[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not restricted by my past from eating eggs instead of oatmeal in the sense that both are available to me. But just because both are available to me does not grant me free will. Every choice any of us make is based on our genetics, environment, and experiences which push us in a particular direction. For example, knowing that I'm allergic to eggs (which knowledge came from a previous experience where I developed hives) creates a meaningful difference between the two choices that are in front of me. As a result, I choose oatmeal instead of eggs, even though I love eggs. This is not a free choice. My past restricts what I choose to eat because I am weighing the pros and cons based on previous experience. Let me repeat: I am not restricted from choosing between eggs instead of oatmeal in the compatibilist sense of "free" (which no one is disputing) but I am compelled to choose the option that is the most favorable. I am restricted by the law of greater satisfaction. I cannot choose what I prefer less, even if my preference is to sacrifice my favorite dish so someone else can enjoy it, which gives me "greater satisfaction" (the only direction I can go) than eating it myself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So the word "limited" was a poor choice, because it means restricted. You are not restricted from eating eggs. You are free to choose eggs.

I am not restricted from eating eggs in the sense you're using the term. They are available to me if I want them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The consequences one might contemplate are influential but not restrictive. How does our past limit our present and future choices? Inform, yes. Influence, absolutely. Lead to, sure. Limit? Nope

My nature restricts me from choosing that which I don't desire.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's look closer.

LOL, this is free will according to compatibilists!

Choosing what is preferred based on personal reasons is the kind of freedom we actually have, so the kind of freedom that compatibilists are talking about.

But that's a strawman because it has nothing to do with whether we have freedom of the will as used by the free will skeptic. No hard determinist disagrees with the fact that we have options open to us. You're playing with semantics.

The first straw-man that I’ve noticed happens is not to address the free will skeptics definition of free will when they say “free will doesn’t exist”, and simply bypass such definition with a different definition that the free will skeptic isn’t using. They then show how their own definition of free will does indeed “exist” (or is possible) in order to disprove the free will skeptics claim that “free will does not exist”. And even when the free will skeptic clarifies their definition, points to things such as common intuitions about the free will ability most people “feel” they possess, and explains the reasons why such a semantic is important for so many other topics, the compatibilist simply ignores such and keep on with the use of their own semantic in order to “disprove” the free will skeptic.

5 Straw-man Fallacies by Compatibilists (When Addressing Free Will Skeptics)

I cannot choose what I prefer less

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You will not choose what you prefer less.

No, you cannot choose what you prefer less. It's impossible to choose what you prefer less when something better is available. But it must be remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that affect choice. In other words, what you may desire is the most preferable choice at one moment may not be the same choice you would make at another moment due to a different set of alternatives that affect choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The word cannot is fallacious in that sentence.

Nope, it's the right word.