The problem with free will

[Michael]

How does one ensure that their free will makes the right choice? With free will, you have one cause (the agent) and 2 possible effects (choices/intentions). The only resource the cause has for making the right choice is the cause, but the cause leaves it open which effect arises. Because the cause is intrinsically the same for both choices, there is nothing the cause qua cause can do to ensure that A arises. One just exists, then sees whether a good or bad choice pops out. Put another way: the only means the agent has to reach the right end is also the means to the wrong end. There is no recourse (no way) for the agent that would guarantee the right choice arises. (It would be cheating to say the agent can guarantee the right choice by making the right choice. The means (or method) to an end (or goal) can't be coextensive with the end. If the only "way" to A depends on A coming forth in the first place, then it's a happy coincidence that it happens. From the initial state not-yet-at-A-or-B, I could find myself with B.) Or yet another way: there is nothing that can happen on the cause side (all they are) that definitively settles what newly happens on the effect side. (Die roll.)

That I have control (causal power) over my choices doesn't seem to matter if I had no say in the setup of the power. I have no control over my control. It's unpredictable: it's set on "do ?" It's blind control.

(This isn't an argument for determinism nor against free will. It's an argument against ultimate or absolute responsibility. We may "deserve" or need punishment with a view toward healing, but not retributive nor eternal punishment. This could be seen as an argument for universal salvation.)

[james03]

Free will is not random.  It means you are not coerced. 

As far as judgment, we can say one thing with certainty:  It will be at least Just.  I say at least, because there is also the Mercy of God.

[Michael]

I think it's coercive that I would deserve hell for choosing B when there's no way to ensure that I choose ¬B.

Would you choose to be born into a Catholic world, a world where you could commit mortal sin at any moment and be tortured forever? I'd pass on such a nightmare. The Church expects me to pray "Thy will be done," but I can't go along with the will to let people suffer for unpredictable, spontaneous choices.

[TerrorDæmonum]

How does one ensure that their free will makes the right choice?

Exercise reason, and then direct oneself to act in accordance with a purpose. If you act in accordance with the right purpose, you have made the right choice.

Consider your body. You can choose what you consume and whether you consume anything at all. If you want optimal health, you make one choice. If you want optimal pleasure, you make another. If you want to save money, you make one choice, but if you want to splurge, you make another.

The question then is whether man has a final end or not. Is there an ultimate purpose to our existence and if so how does one pursue it?

[Michael Wilson]

You have to include the fact of God's Universal Salvific Will into the equation. God will's all men to be saved:(I Tim. 2.3,4)

the sight of God our Saviour, [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Man on his own cannot always make the right choice; man with the aid of God's grace, can make the right choice and attain to the ultimate end for which he was created i.e. To the beatific vision.

[james03]

I think it's coercive that I would deserve hell for choosing B when there's no way to ensure that I choose ¬B.

Off on a tangent, I always find it ironic that people who supposedly oppose Divine Providence in actuality hate the idea that they have free will. 

Getting back on topic, you now have a choice.  You are an atheist.  Your atheistic beliefs are absurd and can't even give you an existence theorem for you perceiving what you are currently reading.  In fact, it can't provide an existence theorem for anything immaterial such as Information or qualia among the almost infinite examples of the immaterial world.

You are free to choose continuing in your beliefs or you can choose to believe in God.  There is no coercion upon you either way.  It is up to you.  And you will be responsible for your choice.  On Judgment Day we can say at a minimum you will be judged in Justice.  We are also hopeful for His Mercy, but Mercy is free and you have no claim on it.

[AlNg]

With free will, you have one cause (the agent) and 2 possible effects (choices/intentions).

There is a question about causality. According to the principle of causality, all events have a cause or IOW are causally determined by preceding factors. From this standpoint, our choices and actions are ultimately determined by a chain of causality, whether it be physical, biological, or environmental. Would this mean that free will is an illusion since our choice has already been determined by preceding causal factors.

[james03]

Preceding factors I imagine will be considered during judgement.

But everyone has an innate sense of right or wrong.  And if you are retarded, and don't, you can't commit a mortal sin anyway.

The internal cause of man's free will choice is man.   "Nothing is left, then, but that the man who is doing the acting is himself the principle of his own acts, and consequently has free choice."

[Jean Carrier]

How are you defining free will? The hellenistic definition was "The ability to will the Good", whereas the modern definition is typically "The ability to will" simpliciter. Naturally, depending on the definition one is using, there are huge ramifications for any discussion on Free Will (and often results in people talking past one another).

[james03]

If you understand here that every sin has a Good contained in it, either honor, pleasure, or usefulness, then the former definition.

More St. Thomas:

1. In man's activity two elements are to be found: (1) the choice of a course of action; and this is always in a man's power; and (2) the carrying out or execution of the course of action; and this is not always within a man's power; but under guidance of divine providence the project is sometimes brought to completion, sometimes not. Thus a man is not said to be free in his actions but free in his choice, which is a judgment about what is to be done. This is what the name free choice refers to.

[Jean Carrier]

If you understand here that every sin has a Good contained in it, either honor, pleasure, or usefulness, then the former definition.

More St. Thomas:

1. In man's activity two elements are to be found: (1) the choice of a course of action; and this is always in a man's power; and (2) the carrying out or execution of the course of action; and this is not always within a man's power; but under guidance of divine providence the project is sometimes brought to completion, sometimes not. Thus a man is not said to be free in his actions but free in his choice, which is a judgment about what is to be done. This is what the name free choice refers to.

I was directing the question at OP,  but St. Thomas is always good.

[Michael Wilson]

I man did not have a free will, then he would not be responsible for his actions; neither his sins or his virtues, and therefore God punishing him for the first or rewarding him for the second, would not serve any purpose; and would just be an arbitrary act on the part of God.