On my argument about free will.

I now believe the words (free will) is a (misnomer) in definition. Both words can be understood morally as opposed to ill-morally. These two words (question immediately the human free will). Humans have restraints within Justice/law/freedom/morals ill-morals/county laws/city laws/state/laws/government laws and world laws. I would suggust to whomever defined these two words would redefine them, but I have no clue how this would be done. Thoughts please. Paul

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on September 13, 2013 at 9:52pm

In Philosophy, and Natural Philosophy (Science/Nature), the term "free will" is mostly used for whether or not an individual has the option to preform a physical action. An example is picking up a ball and dropping it when you chose to, or not dropping it if you chose to not do so. The moral and legal actions usually get pushed off into ethics, if I have that correct.

when talking about laws, morals, punishment etc. the "free will" is always assumed to exist as in the above usage i.e. a physical free will (Someone can correct me on that one). It then is only if punishment fits the crime. Who defines the crime (including God/god) , and the rules for the punishment, or lack of punishment, is where the debate goes. The deceit, greed, cost, can be messy in real life.

e.g. a person in prison costs maybe $30,000 /year per person (paid by taxpayers). However a person living a legal life is only worth minimum wage. For a year that is maybe more like $16,000

A prisoner gets free healthcare. The legal worker is not worth the money per hour to assure that they get healthcare. It is very interesting.

John