Definition of Free Will

I have yet to encounter a philosophical argument against libertarian free will that does not commit a straw man fallacy. The error usually occurs when an opponent of libertarian free will tries to give some sort of exhaustive definition of libertarian free will. After giving the definition, they will then attack it for being unintelligible or incoherent. This very line of reasoning is fallacious. Here's why:

Some terms can be defined exhaustively. A circle, for example, can be defined exhaustively as a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center. There is nothing more to a circle than that. Other terms, such as time, liberty, knowledge, and cause, have resisted all attempts for philosophers to give an exhaustive definition. Sure, they can be defined, but we generally do not know them through their definition. We can pick out instances of these things, even if we cannot give a complete definition of such terms. Free will is like that. We acknowledge it every time we give a person praise or blame for their actions, and every time we hold someone morally accountable, such as in a trial. Hence, these terms can only be given loose or general (non-exhaustive) definitions. Here are such definitions for free will and libertarian free will.

Free will: the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibility.

Libertarian Free Will: Non-deterministic free will.

Any other definition for either of these terms is a straw man fallacy. Once we acknowledge these definitions, however, the entire philosophical case against the coherence of free will disappears.

Compatibilism and Divine Determinism

The Consequence Argument is one of the main reasons that compatibilism (the idea that determinism and free will are compatible) is almost dead in the realm of philosophy. Here is a simple, non-technical version of the argument. Let's assume determinism is true:

1. No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature (and perhaps the decree of God).
2. No one has power over the fact that the facts of the past and the laws of nature (and perhaps the decree of God) entail every fact of the future (i.e., determinism is true).
3. Therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future.

This argument has nearly killed compatibilism, because without being able to assert that we have power over the future, a compatibilist has no basis upon which to draw a distinction between a free act and an unfree act.

Hence, divine determinism is not compatible with free will.

Psychology and Autopilot

People misunderstand Psychology and Neuroscience, thinking that it shows human behavior to be deterministic. We make thousands of decisions each day, such as whether to start walking with the left or right foot. We put most of these decisions on autopilot. What Psychology and Neuroscience do is help us understand how this autopilot works.

A Fun Platitude

When the going gets difficult, the difficult get going.

Customer Service

At our organization, we give customers better than they deserve.

Anti-Poverty Social Programs

In Ronald Nash's book Poverty and Wealth, he gives statistics on the per capita expense of United States anti-poverty programs.

In 1982, the total U.S. welfare bill at all levels of government (federal, state, and local) came to 403 billion dollars. If we take figures from the Bureau of the Census (August 1984) which state that the number of people living in poverty in the U.S. was 15.2 percent of the population, or 35.3 million people, an amazing fact emerges. Had we simply divided the 403 billion dollars this nation spent on poverty at every level of government among the estimated number of poor people, each poor person could have received $11,133. For a family of four, this would have totaled $44,532. Since the official poverty level per family for that year was $9,287, it is clear that America's fight against poverty involves enormous overhead costs. Most of the tax dollars collected to fight poverty end up, Thomas Sowell notes, "in the pockets of highly paid administrators, consultants, and staff as well as higher-income recipients of benefits from programs advertised as anti-poverty efforts." Clearly, the bucket used to carry money from the pockets of the taxpayer to the poor is leaking badly. Many think the real beneficiaries of liberal social programs are not the poor and disadvantaged but the members of the governmental bureaucracy who administer the program.

Today's statistics are not much different. $591 billion per year (on the Federal level alone) spent on 39.8 million impoverished equates to $14,849 per person, or $59,396 for a family of four. We spend a lot of money on anti-poverty programs, and it sure isn't helping.

Explaining the United States Debt Limit

Our country is going through a crisis right now, going even deeper into debt. This video helps to explain just how we got into this situation, and how we might be able to get out.