think all of us would say that our views apply to both ends of the spectrum, as well as to average-type behavior. That is, the worst criminal behavior and the best saintly behavior too.
So citing an example at one extreme end of behavior doesn't change the generality. In brief:
Most of us seem to feel there's probably an element of choice in our lives, even though nobody's proved it or, imo, can.
Most of us seem to feel that any degree of choice we may have is far from perfectly free.
Personally, I can't judge to what if any degree anyone in any specific situation is acting from out of free choice rather than moral ignorance. This includes instances of heinous crimes.
I'm not that other person. I don't know the kind or degree of external influences on him. I don't know his thoughts, rational and irrational, his emotional life, his compulsions; how his particular cerebral cortex was put together. I just don't know.
The concept of "paying a debt to society" is a phrase that assumes a punishment model of criminal justice - or possibly a vengeance model. I'm not trying to "blister" you here, either - a million people a day must use that same phrase, and usually without necessarily thinking about its implications because it's such a commonplace way to phrase it.
Per the post, imo, punishment is an unfortunate criminal justice model. So is vengeance.
I'm also in favor of locking the guy up, and feel as strongly about this as you do - but simply because I don't want him to murder anyone else.
He's a grownup. I don't think punishing him will inculcate him with a conscience. And as far as vengeance goes - and I'm not assuming that this is where you're coming from, but many do - I don't think it's anything but an unwell "feel good" measure for those who take it. One that narrows their souls.
Love your blog...so much to read about, to think about.
Must run and grab a cig to ponder more around here, ta ta...
Judge not, but understand.
Agree.
It's scary to give up on judgement. I remember when I first came to this conclusion, not so many years ago, I was afraid I'd be "letting people get away with things," including -- and by far most scarily -- me. And I was afraid I would become politically passive.
But I can't think of any traditional moral code by which I wouldn't be judged now -- were someone so disposed :-) -- a better person than I was then. And I'm certainly no less politically active; perhaps more.
The main thing I discovered was that I used to put really enormous energy into judging people. I must have spent half of every day at it, passing verdicts on people in my head, analyzing the exact extent of their blame. The fact is that -- even worse than being a cultivation of arrogance -- it was just an extraordinary waste of time. Nobody is helped by my detailed evaluation of the blameworthiness of this president or that celebrity. If I'm ever made a judge, I'll try to make fair decisions, but the truth of the matter is that nobody much cares, or should care, about my moral assessments.
My parenting didn't change at all -- when you know as much about someone as you know (one hopes) about your kids, the last thing you're interested in is figuring out how blameworthy they are. Of course I still make them not do things that are cruel or unfair, of course, and make them do things that I think are their duties and responsibilities. I do that because I love them and want them to be happy, and far as I can tell, that's how you do it -- not because they're bad and I want to make them good.
It turns out that I really wasn't holding up the sky by holding everyone accountable for everything. I was just wasting a lot of time.
It bothers me that we have to constantly make evaluations about others based solely on interactions. And often our final thought on the person (so that we can pocket them in our brains for later) is incomplete.
I once worked with a guy who would cut people off in sentence and make a statement like, "Ah... that's because you're ________." Most of the time he was wrong, but he wouldn't listen to correction. And so we just had to deal with it.
The irony is that when I think of this guy this is all I initially think of... which means I have to force myself to look past my own quick judgments.
Dang it.
JODY: Thanks. Hope you're not freely choosing to smoke, har-dee har har...
A: Exactly. We still need to understand ourselves and others as well as possible. To refrain from passing judgment on persons as persons doesn't keep us from doing that.
DALE: You've just stated something that sounds essential to me concerning the wisdom of not passing judgment: as you say, it's a waste of time. It does no good, makes no difference, accomplishes nothing - but may have some negative effects on ourselves and others. And thanks for the concrete examples.
TONY: ! You're so right, both in your first example, of how frequently people base their judgments on virtually nothing - they don't even know you - and your second about how we all have to be aware of this tendency in ourselves.
One particular insight that my husband and I use when we want to judge difficult people:
We are only meeting this person for a short time compared to their entire life. At one time, that person that drives me batty was a little, innocent baby. One day, they'll be an old person in a nursing home. We are only together in this journey for a short time.
We don't know what happened to that person to make them how they are today. We don't know how God is working on them at this very moment. Everybody is a work in process (even me ;).
As humans, we get so bogged down in the here and now, the immediate. Oh, to have that long-term perspective! To plant the seeds without wanting to taste the fruit!
Love,
Joy
JOY: Great insight. Our lives really do generally intersect so very briefly and superficially with those we're prone to judge with the most self-assurance.
To humans is natural to judge. "Water is cold" maybe a fact or a judgement when it is seen by different persons. A good person or a bad person has something to do with our own moral background. You can see the biggest mountain in the world and others might see only a little hill. The main diference between a critical judgement and a fact is the weight of our moral education. That is why is good to increase moral education to sharpen the view of more people so in the future that big mountain is the same for all.
Paul,
I have been enjoying your posts and your intimate soul searching with these provocative questions regarding free will v. choice.
To me, maybe because I am older, the questions do not make much of a difference as they used to. What is important is my faith and beliefs. Just my two cents. I can think myself into anything!
RICARDO: Well said. I think there's already a substantial degree of agreement in moral matters, much less in matters of religion. Hope someday the world will see more agreement on spiritual priorities.
BARBARA: I know exactly what you mean. No spring chicken myself, and though I'm enjoying these ruminations too, this kind of thing isn't part of my own present soul-searching either.
Hi Paul,
I still think you are confusing 'quality of choice' with the freedom to make choices, which is free choice. When you talk about making totally free moral choices, you are referring to a quality of the choices made and the influences on the choices made, which have led to the choices. A person is still free to make choices no matter how good or bad, loving or evil or any degree inbetween. Given our freedom to make choices, the best scenario is that we make better and better choices.
John
ANONYMOUS/JOHN: We've been talking about quality of choice because we've been speaking of choice in the domain of morality. However, none of the arguments on either side of the issue of free will depend on the moral quality of the choices involved, so far as I can see.
Your comment asserts your belief in free choice but doesn't provide supporting evidence or reasoning.
As a practical matter, all of us have the mental experience of what feels like an ability to choose. This doesn't prove that the choices are free - we can never go back in time for a redo to see if we really could have chosen differently.
And as a practical matter, each of us has had learning experiences that leave us more inclined afterward to make better choices - a suggetion that our choices are not free.
As a practical matter, I completely agree with you that we should strive to make better choices - and develop the kind of awareness in ourselves and others that promotes better decision making. The fact that greater awareness tends to lead to better choices is an indicator that positive choices are not exercises in perfect or near freedom, but are highly influenced by factors like learning, experience, and greater consciousness.
The same considerations apply to prosaic decisions not involving moral quality. For example, we tend to make a better or worse choice of what computer to buy based on what we happen to know about computers, and not as the exercise of a pure freedom.
Paul, I think you are hung up on the idea that freedom has anything to do with being allowed to make choices. Free choice doesn't imply that the choices were made wisely or that they were not influenced by something. If there is a choice we are free to make it. You have already proven free choice exists in all of your arguments saying it's not 'totally free,' by the fact that a choice was made and you were not prohibited from making it. In your latest post about judgement, a good point is brought out that a person cannot really walk in another person's shoes and make choices for that person. Even if we are talking about those most vulnerable in our society, they are still making choices at some level, even if that is the choice to sit on the floor and refuse to move. That choice may be motivated by something like fear, jealousy, or by taking too many meds. But in the instant of having two or more alternatives, a human being is free to make a choice. Totally free to make a choice. That choice may be uninformed, ignorant, foolish, misguided or it may be wise and beneficial. If I take away your car, you may not have the option of driving it, but you are still totally free to make a choice about what to do about that and you will. You may choose to ride the bus, walk, ride a bike, stay put, report it to the police, beat the crap out of me, cry about it, complain to the neighbors, or rejoice that you don't have to pay for gas anymore! If you did not have free choice you would be dead.
You said, "As a practical matter, all of us have the mental experience of what feels like an ability to choose. This doesn't prove that the choices are free - we can never go back in time for a redo to see if we really could have chosen differently."
Of course not, a feeling of the ability to choose doesn't prove choices are free, but a choice being made does, which happens and is provable. If you are allowed to make a choice, it's free choice. This idea of going back and chosing differently is a seperate issue than whether free-choice exists. Just because a choice is bad doesn't mean it's not totally free choice. I think you are still confusing free choice with quality of choice which are two completely different things to talk about. You may not believe in free choice but you use it all the time. If I tell you to think one way, you make a choice about me, about what to think, about what to say, about whether you are going to let it go or obey or sit down on the floor and be stubborn. Free choice can be a pain in the butt! Free choice can cause a lot of problems and yet without it, we would be dead, non-thinking, non-feeling, brainless, without spirit.
John
ANONYMOUS/JOHN: I'm honestly not following a lot of what you're saying. The things you seem to think I'm confused about aren't ideas that I've either stated or implied - about "wisdom"... "quality"... the idea that the only kind of freedom is that which is involved with choice making... I haven't stated or implied any of that.
Briefly:
The fact that the universe we know is, so to speak, a non-replicable experiment, a one-time event unfolding in space-time, means that no one can know for sure that any choice of any kind (completely regardless of its quality, wisdom, or any other attribute of the choice) that anyone makes wasn't a predetermined outcome of everything that happened in space and time up until that moment.
That's why philosophers have been debating free will vs. determinism for centuries. You can't prove it either way.
As far as practical matters go, as I've mentioned in my last reply, it makes no difference - except, per my recent post, that I do think those who adopt extreme free choice positions, minimizing the role of factors that influence our decisions, can easily step from there into judmentalism.
Your comment repeatedly states that choice is free without proving it. You mention that we have alternatives. It certainly appears and feels, in many situations, that we do.
But since since we never again find ourselves at that same point in space time, confronted again with that apparent alternative, we never get to know for sure that it would have been possible for us to go with the other alternative.
You say: "Without {free choice} we would be dead, non-thinking, non-feeling, brainless, without spirit."
Maybe. But you can't prove it. And personally, I tend to doubt it for this reason:
My choices feel freest when they're least consequential - which frozen dinner will I buy? But in my spritual life, I've proceeded by way of coming to greater awareness. And I've never chosen to come to greater awareness. It dawns on me.
But I know this isn't the same for everyone, particularly for people who feel they've freely chosen beliefs that are central to their spiritual lives.
Hi Paul,
The fact that you made a choice proves it. If you build something, it's built. If you create something it's created. Philosophically people want to argue that they don't really exist, that it's an illusion. But here we are and there is physical proof. A choice is the same. Sure you can't go back and change or know for sure the consequences of a different choice because you wouldn't have been living it. And I agree that people can be very condemning toward other people. And we judge without realizing that how we judge others is a choice also that we are making. When you say that the simple choices seem the 'freest' that is a gradation of choice quality, not whether free choice exists or not. You prove it exists with every one of your arguments against it. Though you cannot see it, you are 'choosing' your beliefs about free choice also. You may revise your choices or not depending on what outside influences you have or what you decide to create.
And sure it's easy for people to use their free choice against other human beings. We can use anything against others if we choose to. We could also choose to accept and love others no matter what. That's the pain and the beauty of free choice. You decide.
John
(I don't have a blogger account so I can't log in here by username to leave comments. I use the Anonymous option but my name is really John.)
I'm really enjoying your posts and the good discussions going on here. Thank you.
JOHN:
"The fact that you make a choice proves it." I think you're mixing up word-definition with proof.
The word "choice" by definition means picking between alternatives. This assumes we really do have alternatives. Thus the definition of the word choice strongly connotes freedom of choice.
No doubt defining it that way rests on the fact that when we make decisions, we do have the feeling that we could have done otherwise - which, as I've said, actually proves nothing.
Yes - the fact that we may come to judge others less than we used to, in my best guesstimate, does, like other areas of spiritual development, involve some degree of free choice. Again, I'm not personally a strict determinist. I base this on nothing, really, but my own feeling of exerting some measure of freedom of choice. Even though this proves nothing, it carries some weight with me. We all have our own sense, apparently, of how free we've been to choose. Like the majority of commentators, my own feeling has been of some freedom, but far from perfect freedom.
For me personally, the driving force behind what I'm guessing are my somewhat free choices, has been insight or greater awareness. And I've never chosen moments of moral insight. They just happen. Once I have that awareness - that's when I feel like I have a limited degree of freedom on how much I try to follow through on what I now know. The feeling proves nothing.
Yes: When I stated that the most consequential changes I've undergone have seemed to involve little if any choice - in contrast to trivial matters like what shirt to buy, which have carried a greater feeling of choice for me - I was indeed making a distinction of quality.
Previously you brought up the idea that I'm asserting that the ability to prove free choice vs. determinsism has something to do with the quality of the choice - whether it's a major moral matter or something trivial. ("Consequentiality" might be a better word here than "quality.")
Again, no. All I'm talking about when I say that I have more of a feeling of choice with minor matters is my own feeling. In discussing proofs, something I mentioned early on is that the feeling of having a choice doesn't constitute proof that the decision wasn't actually predetermined.
I'm pretty sure the reason that you're finding it compelling - kind of like a "proof" - whenever you simply state in one form or another that our choices are free, is because by definition the word "choice" means that we have alternatives. But in reality, we may not. And the reason that we can't know whether what feels like {free} choice really is free, is because it's impossible, once we get past that point in time, ever to verify that we could have done any different. We can't go back into the past and then try and make a different decision to see if it would really have been possible.
Paul,
Thanks for the great reply! However, no-one said that the alternatives are ones that we are happy with. But that doesn't mean we are not making free choices. You still think that a choice has to be a good one in order to be "Free." Without total freedom to choose we would be nothing more than puppets, unable to function without manipulation from an outside force. Sometimes we have to make tough choices based on the situation we are in. You call that not 'free' choice because you don't see that there alternatives. But in every situation there are alternatives. There are grades of alternatives. Some alternatives seem more appealing than others. Some choices are made in order to survive. If we apply your logic, then the choice to judge and condemn others is not free also, given that family influences have a large role in that. That's just an excuse. If we are racist we may be ignorant and it doesn't excuse us by saying our choice wasn't 'free' because of our influences or ignorance. And because we have total 'free' choice, we are also liable for how we judge others. This is the part of Free choice that many people conveniently forget. Do people choose to judge others or is that predetermined?
John
JOHN: You’ve partially lost me here… You write,
"No one said that the alternatives are ones that we are happy with."
Right. Not me either... The free will/determinism question doesn't fundamentally rest any more on our happiness with the alternatives than with their quality, consequentiality... let me add, or any other attribute of the alternatives that you might want to mention. The characteristics of the alternatives have nothing to do with the arguments for trying to prove free will vs. determinism. We can be talking about whether to accept Jesus as our personal savior or whether to try and suppress a sneeze in the library. It doesn't matter.
So no, I don't think a choice has to be a good one in order to be "free." I can't imagine what I said to give that impression.
I’ve also never said there’s no free choice, only that the degree isn't perfectly free. That seems obvious to me. You and I weren't as free to choose to run for president as George Bush.
So quite a bit of your comment is in response to things that I haven’t actually said…
I rejected the automaton/robot/zombie analogy in a reply to someone else. I’ll copy it here:
“The robot analogy has never been compelling to me. We in fact have passions, purposes, complex mental processes we go through when exercising what certainly feels like choice about some things... Whether it turns out determinism, an extreme version of free will, or something in between is correct, we are what we are. And that doesn't look much like a robot.”
I know the comments sections to the posts on this topic have been long – but it’s taking me a long time to say them again! Please see my recent replies, especially to La Coloratura and Crystal – or maybe search for the word “practical” in comments – for why, to my thinking, our position on free will vs. determinism makes either no practical difference in our behavior; or, if it does, it’s the extreme “perfectly free will” position that conduces toward negative attitudes and conduct.
You can infer my response to your ideas about “excuses” from what follows, which is copied from a reply to someone else. “Excuses” is punishment-model talk. (See the post on criminal justice for where I first discuss this.):
“To repeat in anticipation of someone bringing up these issues again: Viewing wrongdoing as arising from ignorance does not mean that we lavish criminals with warm fuzzies and set them free because we feel bad about them being ‘victims’ of circumstance. {JOHN: It also doesn’t mean we ‘make excuses’ for wrongdoing…} It doesn't mean we don't encourage others to take responsibility and exert all the effort they possibly can to lead better lives.
“Wrongdoing remains wrongdoing. Our desires to protect society from criminals and to see people become saner are as strong as ever.
“The only reason that it even occurs to anyone to think that viewing wrongdoing as arising from ignorance means we have to ‘let them get off scott free,’ or whatever, is because we find it so hard to get away from the punishment mentality, which, as I've posted, has no productive role in dealing with adults.
“We think that if the person is ‘bad’ - chooses evil freely - he must be punished. If he's ignorant instead of bad, well, it must be we can't ‘punish’ him anymore and must ‘let him off the hook.’
“Ridiculous. It's in our interest to protect society from people who commit crimes, and to do our best to get people who are leading unproductive lives into better patterns of behavior. Period.”
As to answering your final question: I don’t know to what degree, if any, people are free to choose whether or not to be judgmental. I’ve made just two basic points, and they apply to any choice we want to discuss:
First, free will vs. determinism can’t be conclusively proved. There’s no going back in time for the redo that would verify. That’s why philosophers can and have debated the issue forever.
You say that my previous reply to you was great. Well, what do you think? Could that definitional thing not be why you think that you’re proving the existence of free will when you make use of the word “choice?”
Second, my personal feeling, based mainly on my own experiences, is that our degree of freedom in spiritual and moral decision making is quite limited. (To me, the degree of freedom feels greater with less consequential matters, like whether or not to go have a snack right now.) For me, the major force involved with becoming a better person has been coming to greater spiritual and moral consciousness – something that to me has come as a gift or grace, and not something I’ve been able to freely choose.
Have you asked yourself why believing in choice that’s perfectly free, or nearly so, matters so much to you personally?
Hi Paul,
What you are talking about is "Options" not "Free Will"
You said, "I’ve also never said there’s no free choice, only that the degree isn't perfectly free. That seems obvious to me. You and I weren't as free to choose to run for president as George Bush."
We may not have the 'option' of running for president, because of the situation we are in, but that has nothing to do with our 'free will' We are still free to choose what to do and what to think about that. Our free will simply means we are free to make choices. We my not have the same options to choose from or be able to see what our options are. That doesn't mean we don't have total free choice. There are always alternatives to choose from and we do freely choose.
Are you confusing 'alternatives' or 'options' with the ability to choose freely?
Free Will doesn't mean a quality of choice or a grade of choice to be free will.
"Have you asked yourself why believing in choice that’s perfectly free, or nearly so, matters so much to you personally?"
It doesn't matter to me, it's simply the way things are.
John
JOHN: "Not having the same options to choose from" is just one of the many ways in which our freedom to choose is limited - not perfect, and not the same for everyone.
I'm not confused. As for yourself, I see one of three possibilities:
1. You're confused, as I explained in previous replies, because the word "choice" implies freedom by definition, even though it's not provable by logic or experience. Therefore every time you write or hear a sentence containing the word "choice," the veracity of freedom of choice appears self-evident to you.
2. You are confusing the feeling of having a choice with knowing you have a choice. Everyone has that feeling. It's strong enough that it inclines me, and most commenters, to believe we probably do have some degree of freedom of choice, although not perfect - as in your, "not having the same options to choose from." (Of course there are many other kinds of limitations.)
3. The real reason you believe in perfect freedom of choice doesn't have to do with reasoning or experience. It's part of your belief system - maybe, for you, an aspect of a faith that finally isn't based on reason or experience.
John, there's something a bit disingenuous to this exchange. You don't reply or engage with the points I raise, and instead continue to suggest "confusions" on my part that aren't based on anything in my positions or on anything that could reasonably be inferred from them.
You're welcome to continue commenting on this or other topics, but because of the disingenuous element, I'm not feeling that my own continued participation with this thread is time well spent.
Hi Paul,
So you are saying that the freedom to make a choice is the same as the alternatives we have to choose between? As in your comment:
"That seems obvious to me. You and I weren't as free to choose to run for president as George Bush."
There is a distinction between Free Will or Free Choice and the 'alternatives' that we have to choose between. It seems to me you do use the two different meanings interchangably, as your example shows. Saying "You and I weren't as free to choose to run for president as George Bush." is essentially saying, "You and I did not have the same options to choose from as George Bush did." But that doesn't mean either of us does not have free will.
We really should not confuse free will with desires either. Just because we desire something doesn't mean we are 'free' to obtain what we desire. If I 'desire' to be president, I probably will not get what I want because my options available to choose between are limited. I still have 'Free Will' though, and that's why I am choosing to do another occupation, among many options besides 'President.' I don't think I'm confusing Free will with the availability of options as you pointed out. "Based on anything in my positions or on anything that could reasonably be inferred from them." I have no ill-will or disingenuous intentions and no reason to prove you wrong. I was just pointing out that what you are saying is confusing the meanings between 'free will' which is simply the freedom to make choices and 'availability, quality or equality alternatives' I think the use of the word 'free' with the word 'choice' could have two meanings and that is where your points mean something different than my interpretation of them.
'Free Choice' meaning Free to make choices, and 'Free Choice' meaning Free to make specific choices. I don't see Free will as the ability of each person to make specific choices. We are all given a unique, different set of circumstances, gifts, talents and resources and we have to do what we can with it. If I am understanding you correctly, I agree that we are not all free to make specific choices, or choose between specific options but I also believe that we still have the ability to make choices freely.
Maybe I am confused and I don't really have the freedom to make choices.
Peace,
John
JOHN,
Peace -
Paul
Post a Comment
<< Home