Boethius Boethius Free Will

Peter van Inwagen argument entitled “Free Will Defense,” is a theodicy because it attempts to show why God would allow evil in the world as opposed to a defense which would try to explain, logically, how evil could exist in the world with an all-loving an all-powerful God. Peter van Inwagen purposed that, yes, God is all-loving and all-powerful, and because he is all-loving, he allows for humans to make their own decisions even if these decisions lead to evil and pain. I find this to be an extremely satisfying response. It is very plausible that an all-powerful being could and would, in some way, relinquish control as a way to show and practice his love. Autonomy is good, granting free will results in autonomy, therefore granting free will

In the book of Shrinking the Cat by Sue Hubbell, the author examines the concept of genetic engineering and argues how genetic engineering is nothing new by providing examples of humans altering genetically the species of cats, corn, apples, and silkworms. The introduction of this book discusses the fact that humans put themselves at the top of lists of the smartest animals. Yet in this case, these lists are hardly objective because they are created by humans. The author provides the example of her very own beloved dog, Tazzie, in the situation of how Tazzie is capable of finding a bone every single time they visit the park. The author explains how intelligence or knowingness is “knowingness for some purpose” (4). She explains

Free will allows freedom of choice. Free will is the ability to choose with intelligence and common sense. Our choices cannot be completely free from our knowledge, values, perceptions of everyday life and the things around us. Our choices are not free from the influence of our past thoughts and decisions. The freedom of free will is not discrediting influencing factors such as our own self-awareness, our ability to seek out knowledge and project the future, and our awareness of our own thinking. This is where our source of freedom comes from. It makes us as human beings aware of what we want. The proper understanding of free will is that our choices are not free from various influences, but we are free to make our own choices in the end. Peter van Inwagen argues that the very existence of moral responsibility entails the existence of free will.

Free will may move us in certain ways, certain ways that could be good or bad depending on the decisions made. In school specifically in college there is a vast amount of free will considering no one will hold your hand that is the assumption of being a free college student. Mommy and daddy aren’t here to look after you and nor are your instructors. Having the great benefit of free will learning time management is essential to one’s education. This can be taught in the college’s first year education courses. Time is never on our side whether agreed upon or not it will always move, the clock will forever tick. Since the clock is ticking shouldn’t the importance of one’s education tick right along with it? Many college students say it’s not enough

The idea of free will has been argued about by many philosophers. Do humans really have free will or are we just going through the motions of life? What is free will? Free will is the freedom to choose. Not being determined to act in a certain way. Free will includes humans acting as their own agent's and making the choice to do something or not do it. In order for humans to make a choice morality has to be involved in free will. So that a human will have the capacity to make a choice and understand what that choice means, and what effect that choice will have, whether the choice is to do good or evil. One of the objections put forth against free will is that God is omnipotent and knows and sees all. This means that God knows the future and the past. Thus human actions are predetermined, and humans are forced to act in a certain way (Determinism).

Humans have free will, but God knows their fate. In Book V of the City of God, Saint Augustine discusses the matter of fate and free will pertaining to having a relationship with God. Within that section of the text he makes many statements about how humans have the freedom to make their own choices, but God ultimately knows the outcome. Logically, this make sense. If God created everything, then this would mean He has created everything in the past, present and future. As a result, he is aware of the choices and events that will be made by humanity. But how does Saint Augustine know that humans have free will? Evidence of this comes both from the text and The Holy Bible, specifically the book of John and 1 Corinthians. However, it is reasonable

In his philosophical thesis, of the ‘Mind-Body dualism’ Rene Descartes argues that the mind and the body are really distinct, one of the most deepest and long lasting legacies.

“Free will” implies people are able to choose the majority of their actions. While one would expect to choose the right course of action, bad decisions are often made. This reflects the idea that humans do not have free will because if people were genuinely and consistently capable of benevolence, they would freely decide to make the ‘right’ decisions. In order for free will free will to be tangible, an individual would have to have control over his or her actions regardless of any external factors. It can be argued that the inevitability of

The Enlightenment era, of all of the eras in America, perhaps has been the very first era where the people of America actually started to change their way of thinking. I mean let's face the truth, the Pilgrims and Puritans didn't have some revolutionary thought, their act and way of thinking were heavily determined based on the Bible they read (though they already defied the customary law simply by reading the Bible). Of course they also had some kind of idealism. We could see it by the Mayflower compact (in which the essence of the compact was the dream of the people in creating a nation with their own system, and still respected the Ruler of the Great Britain) [2] however

Free Will, written by Sam Harris explores the question of whether or not humans have free will. In his book, Harris concludes that free will is essentially impossible. In the beginning of his book, Harris starts out by disproving the idea of free will by stating, “Without free will, sinners and criminals would be nothing more than poorly calibrated clock work, and any conception of justice that emphasized punishing them (rather deterring, rehabilitating, or merely containing them) would appear utterly incongruous. And those of us who work hard and follow the rules would not ‘deserve’ our success in any deep sense” (Harris, 1). Harris ends the quote by noting that most people do not believe in theses conclusions.

Defenders of the Argument from Evil have challenged the last premises of the presented by the critics of Theological Fatalism and have shown that free will is not possible under an omniscient god.

Free-will is the natural instinct to do as you feel. Fate is the journey that is planned out for you and the rest of your life. Oedipus Rex and Revenge of the Sith, show recognition to the debate on fate vs free-will. ‘Who followed their fate?”, “Did Oedipus and Anakin follow their imaginations instead of their realities?” The impact of these stories show that fate is a stronger force than free-will.

that men always freely choose what is right?” (McCloskey, 1968). Atheist side with McCloskey’s view that the individuals who put value in the choices of man controversy point to people making poor utilization of their free will. As indicated by Evans and Manis, the subsequent malevolence is because of mans mischief, not of Gods. The fact of the matter is, no one person knows for certain why a cherishing, decent, supreme God would permit malevolence and misery to exist. McCloskey’s debates give a guard against the legitimacy of the issue of malice. To make the case, a nonbeliever or atheist must have the capacity to demonstrate that God and malice are sensibly opposing. Mackie claims that it is sensibly conceivable that God could and would decide to make free creatures that would be

In the Consolation of Philosophy Boethius expresses the idea that God puts forth a plan and has it set in motion but let's fate play out the outcome of the plan. Chance on the other hand is defines as when one or multiple characters are unaware of an event that is going to happen until after it occurs.

Moritz Schlick is a representative of logical positivism doctrine. His definition of free will, determinism and moral responsibility derives from the definition of punishment. He supposes that “Punishment is an educative measure, and as such is a means to the formation of motives, which are in part to prevent the wrongdoer from repeating the act (reformation) and in part to prevent others from committing a similar act (intimidation). Analogously, in the case of reward we are concerned with an incentive." (Schlick, p. 152). So, Schlick’s view of free will and responsibility is connected with punishment. He supposes that a person in responsible if the punishment for his action is able to change his behavior in the future. So, his determinism differs a little from that of Blatchford. In his point of view, "we are trying to discover who is ultimately responsible" (D'Angelo, p. 37). So, he thinks that moral responsibility is not derived from heredity and environment. But what is the source of free will and moral responsibility? Schlick doesn’t give any unequivocal answer to this question. I think that moral responsibility depends on the scale of free will of a person and his attitude to the actions of other persons. In other words, our behaviour is the result of both our heredity and nature, and some outside factors which depend on our relation to other persons’