Some people say that free will is necessary for love.
Some say that free will is necessary for any moral actions to have worth, to have value, to be "good".
What's the logic? They say, well what's the value of your moral action if you weren't even capable of immoral action? You're just an automaton.
What I gather is the real existence of a risk to not do the right thing is what gives meaning to the choice of doing the right thing.
It sounds fine and dandy and extremely intuitive. But I don't know if I can buy such a view.
I was in the church office today talking with my pastor and we just went on the inevitable topic and predestination yada yada. I was surprised that he didn't rush it down. He didn't even so much as to say that I was wrong. He just commented on some general problems a Calvinist would run into, and he listened patiently when I took my turn to take a dump on arminianism.
And then we went onto this topic, on automatons, free will and the worth of moral actions.
I posed him this challenge. I asked him if the possibility of doing evil was giving worth to our choice against moral evil, how then do we go about giving value to God's moral actions?
It is not even possible for God to do evil. His attributes constrain Him from doing so. Will we say that He is an automaton though, since his attributes so decisively direct the things He does? Will we say that His moral actions are of no value since He is not even remotely at risk of doing evil?
If we wouldn't then why would we demand the same for Man? Can't we just say that it is right just because God says it is?
No comments:
Post a Comment