Well, the scriptural gods have meddled plenty in human affairs.
On that account it's not like they don't interfere.
Actually, some of the interference has been quite severe.

My argument is that we don't really value the free will to commit certain evils, nor do we consider having such free will a good thing. What we value is the free will to do non-evil things, and we're worried that some people would like to constrain us from living how we like, when it doesn't involve committing those evils. — Marchesk

Well sure, that's why we have a justice system. But you really want an omnipotent dictator to make the decision about what you are allowed to be free to do ... if that's not already contradictory?

Well sure, that's why we have a justice system. But you really want an omnipotent dictator to make the decision about what you are allowed to be free to do ... if that's not already contradictory? — unenlightened

If it stops genocide without impinging on other freedoms, then absolutely.

That 'if' just means you want to be the omnipotent dictator.

That 'if' just means you want to be the omnipotent dictator. — unenlightened

Why would it need to be me? I'm guessing 99% of the world would rather genocide never occurred again.

Could we define "free will"?

Could we define "free will"? — Chany

In context of the FWD, that would be libertarian free will. Lucifer, Adam & Eve, Ted Bundy, etc could have done otherwise.

Okay, also, is the problem of evil being presented the logical one (God's existence is incompatible with evil; God and evil are like square and circle and cannot be put together) or the evidential one (evil provides such a case against God that we are justified in saying God does not exist, though we leave the possibility of God open)?

Why would it need to be me? — Marchesk

Because 99% would add in other things like tax dodging, queue-jumping, petty theft, flaming, driving without due care and attention, fracking, dropping litter, and so on.

Also, I think that 1% would have difficulty committing genocide; it generally takes a lot of people working together.

Because 99% would add in other things like tax dodging, queue-jumping, petty theft, flaming, driving without due care and attention, fracking, dropping litter, and so on. — unenlightened

But presumably God or a super AI would be able to draw the line such that we meaningfully had free will while not permitting the worst evils?

That is what we wish the world could be like. We want to be free, but we don't want people to be free to kill or enslave us, nor do we expect ourselves to be free to do those things (hopefully).

But what's really being argued is that God values free will at the cost of permitting various evils to exist. It's not a matter of weighing goods, it's a matter of weighing the good of free will over permitting evil. — Marchesk

Is love possible without free will? If not, could the possibility of love perhaps be a good that far outweighs the cost of permitting evil and suffering? Would not an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being know the true answers to these questions and act accordingly?

Is love possible without free will? If not, could the possibility of love perhaps be a good that far outweighs the cost of permitting evil and suffering? — aletheist

Is love a freely willed choice, though? Do you get to choose who you love, who you hate, and who you're indifferent too? I have my doubts.

Let's say it is necessitated by having free will. Does that mean free will to do anything, or just free will to love?

I certainly don't love everyone, but I also don't commit terrible crimes against anyone, although surely my character would be improved by having more empathy. I'm not seeing that my free will to love needs the ability to murder to exist.

But presumably God or a super AI would be able to draw the line such that we meaningfully had free will while not permitting the worst evils? — Marchesk

Maybe She has. "Fuck yourselves up as much as you like, in your solar playpen, but the rest of the universe is on a high shelf 'til you grow up."

I certainly don't love everyone, but I also don't commit terrible crimes against anyone, although surely my character would be improved by having more empathy. I'm not seeing that my free will to love needs the ability to murder to exist. — Marchesk

Perhaps a tangential issue, but assuming that one's character is not a choice (I can't choose to be the kind of person who desires to harm others), and assuming that this does not conflict with having free will, the question becomes "why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God create people of bad character?". The free will defence doesn't seem to work here.

"why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God create people of bad character?" — Michael

How fortunate it is, (unless it is God's will), that we philosophers are all of good character and do not have murderous and violent desires.

Is love a freely willed choice, though? Do you get to choose who you love, who you hate, and who you're indifferent too? I have my doubts. — Marchesk

Really? It seems obvious to me that love, hate, or indifference is always a choice that we make. Jesus taught that we should choose to love everyone - even our enemies. It is a mistake to treat love as merely an emotion that comes and goes; in fact, it is an explicit commandment: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27)

Let's say it is necessitated by having free will. Does that mean free will to do anything, or just free will to love? — Marchesk

How could someone have genuine free will to love, while having no genuine free will in any other respect?

I'm not seeing that my free will to love needs the ability to murder to exist. — Marchesk

Having free will to love entails having the ability to hate. "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 3:15)

Really? It seems obvious to me that love, hate, or indifference is always a choice that we make. — aletheist

It's not a choice I make.

Jesus taught that we should choose to love everyone - even our enemies. — aletheist

He did, and it's noble and all, but I don't see how it works in the real world. I'm very suspicious of anyone who claims to love everyone.

is a mistake to treat love as merely an emotion that comes and goes; in fact, it is an explicit commandment: — aletheist

I don't know how you can choose to love anyone. You either do your you don't. It can be a process, but it's not something you can force. Sure, I can act as if I love someone, out of duty, or because I think society requires it, or because my religion demands it, but that doesn't mean I actually love them.

I don't see how you can divorce love and hate from feeling. Imaging telling a loved one that you brought them a gift because it was your duty.

How could someone have genuine free will to love, while having no genuine free will in any other respect? — aletheist

I didn't say we couldn't have free will in other aspects, just not free will to do terrible things like murder. But I don't think that love has much to do with free will.

However, that's a different discussion.

Yes, or even testosterone and so on.

Creating conscious agents with testosterone and then falling back on free will is like giving toddlers hand guns and then falling back on the constitution.

I don't know how you can choose to love anyone. — Marchesk

I choose to love my wife, even in those moments when I do not like her very much, and she does the same. That is what keeps our marriage intact. Wrongly thinking that love is merely an emotion is one reason why there are so many divorces these days.

Sure, I can act as if I love someone, out of duty, or because I think society requires it, or because my religion demands it, but that doesn't mean I actually love them. — Marchesk

Right - you actually love someone only if you freely choose to do so. And obviously we are not talking about romantic love here (eros), but self-sacrificing love (agape) - putting the interests of others ahead of our own.

I don't see how you can divorce love and hate from feeling. Imaging telling a loved one that you brought them a gift because it was your duty. — Marchesk

Why would you think that feeling and duty are the only possible motivations for bringing someone a gift?

But I don't think that love has much to do with free will. — Marchesk

That explains why you are having so much difficulty with the free will defense. The typical argument is not that free will itself is a good that outweighs the resulting evil, but that free will is a prerequisite for love, which is a good that outweighs the resulting evil.

Right - you actually love someone only if you freely choose to do so. And obviously we are not talking about romantic love here (eros), but self-sacrificing love (agape) - putting the interests of others ahead of our own. — aletheist

I'm all in favor of free will, but I don't think we just freely choose to love anyone, whether that love be eros, agape, or philia. What we can will ourselves to do is remove inhibitions to agape, for instance, and we can will ourselves to act out agape until we feel agape. We can decide to seek out the teaching of agape, and so on. One use of the word 'grace' covers that inability to will unconditional love. Sometimes (through the good offices of our limbic system or grace) we do feel unconditional love for others, but we definitely didn't just decide to feel that way.

What prevents us from willing love? Love originates in the systems of the brain where will has little sway. The exercise of will can prevent us from acting on our feelings, but it is practically unable to prevent feelings (emotions) from arising.

I think the claim that we can choose who to love is as mistaken as the claim that we can choose who to be attracted to.

think the claim that we can choose who to love is as mistaken as the claim that we can choose who to be attracted to. — Michael

It would be nice if we could will ourselves to love the people we don't love. But it seems the best we can do is choose to act humanely toward them, despite not loving them, because we want them to do the same to us.

Maybe the Buddhists have gone a bit farther here with cultivating empathy?

The exercise of will can prevent us from acting on our feelings, but it is practically unable to prevent feelings (emotions) from arising. — Bitter Crank

As I said before, love is not a matter of feelings (emotions). Otherwise, the exhortation to love our enemies would be absurd.

I think the claim that we can choose who to love is as mistaken as the claim that we can choose who to be attracted to. — Michael

Love is not a matter of attraction, either.

But it seems the best we can do is choose to act humanely toward them, despite not loving them, because we want them to do the same to us. — Marchesk

Choosing to act humanely toward them is choosing to love them - especially if we do so not because we want them to do the same to us, but simply because they are our fellow human beings.

Choosing to act humanely toward them is choosing to love them - especially if we do so not because we want them to do the same to us, but simply because they are our fellow human beings. — aletheist

So I act well toward person A because I really like them and enjoy their company and value them as a person. But I act well toward person B (okay maybe just passably well) because they are human, and I wish them to do the same for me, but I can't stand them.

How is it that I love person B?

How is it that I love person B? — Marchesk

Precisely by choosing to act well toward that person, despite your negative feelings about him/her, rather than simply acting in accordance with the latter.

Precisely by choosing to act well toward that person, despite your negative feelings about him/her, rather than simply acting in accordance with the latter. — aletheist

I don't consider that to be love, but it's a semantic disagreement. I don't think something can be love if it's absent the feeling. I understand that people don't always feel love toward each other, but can still act in a loving way. I would consider that faking it to keep the relationship going, because the bond exists from a feeling of love enough of the time.

Humans are imperfect lovers. We don't always love the people we're friends, family, lovers with.

I think Jesus had to command that because humans don't always love. Otherwise, it would just happen.

The free will defense is highly questionable for a number of reasons.

First, it rests on three key points:

1) Libertarian free will exists.

2) Libertarian free will is, in some way, a necessary condition for moral responsibility.

3) Libertarian free will and moral responsibility are always worthwhile and outweigh the negatives it produces.

All three are questionable, especially the first two points.

Second, there is always the possible world that J.L. Mackie describes: beings who, through their own free will, always choose to do good. If Mackie's world is possible and God can create this possible world, then the free will defense fails. I know the response is to say God cannot actually create this world and that it is up to the agents within the world to make it happen, but I do not see how, without claiming that God cannot have foreknowledge of the actions of free creatures, one can avoid God's ability to foresee which possible world contains no moral evil and create that world. There is an interesting discussion, one that I have never personally seen discussed, about God's responsibilities and morality if God cannot know the actions of free agents ahead of time, as God effectively would be creating the world blind.

Third, the free will defense, at best, can only explain evils caused by human agents. Free will might be able to work for the logical problem of evil in this regard, but unless you want to commit to a metaphysical reality in which every natural disaster is the result of decisions made by angelic beings, then natural evil and evils that are not the result of guilty agents creates problems.

I don't think something can be love if it's absent the feeling. — Marchesk

Again, that explains why you are having so much difficulty with the free will defense.

Humans are imperfect lovers. We don't always love the people we're friends, family, lovers with. — Marchesk

I would never argue otherwise.