Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Free will
Message-ID: <1173@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 15:42:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1173
Posted: Fri Aug  9 15:42:59 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 05:49:40 EDT
References: <562@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 32
Keywords: freedom, threat, coercion

In article <562@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>I have a question regarding the REA (interpretation?/definition?) of
>free will.  Consider the case where you are robbed at gunpoint.  Is
>handing over your money an act of free will?  I think that by the
>conventional use of the word the answer is quite definitely no; but
>I see no way to get that answer by an REA definition.  What is our
>REA advocate's position regarding this situation?

You're right.

The problem is that we have two areas in which a person can be free or
unfree (and if he is unfree in either, then he is unfree overall).  There
are INTERNAL constraints that interfere with one's "free will" -- a good
example might be brainwashing -- and then there are EXTERNAL constraints
like having a gun pointed at you.  When people talk about "free will",
they are usually talking about the absence of internal constraints; when
talking about the absence of external constraints, the word is "freedom"
(simpliciter).

Why have two terms?  Well, consider a different case:  the guy with the
gun wants you to kill two bystanders.  He hands you a gun, warning you 
that he is the "fastest gun in the west so don't try anything dumb; now
kill those two or I'll kill you."  Still want to insist that if you
comply, it's not an act of free will?  And therefore you're not 
responsible if you kill the innocent bystanders?  I'm not trying to 
say what's right or wrong here, but I think we want to say that there is
a genuine (and hard!) CHOICE here.

So, yes, handing over your money is an act of "free will" but it's not
free (simpliciter) because of the external threat.

--Paul V Torek