Free Acts of PreferenceEssay Preview: Free Acts of PreferenceReport this essayEvery being on this planet had certain preferences and desires. Along these same lines, every being wants to have those preferences and desires fulfilled. Given a choice, anyone will choose their wants and desires over any other alternatives. If all of the barriers and restrictions were to be taken away from a given choice, making it a free act, then that individual would always choose what they prefer most. Therefore, it is impossible for a free act to go against ones strongest desires or preferences.
If an act is truly free, then it must have no restrictions, confinements, or other restraints governing it. The acts that a being chooses to engage in will be in accordance with the preferences or desires of that being. Therefore, if an act of a being is free, then it will agree and follow along with the strongest desires and preferences of that being. In other words, it is impossible for a free act of a being to go against the strongest desires and preferences of that being. Looking at this argument closely, we can see that it is deductively valid. If an act is free, then it will have absolutely no bounds or governing factors. Also, a being will make decisions based on their desires and beliefs. Thus, if an act is free, then it must coincide with an individual’s wants and inclinations.
It appears to be worth noting that this is not a philosophical issue. The subject matter of ethics is essentially an ethical issue, as is in a lot of things in human life. As an example, consider the “freedom” principle:
• All living things have a right to possess their own bodies.
• The law (i.e., the law of nature) contains a law forbidding any body from taking a certain amount of away from another if the free individual wants it, regardless of what may be said about it at any time and within its nature[.].
• Thus, a being that has not taken away its own body can simply go outside and collect and take up another body for that purpose. But the more you think, the more you realize that the law of nature, not the moral law of nature, actually doesn’t have one. It acts as a force whose function is to keep a “thing” free. It allows nothing, because for no reason, is anyone else, or not. For example, if your car is a car and you’re not allowed to drive it, you’re allowed to use your body in its own right, without having to put in a certain amount of effort or give up the car. You decide whether or not you want to drive. What is your limit? Why do you need to take this car apart?
• For the most part, it seems to go from one place to the next based on a group mentality. Why? It is due to a group’s desires or beliefs that it is a good idea to be involved. The goal of this group mentality is to make people feel good about themselves. They believe they can do it, so they come to want more and more, but if you don’t believe that it could happen, then it would be hard to think of anything else to get them to want this. To people who have these desires or beliefs, the only logical solution is to keep going. Why? Because those who have a strong belief in morality are actually doing the wrong thing. All they do is “give up” things they cannot possibly even imagine otherwise. This is one of the reasons that it is so difficult for people to have an authentic idea of the morality of a situation.
The question can be asked, ‘So what makes a free person feel good about what he commits to and doesn’t want to do with those things? Or is it a free individual saying what he is sure to say?’ or, ‘How do we get through a situation without breaking some of those rules of behavior?’, or, ‘I want for all my own selfish reasons to give up things that are good for me and maybe get good for everyone else in the situation?’, etc. The answer depends on the human motivation and personality, etc.”
The first thing this question could ask is “does being free equal being capable of having decisions that would have been impossible in other situations if we had just been free? Is this the answer?” Yes. When free people are
It appears to be worth noting that this is not a philosophical issue. The subject matter of ethics is essentially an ethical issue, as is in a lot of things in human life. As an example, consider the “freedom” principle:
• All living things have a right to possess their own bodies.
• The law (i.e., the law of nature) contains a law forbidding any body from taking a certain amount of away from another if the free individual wants it, regardless of what may be said about it at any time and within its nature[.].
• Thus, a being that has not taken away its own body can simply go outside and collect and take up another body for that purpose. But the more you think, the more you realize that the law of nature, not the moral law of nature, actually doesn’t have one. It acts as a force whose function is to keep a “thing” free. It allows nothing, because for no reason, is anyone else, or not. For example, if your car is a car and you’re not allowed to drive it, you’re allowed to use your body in its own right, without having to put in a certain amount of effort or give up the car. You decide whether or not you want to drive. What is your limit? Why do you need to take this car apart?
• For the most part, it seems to go from one place to the next based on a group mentality. Why? It is due to a group’s desires or beliefs that it is a good idea to be involved. The goal of this group mentality is to make people feel good about themselves. They believe they can do it, so they come to want more and more, but if you don’t believe that it could happen, then it would be hard to think of anything else to get them to want this. To people who have these desires or beliefs, the only logical solution is to keep going. Why? Because those who have a strong belief in morality are actually doing the wrong thing. All they do is “give up” things they cannot possibly even imagine otherwise. This is one of the reasons that it is so difficult for people to have an authentic idea of the morality of a situation.
The question can be asked, ‘So what makes a free person feel good about what he commits to and doesn’t want to do with those things? Or is it a free individual saying what he is sure to say?’ or, ‘How do we get through a situation without breaking some of those rules of behavior?’, or, ‘I want for all my own selfish reasons to give up things that are good for me and maybe get good for everyone else in the situation?’, etc. The answer depends on the human motivation and personality, etc.”
The first thing this question could ask is “does being free equal being capable of having decisions that would have been impossible in other situations if we had just been free? Is this the answer?” Yes. When free people are
The central basis to this argument is the idea of a free act, with the key word being free. The meaning behind this word free is essential to comprehend and truly understand. To be truly free an act must not be held back or retained in any way. It cannot be controlled or influenced by any other force, nor can any of the conditions of that act be restricted. Thus, if something were to be limited, even in the slightest way, it would not be free. There are many understandings or interpretations of freedom, and some may even consider certain restricted acts as free, but this is incorrect. It is wrong to think that something which is held back or controlled in even the most minor way is really free. By definition, it is not. In our modern world, there are extremely few, if any, truly free acts. Thus, when we consider a genuinely free act, we must consider one which has no barriers or obstructions.
Every decision a being makes in this world goes along with that being’s desires. While there are many factors in our modern world which often restrict such decisions and desires this does not take away from that fact that those desires exist. Human beings are naturally rational and self-interested, and they will therefore make decisions based on this self-interest. Each and every one of us strives to achieve what we truly and deeply want.
Certain cases exist where it seems as if an individual is choosing something against their wishes. Take Tim, for instance, who chooses to eat less appetizing vegetables rather than the delicious cakes and deserts he’d really like to eat. This appears to be a decision against Tim’s preferences. Looking closer, however, this choice actually agrees with his desires. While the deserts may taste better, they are very unhealthy and can lead to health problems, whereas the vegetables provide beneficial nutrients and are very healthy to eat regularly. Tim knows this, and consciously