The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Does God force men to sin?

AC,

Why throw at the expression 'free will' altogether when it captures a real part of our experience, namely, that we are not coerced but are in some very real sense the source of our actions? Consider the following questions:

Are you morally responsible for a murder that your friend committed?

Are you morally responsible for non-culpably, accidentally tripping and knocking a child off a cliff?

If a scientist, unbeknownst to you, connected electrodes to your brain and made you "choose" to kill someone, are you morally responsible for the murder? Imagine that the scientist connected these in a way where you couldn't help but choose what he made you choose.

Now, no one with their head on straight thinks that you (or whoever) are morally responsible for these actions. Why not? Because we are only morally responsible for actions if they are in some real sense under our control. If someone takes your daughter's arm and knocks it into a lamp, thus breaking it, you don't blame your daughter. Why not? Because breaking the lamp wasn't under her control--she didn't do the action. She was coerced and not free. The action wasn't hers.

As English language users, we need to recognize that the expression we use to talk about cases like these is 'free will', and 'free will' refers to a very real part of our experience and practices of morally evaluating ourselves and others--even if we are Calvinists. If you accidentally knock a child off a cliff, you aren't responsible because you didn't freely choose to knock the child off the cliff. If you kill someone because a mad scientist kidnapped you and left you no choice (through electrodes, etc.), you aren't responsible for the killing because you didn't freely choose to kill the person. Free choices, or manifestations of 'free will', are necessary for moral responsibility for actions.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we don't hold people responsible for actions if their character wasn't so bad that they couldn't have done what was right. If a moral delinquent can't help but view pornography because he is addicted, his wife won't--and shouldn't--excuse him for it. He is blameworthy. He should have done otherwise than he did; no one coerced him into viewing pornography; he is a human capable of choosing to turn his computer off and pray, etc. As far as his character is concerned, however, he couldn't help but view the pornography because he needed God's special grace to give him a new character first. All this suggests, though, is this: As English users use the expression 'free will', it is compatible with being responsible for actions that our character makes necessary.

(NOTE: I did not say that free choices are necessary in order for someone to be morally responsible for their moral character. Anyone who believes in original sin, including MikeL I presume, must admit that we can be morally responsible for our moral character even if our character wasn't up to us.)

Regards,
John