Free will vs. Human Suffering

[Ehav4Ever]

Question: If it were shown to you that the only way to end human suffering, or the human based perception of human suffering, is to remove free will choices from all humanity - would you be willing to accept the removal of free will in order to end human suffering?

Details: Meaning that no human will be allowed to choose what they want to do at any given time. Their choices are provided for them in order prevent them from causing others to suffer and also prevent them from bringing children into the world that could potentially cause suffering. Also, they are prevented from doing anything that damages the environment as well as they are prevented from doing things in the environment that will cause them or others to suffer due to natural environmental influences.

Important definitions to take into consideration to address this question.

1. Free will - The ability to chose to do, think, and cause based on available choices and possibilities. For example the following are free will choices.
   • Choosing to smoke.
   • Choosing to develop technology from materials.
   • Choosing to save a life.
   • Choosing to take a life.
   • Getting out of bed at 07:00 vs. 10:00.
   • Getting married vs. being single.
   • Talking to someone vs. staying silent.
   • Traveling vs. staying put.
   • Wearing a mask vs. not wearing a mask.
   • Telling someone you love them vs. telling someone you hate them.
   • Giving an award or giving a punishment.
   • Having several children rather than having 1.
   • Giving birth at one hospital vs. another.
   • Choosing to live in a location you like.
   • etc.
2. Consequences - The result, positive or negative, from a free will choice being made. (Positive or negative being subjective when it comes to humans.) Consider what the consequences are to the following actions.
   • Building a house on an area where there is native wildlife.
   • Throwing away something rather than doing the work to reuse/recycle it.
   • Stepping on the ground w/o looking to see if there are insects there.
   • Talking about someone behind their back vs. talking about them to their face.
   • Accepting someone as an equal.
   • Marrying someone who comes from a troubled background.
   • Marrying someone who comes from an affluent background.
   • Sending children to a private school vs. a public school.
   • Driving at the designated speed limit.
   • Driving one mile over the designated speed limit.
   • Informing someone you don't know that they did something wrong.
   • Eating processed food.
   • etc.

 

[rational experiences]

No. It's too late.

We owned free will naturally. It was already removed.

 

[Estro Felino]

Free will is an absolute concept.

Do whatever you please as long as your action do not harm neither directly nor indirectly things or people.


Is that so difficult?
No, it is not. There are hundreds of millions things people can still do. So it is freedom.

Back to the question: since it is still freedom, I would never deny free will to anyone, because there is a way to end human suffering without detaining free will.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Do whatever you please as long as your action do not harm neither directly nor indirectly things or people.

The challenge is how one defines something like that. A person may feel that they are not harming someone by their normal day to day actions but someone else may feel that they are 100% being harmed by said person doing what is normal in their day to day.

For example, in many electronics there are materials that when diposed of, or even when they are mined, harm those who do the mining or those who are forced by their governments to accept the waste.

Back to the question: since it is still freedom, I would never deny free will to anyone, because there is a way to end human suffering without detaining free will.

How exactly? Also, if so why hasn't it been done yet?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Suffering is just part of life in this world. It refines our souls, and can increase empathy and compassion. So I definitely wouldn't want to remove free will.

 

[Estro Felino]

The challenge is how one defines something like that. A person may feel that they are not harming someone by their normal day to day actions but someone else may feel that they are 100% being harmed by said person doing what is normal in their day to day.

It depends on what one does
There can be a banker of a very prestigious bank, he becomes Prime Minister.
In his life he has been working hard to serve his bank's interests.
So he consider himself a good Catholic, a good father, a good husband.
But his bank commanded him to bribe some politicians so they would undersell state assets.
These operations will have as consequence: so many workers will be fired, so much poverty and desperation will spread.

But this person has still the delusion he did nothing wrong.
Because he was loyal to his firm.

Was it avoidable?
Of course. This banker used his own free will to destroy lives, and to destroy countries.
So God will try him and will judge him accordingly.

How exactly? Also, if so why hasn't it been done yet?

How so? By becoming like Jesus.
Or trying to become like him, at least.
Sinless.

Secularly speaking a great philosopher called Schopenhauer wrote so many books about free will.
And about how man can use his own free will positively. By having a strong willpower, and by pursuing love.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Question: If it were shown to you that the only way to end human suffering, or the human based perception of human suffering, is to remove free will choices from all humanity - would you be willing to accept the removal of free will in order to end human suffering?

Forgive me for answering your question with questions, as I know that's not how conversation is supposed to work. But I must know first, in order to answer?

What makes you think you have free will now?

How do you know that it's not determinism that is the cause of suffering, and that we are just under the illusion that we have a choice?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Forgive me for answering your question with questions, as I know that's not how conversation is supposed to work. But I must know first, in order to answer?

Not a problem at all.

What makes you think you have free will now?

Because based on the definition provided in the OP. I.e. the ability to choose between a set of options w/o the choice being knowingly mandeted from another source. Also, the ability to procastinate.

How do you know that it's not determinism that is the cause of suffering, and that we are just under the illusion that we have a choice?

Because even the illusion of a choice still makes it clear that there is a choice or else it would be 100% clear that there is no choice. If you are asking the question it would stand to reason that it is not 100% proven/clear not all choices are determined for someone and thus the determinism is the cause of "human" suffering, not suffering by itself.

For example, currently the average human being can't decide (i.e. no choice) to go to the sun and walk on the surface. The ability to the leave the earth is not available to most humans and the ability to surving even near the sun is not available. Thus, an average has no say in that matter. It is not in the hands of a the average human to even attempt such a thing.

Yet, compared to that most average humans to choose to turn their heads slightly to right and left with little effort. Of course excluding those people who have some impairment that prevents them from doing so.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

How so? By becoming like Jesus.
Or trying to become like him, at least.
Sinless.

But haven't Christians been attempting this for the last ~1,800 years? If within that time it hasn't been accomplished it would stand to reason that it is not so easy if dedicated Christians are not able to accomplish it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Question: If it were shown to you that the only way to end human suffering, or the human based perception of human suffering, is to remove free will choices from all humanity - would you be willing to accept the removal of free will in order to end human suffering?

Details: Meaning that no human will be allowed to choose what they want to do at any given time. Their choices are provided for them in order prevent them from causing others to suffer and also prevent them from bringing children into the world that could potentially cause suffering. Also, they are prevented from doing anything that damages the environment as well as they are prevented from doing things in the environment that will cause them or others to suffer due to natural environmental influences.

Important definitions to take into consideration to address this question.

1. Free will - The ability to chose to do, think, and cause based on available choices and possibilities. For example the following are free will choices.
   • Choosing to smoke.
   • Choosing to develop technology from materials.
   • Choosing to save a life.
   • Choosing to take a life.
   • Getting out of bed at 07:00 vs. 10:00.
   • Getting married vs. being single.
   • Talking to someone vs. staying silent.
   • Traveling vs. staying put.
   • Wearing a mask vs. not wearing a mask.
   • Telling someone you love them vs. telling someone you hate them.
   • Giving an award or giving a punishment.
   • Having several children rather than having 1.
   • Giving birth at one hospital vs. another.
   • Choosing to live in a location you like.
   • etc.
2. Consequences - The result, positive or negative, from a free will choice being made. (Positive or negative being subjective when it comes to humans.) Consider what the consequences are to the following actions.
   • Building a house on an area where there is native wildlife.
   • Throwing away something rather than doing the work to reuse/recycle it.
   • Stepping on the ground w/o looking to see if there are insects there.
   • Talking about someone behind their back vs. talking about them to their face.
   • Accepting someone as an equal.
   • Marrying someone who comes from a troubled background.
   • Marrying someone who comes from an affluent background.
   • Sending children to a private school vs. a public school.
   • Driving at the designated speed limit.
   • Driving one mile over the designated speed limit.
   • Informing someone you don't know that they did something wrong.
   • Eating processed food.
   • etc.

Satan can only deceive the less evolved spiritual souls, God rules!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But haven't Christians been attempting this for the last ~1,800 years? If within that time it hasn't been accomplished it would stand to reason that it is not so easy if dedicated Christians are not able to accomplish it.

Where is your proof that it has not been accomplished, you are making it up!

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Where is your proof that it has not been accomplished, you are making it up!

If you review the OP you see that topic was about free will vs. human suffering. So the discussion that was made concerns that if there are humans are still saying that human suffering exists and someone posits that is easy to resolve human suffering by Christians being like Jesus then it would stand to reason that Christians should be able to easily be like Jesus and end human suffering within a short time - if it is easy. If this has not happened given the sheer number of Christians in the world it would stand to reason that it is not so easy to end human suffering by Christians being like Jesus.

I.e. you would have to go back and look at the previous posts of what was being discussed. I hope that helps.

 

[Estro Felino]

But haven't Christians been attempting this for the last ~1,800 years? If within that time it hasn't been accomplished it would stand to reason that it is not so easy if dedicated Christians are not able to accomplish it.

Precisely. They have been failing.
That is why I also presented a secular approach, that is Schopenhauer's view

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Precisely. They have been failing.
That is why I also presented a secular approach, that is Schopenhauer's view

Understood and agreed.

I think the problem with Schopenhauer's view is that it is to vague to put into practice. For example, there are people who abuse spouses and family members while at the same time exressing love for them. Also, when it comes to strong will power that doesn't explain will power to do what exactly? Also, who gets to define goal of the strong willpower and love as well as what the result of such is supposed to be?

 

[Estro Felino]

Understood and agreed.

I think the problem with Schopenhauer's view is that it is to vague to put into practice. For example, there are people who abuse spouses and family members while at the same time exressing love for them. Also, when it comes to strong will power that doesn't explain will power to do what exactly? Also, who gets to define goal of the strong willpower and love as well as what the result of such is supposed to be?

History is a continuous improvement.
If you think that there are less and less wars in the world, human beungs are bettering.
The problem is that it is a very slow and gradual process. Too slow.

 

[PureX]

I can't really even imagine life without failure or suffering (choice and consequence). How could I even call it living? It would just be existing, like an inanimate object.

 

[Nakosis]

Question: If it were shown to you that the only way to end human suffering, or the human based perception of human suffering, is to remove free will choices from all humanity - would you be willing to accept the removal of free will in order to end human suffering?

Details: Meaning that no human will be allowed to choose what they want to do at any given time. Their choices are provided for them in order prevent them from causing others to suffer and also prevent them from bringing children into the world that could potentially cause suffering. Also, they are prevented from doing anything that damages the environment as well as they are prevented from doing things in the environment that will cause them or others to suffer due to natural environmental influences.

Important definitions to take into consideration to address this question.

1. Free will - The ability to chose to do, think, and cause based on available choices and possibilities. For example the following are free will choices.
   • Choosing to smoke.
   • Choosing to develop technology from materials.
   • Choosing to save a life.
   • Choosing to take a life.
   • Getting out of bed at 07:00 vs. 10:00.
   • Getting married vs. being single.
   • Talking to someone vs. staying silent.
   • Traveling vs. staying put.
   • Wearing a mask vs. not wearing a mask.
   • Telling someone you love them vs. telling someone you hate them.
   • Giving an award or giving a punishment.
   • Having several children rather than having 1.
   • Giving birth at one hospital vs. another.
   • Choosing to live in a location you like.
   • etc.
2. Consequences - The result, positive or negative, from a free will choice being made. (Positive or negative being subjective when it comes to humans.) Consider what the consequences are to the following actions.
   • Building a house on an area where there is native wildlife.
   • Throwing away something rather than doing the work to reuse/recycle it.
   • Stepping on the ground w/o looking to see if there are insects there.
   • Talking about someone behind their back vs. talking about them to their face.
   • Accepting someone as an equal.
   • Marrying someone who comes from a troubled background.
   • Marrying someone who comes from an affluent background.
   • Sending children to a private school vs. a public school.
   • Driving at the designated speed limit.
   • Driving one mile over the designated speed limit.
   • Informing someone you don't know that they did something wrong.
   • Eating processed food.
   • etc.

I'm ok with the suffering, for myself.
Someone else may desire an end to it. Not me. Yes it sucks sometimes but so far I've found away to deal with all of the suffering.
There is good and bad in life. For the most part I've made the correct decision to keep the suffering to a minimal.

Also I see it as a bit of a challenge. To overcome any suffering life throws at me. I feel a win when I do. Those wins, when they come, are important to me. I 'd rather not have it all given to me on a "spiritual" silver platter. Peace of mind, I want to know I earned it rather than it having been given to me.

Without freewill, how could I do that?

 

[1213]

Question: If it were shown to you that the only way to end human suffering, or the human based perception of human suffering, is to remove free will choices from all humanity - would you be willing to accept the removal of free will in order to end human suffering?...

No, I think free will is essential. And if people would not have that, I believe they would suffer. I think removing free will, without causing suffering, would also require that individual mind is removed, and people would be turned into mindless dolls. That could perhaps be free of suffering, but I don't think people would be humans anymore.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you review the OP you see that topic was about free will vs. human suffering. So the discussion that was made concerns that if there are humans are still saying that human suffering exists and someone posits that is easy to resolve human suffering by Christians being like Jesus then it would stand to reason that Christians should be able to easily be like Jesus and end human suffering within a short time - if it is easy. If this has not happened given the sheer number of Christians in the world it would stand to reason that it is not so easy to end human suffering by Christians being like Jesus.

I.e. you would have to go back and look at the previous posts of what was being discussed. I hope that helps.

Thank you, I understand you.. Still, physical life will never be without suffering (it is not Heaven) so my understanding is that to end suffering, one must realize the Heavenly state of immortality to overcome it. Religious teachings are meant to guide those who are tired of the suffering of the incarnated state to the transcended spiritual state. One can never end suffering from another, it is an inner subjective process.