How can there be human moral culpability without libertarian free will?

[phat8594]

I certainly wouldn't claim to know why God saves the people that He saved. It's enough to know that He is wise and good.

The only issue, of course, is that this dilemma (IMO) seems to be created by a specific theology rather than the Bible.

The Bible tells us, clearly why God chose to save those whom He saves:

Why: Because God so loved the world
The who: Whoever pursues God by faith

[dacristoy]

I was speaking from the perspective of someone who holds to LFW, not my own persective. I'm not clear on the distinction you are drawing between pleasure and choice, however. An LFW proponent would say that our choices are not determined entirely by what pleases our nature. I can't tell what side of that particular question you are defending.

This one:
2 Thess 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

[RBerman]

The only issue, of course, is that this dilemma (IMO) seems to be created by a specific theology rather than the Bible.

The Bible tells us, clearly why God chose to save those whom He saves:

Why: Because God so loved the world
The who: Whoever pursues God by faith

I can certainly endorse both of those. The difference between our views lies further down, in the question of why some pursue God by faith, and some do not.

[RBerman]

I was speaking from the perspective of someone who holds to LFW, not my own persective. I'm not clear on the distinction you are drawing between pleasure and choice, however. An LFW proponent would say that our choices are not determined entirely by what pleases our nature. I can't tell what side of that particular question you are defending.

This one:
2 Thess 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

As with Phat's comment above, I can certainly endorse Paul's words to the Thessalonians which you quote here. The question is still, "Is there a reason that some believe and some do not believe?" The LFW answer is, "There is no reason, and we call that lack of a reason 'libertarian free will.'"

[dacristoy]

As with Phat's comment above, I can certainly endorse Paul's words to the Thessalonians which you quote here. The question is still, "Is there a reason that some believe and some do not believe?" The LFW answer is, "There is no reason, and we call that lack of a reason 'libertarian free will.'"

Whither we know the answer to that question or not, {we do not} it still cannot negate the truths stated in the Thess passages. The scriptural answer is stated in verse 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. That's the only why that God gave us, his grace is sufficient for those that love him...

[RBerman]

Whither we know the answer to that question or not, {we do not} it still cannot negate the truths stated in the Thess passages. The scriptural answer is stated in verse 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. That's the only why that God gave us, his grace is sufficient for those that love him...

I have little quarrel with those who feel that since Scripture does not explicitly address these sorts of philosophical questions, our time is not well spent debating them.

[Joel]

Guys, you are off topic.

Joel, your post is quite lengthy, and we are now discussing similar topics in two different threads, so I do not intend to respond point-by-point.

Lengthy because I wanted to be clear, and fully respond to your objections and questions, which I think I have done.

A point-by-point response is not necessary. I just want you to either affirm that lack of LFW makes humans puppets, or to explain how they are not puppets.

In the meantime, I'll respond to your objection here:

You say that "acting for a reason" is not the same as the reason causing the action. it is difficult to see how the reason matters at all if not causally connected to the action.

I think things get confused because we use the same language to refer to different things. Aristotle pointed out that asking for a/the reason for something has at least 4 different meanings, and he referred to them as 4 different kinds of "causes": formal, efficient, final, and material.
In modern English, when we say "cause" we mean only "efficient cause", and don't apply the word "cause" to the others. (And in this thread I've been using "cause" to refer only to efficient cause.)

A person's reason for choosing is (or at least is most closely related to) "final cause", rather than (and is different from) efficient cause. Humans seem to have at least some ability to choose among ends. We are commanded to have (and act according to) the right priority/preference order, which seems to imply that we have at least some control over how we prioritize things. Thus ends (reasons) can be the object of choice, rather than the efficient cause of the choice.

And as I said, people seem to be able to act rationally and irrationally (e.g. without thinking of a reason). Sometimes people choose and then invent reasons to try to justify their choice.

Does it then "matter"? Well, as I defined LFW (causal chain originating in the agent) it doesn't say anything about the agent's reasonings. But all of the 4 "causes" matter, even though they aren't all efficient cause. Man's ability to reason and to act with purpose is part of his essence. It certainly distinguishes purposeful action from randomness. And it is generally recognized that a man's prioritizing one thing over another pertains to morality and is subject to moral judgement.

Sometimes beyond the natural course of events, God intervenes specially to harden or soften a heart, which is what we pray for our unsaved family without any scruples as to whether this violates their free choice to go to hell. As for me, I would be delighted if God violated my alleged LFW, to save me from my sins.

The question here isn't whether giving or taking away LFW is good or bad. The question is whether the creature can be morally culpable without LFW.

[dacristoy]

Off topic, Mr. Berman is a tad angry with me. Ok guys, i'll take a break.

[RBerman]

Off topic, Mr. Berman is a tad angry with me. Ok guys, i'll take a break.

I am not aware of being angry with you. I am sorry for giving that impression.

[RBerman]

A point-by-point response is not necessary. I just want you to either affirm that lack of LFW makes humans puppets, or to explain how they are not puppets.

So far the only point of commonality you have shown between puppets and my view of humans is that neither possesses LFW. But if I am correct, and LFW does not exist, then puppets and humans share that property with literally everything else in the universe. So no, I do not find it helpful to say that humans are puppets. As I have said before, a key feature of humans is that they are created in the image of God, so I am reluctant to make strong comparison between humans and things not created in the image of God.

I think things get confused because we use the same language to refer to different things. Aristotle pointed out that asking for a/the reason for something has at least 4 different meanings, and he referred to them as 4 different kinds of "causes": formal, efficient, final, and material. In modern English, when we say "cause" we mean only "efficient cause", and don't apply the word "cause" to the others. (And in this thread I've been using "cause" to refer only to efficient cause.)

A person's reason for choosing is (or at least is most closely related to) "final cause", rather than (and is different from) efficient cause. Humans seem to have at least some ability to choose among ends. We are commanded to have (and act according to) the right priority/preference order, which seems to imply that we have at least some control over how we prioritize things. Thus ends (reasons) can be the object of choice, rather than the efficient cause of the choice.

And as I said, people seem to be able to act rationally and irrationally (e.g. without thinking of a reason). Sometimes people choose and then invent reasons to try to justify their choice.

Does it then "matter"? Well, as I defined LFW (causal chain originating in the agent) it doesn't say anything about the agent's reasonings. But all of the 4 "causes" matter, even though they aren't all efficient cause. Man's ability to reason and to act with purpose is part of his essence. It certainly distinguishes purposeful action from randomness. And it is generally recognized that a man's prioritizing one thing over another pertains to morality and is subject to moral judgement.

Generally recognized by whom? You are assuming the existence of LFW as a uncaused final cause, mediating between the reasons for your choice and the outcome of your choice, so that your person (values, faculties, etc.) and your circumstances become insufficient to explain the decision your reached. I see no reason to think that is so. The Bible teaches us that the tree determines the fruit.

The question here isn't whether giving or taking away LFW is good or bad. The question is whether the creature can be morally culpable without LFW.

The first question is whether LFW is even a coherent concept, and second whether it is a biblical one. If it fails either of those criteria, then we can know that it cannot be a necessary component of morality.

[myth]

The first question is whether LFW is even a coherent concept, and second whether it is a biblical one. If it fails either of those criteria, then we can know that it cannot be a necessary component of morality.

LFW is a relatively new concept for me. I've done some reading on it, but have yet really grasp whether it even has a universal meaning. So, personally, I'm not prepared to call it a "coherent concept". More than that, it doesn't seem useful to me. I believe in free will, and to me LFW seems like an attempt abrogate responsibility for moral living.

[Joel]

So far the only point of commonality you have shown between puppets and my view of humans is that neither possesses LFW. But if I am correct, and LFW does not exist, then puppets and humans share that property with literally everything else in the universe. So no, I do not find it helpful to say that humans are puppets. As I have said before, a key feature of humans is that they are created in the image of God, so I am reluctant to make strong comparison between humans and things not created in the image of God.

I'm reluctant to identify them as well. Thus the motivation for my questions.
The commonality (without LFW) is that both are entirely controlled by external causes. Only the mechanism of control differs. Yes, as you say, they would then share that property with everything else in the universe (including rocks!). Moreover, that property they share is generally recognized to eliminate moral responsibility in humans and other things. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

And it is generally recognized that a man's prioritizing one thing over another pertains to morality and is subject to moral judgement.

Generally recognized by whom?

By virtually everyone who discusses and teaches moral philosophy. And by Jesus' teachings.

You are assuming the existence of LFW as a uncaused final cause, mediating between the reasons for your choice and the outcome of your choice, so that your person (values, faculties, etc.) and your circumstances become insufficient to explain the decision your reached.

No, as an efficient cause.
The LFW (if it exists) is a faculty of the person and is an efficient cause (and thus is an explanation).

In the case of God acting too, He is not caused to act by some external cause. The causal chain originates within Him.

I see no reason to think that is so. The Bible teaches us that the tree determines the fruit.

And the agent is the "tree," yes.
Again, the point of this thread is not to argue whether LFW exists, but how humans can be morally culpable without it.

The question here isn't whether giving or taking away LFW is good or bad. The question is whether the creature can be morally culpable without LFW.

The first question is whether LFW is even a coherent concept, and second whether it is a biblical one. If it fails either of those criteria, then we can know that it cannot be a necessary component of morality.

The thread question is not just whether humans can be morally culpable, but how can that be (given that there are strong reasons to think otherwise).

Also the question of whether giving or taking LFW is good or bad is not the question of whether LFW is a coherent concept. "Giving creatures LFW is bad" would still presuppose that LFW is a coherent concept.

[Joel]

LFW is a relatively new concept for me. I've done some reading on it, but have yet really grasp whether it even has a universal meaning. So, personally, I'm not prepared to call it a "coherent concept". More than that, it doesn't seem useful to me. I believe in free will, and to me LFW seems like an attempt abrogate responsibility for moral living.

Personally, I don't like the term LFW. When virtually anyone talks about "free will" they are talking about LFW--i.e., the fact that we all experience daily that we face situations with multiple options knowing we can choose any, and we choose one. The qualifier "libertarian" seems unnecessary to me. Thus I don't see how it can be a "new" concept for anyone. It is the obvious, primae facie conception of human experience. To conceive of alternative understandings of the human will requires some counter-intuitive philosophical reasonings (which may or may not be sound). E.g., it takes a strong belief in some other, conflicting thing (such as fate) to ever drive someone to suppose that they lack LFW.

And I certainly don't see how LFW abrogates responsibility for moral living. Can you explain? Indeed, I can't see how moral responsibility can exist without LFW. Which is the question of this thread.

[RBerman]

The commonality (without LFW) is that both are entirely controlled by external causes. Only the mechanism of control differs. Yes, as you say, they would then share that property with everything else in the universe (including rocks!). Moreover, that property they share is generally recognized to eliminate moral responsibility in humans and other things. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

I do not share the opinion that LFW is essential for moral responsibility. As I said previously, if LFW is either incoherent or nonbiblical and thus does not exist, then it cannot very well be essential for anything!

No, as an efficient cause.
The LFW (if it exists) is a faculty of the person and is an efficient cause (and thus is an explanation).

In the case of God acting too, He is not caused to act by some external cause. The causal chain originates within Him.


And the agent is the "tree," yes.
Again, the point of this thread is not to argue whether LFW exists, but how humans can be morally culpable without it.

At this point, based on your explanations, I'm not even sure how you think LFW differs from the Calvinistic notion that we act according to our nature and the circumstances in which we find ourselves, with our will being the mediating faculty which processes the situation and outputs a decision.

The thread question is not just whether humans can be morally culpable, but how can that be (given that there are strong reasons to think otherwise). Also the question of whether giving or taking LFW is good or bad is not the question of whether LFW is a coherent concept. "Giving creatures LFW is bad" would still presuppose that LFW is a coherent concept.

I have not argued that LFW is bad; as you say, that would assume that it exists. If it's not a coherent concept then it makes no sense to then discuss whether it's biblical. My point was that both criteria would need to be satisfied: both coherent, and biblical.

[myth]

Personally, I don't like the term LFW. When virtually anyone talks about "free will" they are talking about LFW--i.e., the fact that we all experience daily that we face situations with multiple options knowing we can choose any, and we choose one. The qualifier "libertarian" seems unnecessary to me. Thus I don't see how it can be a "new" concept for anyone. It is the obvious, primae facie conception of human experience. To conceive of alternative understandings of the human will requires some counter-intuitive philosophical reasonings (which may or may not be sound). E.g., it takes a strong belief in some other, conflicting thing (such as fate) to ever drive someone to suppose that they lack LFW.

And I certainly don't see how LFW abrogates responsibility for moral living. Can you explain? Indeed, I can't see how moral responsibility can exist without LFW. Which is the question of this thread.

Then I have to ask, why are we even using the term? Perhaps this is why I don’t see how the term is helpful for discussion. If LFW is everyone’s normal conception of free will, then why aren’t we just calling it ‘free will’? Tacking on ‘libertarian’ led me to believe that you wished to be more specific (and thus restrictive) than the normal concept that comes to mind when people consider ‘free will’.

I suppose that’s why I’m suspicious of the very wordy definitions of the term I’ve read. One specified that people don’t have a true ‘free choice’ if the decision is influenced by anything, including human nature. I don’t see a reason for restricting free will to such narrow confines, other than the abrogation of moral responsibility in everyday living. If my human nature prevents me from having free will, then I'm just an automaton here on Earth, and shouldn't be held responsible for anything I do. And that, quite frankly, sounds like a load of crap.