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