Who has more freedom - a 6-year old with terminal cancer or a 6-year old without terminal cancer?I believe that you have the answer to these questions.
Who has more freedom - a woman currently being raped or a woman not currently being raped?
Who has more freedom - a man paralyzed from the waist down or a man not paralyzed from the waist down?
Who has more freedom - the woman who can instantly teleport to any location she desires or the woman who cannot instantly teleport to any location she desires?
Who has more freedom - the human being constrained by the laws of physics or the omnipotent god unconstrained by the laws of physics?
I will have to underline some of the facts that you might have oversee.
a woman currently being raped is raped by someone who exerted his free will.
First of all, you skipped the 6-year old with terminal cancer example. I'm sure you have a valid reason for doing so.
Secondly, yes. And he is impeding
the woman's free will. She has less free will
, and god apparently doesn't really care
Besides that, what would be wrong with, at the very moment
the rapist commits to the act...or, hell, even 100ms after he commits to the act and begins causing harm...why wouldn't god just sorta *poof* the rapist away? The rapist made and was able to fully decide to act
to commit rape
. Why bother continuing letting the woman suffer (during the act and for the rest of her life thereafter
) beyond that?
Teleportation and defying the laws of physics have not been invented yet, but we are getting there.
And you dismiss the question with this answer. I'm beginning to suspect that this is intentional on your part. The point of the question is to get you to better clarify this 'free' thing you're talking about. You're using it in a very open-ended manner, and as best as I could tell initially you're referring to 'free' as 'ability to choose to do something - or think something, believe something'. But essentially 'free' to 'do'. But I don't think that's what you mean. Well, I don't think so, because otherwise the obvious answer to this question is that the woman who has the ability to instantly be where she wants to be has many, many more options that she can 'do' over the woman who cannot teleport. The former woman is free
to decide to be on the surface of Neptune. The woman who cannot teleport is severely constrained
in doing that. At best she can decide to want to go, but she cannot
. She is barred
from being on the surface of Neptune. Teleportation woman is not
barred from being on the surface of Neptune - she could be there if she wanted to
So I think you need to better explain what you mean by 'free'.
As an aside, I would like to point out that humanity has yet to succeed in defying the laws of physics. We merely exploit
them. So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that time when we defy the laws of physics. Perhaps you mean when we get a better
understanding of the laws of physics, possibly displacing some of our current
understanding of the laws of physics making possible that which we previously thought was not.
The sick and the ill of our society are the results of others (or themselves) free will that has been exerted. (the terminal cancer women smoke cigarette for example or might have eaten cancer food, the paralyzed jumped from the third floor or might have been pushed from there...etc)
I have to believe that you recognize that misfortune befalls those that do not 'egg it on'. You know, like birth defects and the like. I mean, do you recognize that misfortune happens like that, or do you actually believe that everyone is in some way responsible for the bad crap that happens to them? Because - no sh*t - that's some massive lack of empathy and compassion.
Perhaps you need to be more explicit in what you mean by 'free'. I hope this will help understand what I mean by free will.