[peacegirl]

Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which
we shall designate something considered evil by society, instead of
B, the humdrum of your regular routine; could you possibly pick
B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better
alternative when nothing could sway you from your decision, not
even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two
alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something
considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it
be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is
available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B
in this comparison, are they not compelled by their very nature to
prefer A; and how can they be free when the favorable difference
between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion
of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free,
according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer
of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t
want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he
doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative
is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction.

To give you a more familiar example, let us imagine that a
woman has a special business meeting to attend and must quickly
choose between two dresses because she is running late. If both
dresses are undesirable, she is compelled to select the dress that is
the least undesirable of the two, therefore her final choice in this
comparison is the better alternative. Obviously, she has other
options; she could leave both dresses and wear something from
home, continue to shop and call in late, etc. This is a hypothetical
situation for the purpose of showing that once she decides to buy
a dress as a solution to her problem, she is compelled to prefer the
one that gives every indication of being the best possible choice.
It is true that her choice will be influenced by many variables such
as price, quality, color, etc., but regardless of the factors that
contribute to her final decision she is compelled, by her very
nature, to pick the dress that is the most preferable after weighing
the pros and cons. For instance, if cost is an important
consideration she may desire to buy the less expensive dress
because it is within her price range and though she would be
happier with the more expensive dress, she moves in the direction
of greater satisfaction by picking the dress that appeals to her the
least. This is where people get confused. Moving toward greater
satisfaction does not mean that we are always satisfied. It just
means that when comparing the options that are available to us, we
are choosing [what we believe to be] the best alternative under our
particular circumstances. [Note: This does not mean that we have
considered all possible options; only those that have come to mind
or have been brought to our attention at any given moment in time.
Nor does it mean that our choices are unlimited, for the availability
of choices depends on a myriad of cultural, economic, and social
factors]. After coming home and trying on the dress, she may have
a change of heart and wish she had splurged on the more expensive
dress. She may decide to go to the store to make an exchange, or
she may decide to just keep the dress even though she isn’t that
happy with her choice. Each moment offers a new set of options
but always in the direction of greater satisfaction. I will now put
the conclusive proof that man’s will is not free to a mathematical
test.

Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage
and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between
two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death
by having your head held under water. The letters A and B,
representing small or large differences, are compared. The
comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable.
The difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the
reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to
take which makes one of them an impossible choice in this
comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the
circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice,
man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, providing no
other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer
exit B if A is offered as an alternative?
“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in
any way.”
“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could
you prefer the other alternative?”
“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t
given me any choice.”
“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free,
you should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well
as B. In other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this
comparison of alternatives, one is compelled completely beyond
control to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in this
comparison (although it could be chosen to something still worse)
as long as A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B
is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A for your
preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over
which you have absolutely no control.”

The definition of free will states that good or evil can be
chosen without compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact
that there is a tremendous amount of compulsion. The word
‘choice’ itself indicates there are preferable differences otherwise
there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The
reason you are confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities,
but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always
moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of
differences what he considers better for himself and when two or
more alternatives are presented he is compelled, by his very nature,
to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives
every indication of being better for the particular set of
circumstances involved. Choosing, or the comparison of
differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but, to repeat, he is
compelled to prefer of alternatives the one he considers better for
himself, and even though he chooses various things all through the
course of his life he is never given any choice at all. Although the
definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil
without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of
man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of
compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and
every moment of time?
“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in
value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to
decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more
careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which
moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present
position offers. What one person judges good or bad for himself
doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is remembered that
a juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that
affect choice.” My friend, still believing he could prove that man
can move in the direction of dissatisfaction, offered the following
example.

“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer
the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently
my taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater
satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes
me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate
that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the yellow apple
— I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”
“Do you honestly think this proves freedom of the will? Isn’t
it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red
apple, and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this
choice at that moment of time gave you greater satisfaction
otherwise you would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow?
The normal circumstances under which you frequently ate the
yellow apple in preference were changed by your desire to prove
a point, therefore it gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you
did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to
move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B
(eating the yellow apple) was an impossible choice at that moment,
you were not free to choose A.”