[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I know what his argument is, yes. I've already dissected it at least once with no real response from you, but here we go again. I don't actually have the book anywhere, so I'm going off of memory from back when it was posted as a PDF.

He begins by defining free will as a faculty to make moral choices, specifically to choose between "good" and "evil". That's not really what your average person on the street typically means when they say "free will", but it's not a completely idiosyncratic definition, so, so far, so good.

If you discuss this issue with anyone who has studied the free will/determinism debate in any depth, it always boils down to good and evil, for that is the issue at stake, and why this debate is important to a lot of people. This was the part of the definition.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do.

Originally Posted by Adam

He goes on to equivocate a bit between different senses of the words "good" and "evil", and ends up settling on something like personal utility as his working definition. So, his use of the term "free will" ends up meaning, roughly, the ability to choose between one's preference and something other than one's preference.

All he said is that the words good and evil have reference to oneself.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 56 The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason
someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this
against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live
under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to
take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,
by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own
life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his
problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which
means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more
satisfying.

For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes
off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up,
go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of
the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.
Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to
work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on
his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils
to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when
he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one
thing than another.

Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law
of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications.

The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.

Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will.

What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.

Originally Posted by Adam

He then talks about what he calls the Motion of Life, which ends up being an obfuscated way to restate the trivial observation that whatever a person chooses is, by definition, their preference at the time the choice was made . Oddly, he describes this as a "compulsion" to have chosen that thing, but I think he's just using "compulsion" in an unusual sense to refer to the factors that cause any given choice.

But it IS a compulsion to choose that which is most preferable. You cannot choose that which is the least preferable (according to your particular set of circumstances) in any situation where two or more alternatives are available.

Originally Posted by Adam

So, having defined free will such that the ability to choose something other than one's own preference is essential to it, and having trivially observed that, by definition (i.e. tautologically), it is impossible to choose something other than one's own preference, he concludes that free will is not a thing.

If you can only move in one direction, which is to choose that which gives you greater satisfaction, how can your will be free? Free will implies being able to choose one or the other without any compulsion toward one or the other. Any time there is a differential preference between two options, you are compelled to choose the option that is most preferred. rendering all other options an impossibility at that moment in time.

Originally Posted by Adam

This is not a compelling argument. It's just an idiosyncratic definition (nobody else considers the ability to choose something other than one's own preference to be essential to free will) coupled with a trivial observation (one's preference is defined as whatever one would choose, so whatever one chooses is by definition one's preference) to produce a tautologically true conclusion.

As I stated earlier, the fact that whatever one chooses is by definition one's preference does not explain a deeper truth. As you get into the two-sided equation, you can begin to see its significance.

Originally Posted by Adam

Now, can you address my objections here? Note that I'm not asking you about the rest of Lessans' ideas. I don't want to hear about how the most important part is that, when you combine his notion of free will not existing with his notion about how conscience works, you get changed conditions and no possibility of blah blah blah. I want you to defend his argument for the non-existence of free will. If that foundational portion of his idea doesn't even stand, then the rest of it has nothing to rest on.

You're right about that. His claim of no free will must be accurate for the rest of his book to have a leg to stand on. But it is accurate. The only difficulty is getting everyone to see that this is not a theory, but a fact.

Originally Posted by Adam

For the record, I don't actually believe in libertarian free will. It's just that the argument Lessans makes is hilariously bad.

No it's not. You just don't understand why, out of all the propositions that philosophers down through the ages have come up with, his is the most accurate and is the key that opens the door to another door which leads to his discovery.