Assume two persons, Jane and Joe, living in a village. Joe wants to get to destination “A” and has heard that Jane knows the way there. On asking her advice, Jane advises that the journey takes several days, and while there is one path from the village to “A”, there are many forks. Jane firmly advises that Joe take only the right forks, not the left. The right paths best lead to “A”, and while the paths to the left seem to go to the same place, she cautions him be sure to stick to the right. Joe thanks her and sets off.

Joe soon comes to his first fork in the path. The way to the left was smoother and seemed it would likely be shorter, so he ignores Jane’s advice and takes the path to the left. After a short time a tiger appears on the path from the forest. Spotting Joe, it gives chase and Joe runs, narrowly escaping, eventually making it back to the right fork path. Joes continues, but the way is uneven and difficult, with little shade, and the day is hot. At the next fork, the left again looks smooth and goes off into a lovely forest with large shade trees. He again chooses left and for a while seems to be making good time in the comfort of the forest. But after a while he runs into swarms of insects—stinging fire ants and bees, mosquitoes, gnats. After suffering a short time Joe leaves the path, exasperated, and fights his way through the forest back to the rightmost path. He sullenly continues, turning right at forks in the path for some time. Eventually, tired of the tedious roughness of the path, he eyes the left path at the next fork. It looks safe and inviting, and he sets off to the left, cautious at first, relaxing after a time when nothing happens. The path, though smooth and easy to navigate, soon leads to a hilly area where Joe is set on by thugs. He is badly beaten and robbed. Dispirited, he staggers back to the right fork path and persists doggedly, even though every path to the left continue to seem inviting. He eventually arrives at “A”, where he is surprised to find Jane waiting.

“Why didn’t you tell me the paths to the left were so dangerous?” he demanded, annoyed.

“I told you what you needed to hear, to always take the right path. Even if I had warned you the left was more dangerous, its attractiveness would have appealed to you and you would have eventually taken it anyway, as has been true of all others who asked the best way here. I designed all paths to “A”, and knew no one would chose only the right forks, so placed obstacles on the left paths which would eventually teach all to use the proper paths.”

Question: Did Jane interfere with Joe’s free will by designing impediments into the paths she knew he would take?

The answer to this question depends upon what is meant by “free will”.

Believers in libertarian free understand “free will” as the ability to choose otherwise than the agent actually chose, given the same circumstances. In the case described in the post, whenever Joe took the left path, the dangers he encountered influenced him to return to the main road and take right paths. However, he could have chosen to continue on the left paths and face the dangers. So his free will was not affected by Jane’s impediments.

Believers in compatibilistic “free will” understand that an agent is free to act if he is simply free from external coercion. But Joe was not free from external coercion to induce him to take the right paths, and so Jane’s impediments interfered with his “free will.”

Interesting. I usually think of libertarian free will in what is probably its more extreme sense, of being wholly free in any and all circumstances. I also think of myself as a compatibilist in the sense that determinism and some measure of freedom coexist. Anyway, after posting I thought about the OP some and decided I didn’t like it, doesn’t do a very good job presenting the point I was after.

Does the idea of ‘coercion’ in matters of free will require the intrusion of an external rational intelligence, or do states of affairs like mental illness, social pressures, etc. qualify?

My idea of freedom of the will in moral/spiritual matters is that the mind is in progressive regeneration being set free from hindrance to naturally chooe the only thing a mind free of encumbrance would choose–all and any goods, including the greatest good of relationship with God. I can’t get my mind around Thomas Talbot’s notion that God wears down the human will with offers to conform until he finally does. This to my thinking places man’s mind in control of salvation, not God. I also suspect it’s based on what I believe to be a traditional doctrinal error, that humans are only saved by faith in Christ. I think the offer of salvation in Christ by faith is a temporal offer which does not apply after physical death.

I’ve been struggling with this recently.

These are some of my posts from another forum, and I’d be interested in your thoughts here.

Is it necessary for a Theist to believe in libertarian freewill?

Does compatibilism lead to atheism?

I’m not sure I understand this completely, Michael. However I know what I do when I see two choices as equal. I just choose one. This puppy or that puppy? They’re both female, same size, breed, color, litter, both equally playful and friendly. I only want one. My response? I just pick one. It doesn’t matter. How is that difficult?

That said, I’m not sure there ARE any completely arbitrary choices. I probably chose the puppy I chose because it was closer to me, or because the other one jumped out of my grasp. God probably chose to make the sun rise in the east because it was better for His design. Of course maybe we call it east because it’s where the sun comes up. Otherwise how would we know? We had to call that direction SOMETHING, after all.

You said something interesting there Cindy, I just can’t put my finger on it right now.

Thank you.