Quote:
Quote by: Morality Games  The key word here, which you wisely highlighted, is 'could'. However, is 'could' a verbal illusion which reflects no truth about the actual state of things, or is it an authentic representation of the nature of reality? Namely, it is there truly capacity within the dynamic of people and their circumstances to make different decisions and perform various actions in the same situations, or is this capacity a deception built on top of a bad undestanding of metaphysics? |
I think it was Kant that played with the notion of you COULD.....but you WON'T.
Again I assert that freewill is an individual thing. What are you willing to do and what is it that you need to do.
I suppose one could argue that if I didn't like my job I could quit it. BUt then I woudln't be raking in the money that I rake in. So while I COULD quit I won't. It's not that I can't. It's that I have personally placed an obstical in the way. The need for money. Each person has their own constructs that allow or disallow them to do something. We are all driven by desire.
I think you are as free as you want to be based upon your sets of needs. I think most of us possess a series of checks and balances that help us slove what it will be that we will do. FOr example if I wanted to kill someone.....the only thing that might stop me might be the fear of getting caught. Again I COULD kill that person. I might certainyl want to but the POSSIBLE, and likely consequence justifies to me not to kill that person. For others though....it's not an issue. Perhaps their desire to say make much needed money for doign a hit on someone justifies for them a need to engage in such an act that they normally wouldn't do, but do to whatever their particular circumstances are they do it any way. Want versus need, perhaps?