Boethius View on Free Will - Essay Example

Task: Boethius view on free will Many philosophers refer to free choice of the will as the ity that humanity has to dowhat they view as most suitable and less likely to be detrimental to the principalities that govern the society. The power to choose what is most satisfactory over other forms, without preconditions from other provisions or restrictions entails a free choice of will. This power to choose the most suitable decision is dependent on the level of liberty granted to an individual (Cahn 375). Most certainly, free will is practical, and the independence of choice by people to embrace virtue is a factor reliant on the exercise of free choice of the will. The choice to do the unethical is also subject to the free will and decision of an individual. All humanity is rational, and the choice to do evil does not come from God. If humans were to follow the will of God, there would be no evil. Therefore, the presence of evil in the society emanates from the authority of humans to observe the free choice of the will. The free choice of the will of individuals may be compromised because of the desires that humans possess. The passion possessed by individuals explains their how their desires drive them to commit evil despite God’s wish for humanity to prevail. Even so, there is no connection of God with the evil and all source of evil is from free choice of the will that individuals posses. God bears no responsibility for the actions of humans. The relationship that humans have, with God, requires the need to practice virtue. God does not require humans to compromise the free choice of will to have intolerable conducts in the society. The determination of causation in humans has unlimited provisions, and understanding is of basis of establishing what is better than the other is. This entails a succinct understanding of the ability of humans to launch detailed and comprehensive inquiry in a concern or problem. The voluntary decisions of the mind render the determination of the problem causation an unlimited endeavor. The notion of necessity and causation of phenomena or a problem has virtually no end and any inquiry would turn to end at supposition (Cahn 869). The only way to determine problem causation is to bring the diverse causes to narrow positions and assume that the unit used is representative enough to believe in the cause. Determination of causation refers to the notion that every action of humans is unavoidable. Free choice of will has an effect on the determination of causation. Every event has a cause, the basis of which its necessity originates. Human actions emanate from the causes, and their fulfillment is out of free choice of the will. The causes of the various actions of humans are the necessitating factors that motivate the observance of the free choice of will. In response to the question of necessity and liberty of the mind, there is a distinct relationship between necessity and the free choice of the will. Necessity refers to the factor that adjoins the cause and the effects of a choice. Since the mind possesses the freedom of choice, liberty is a creation of necessity. It is on liberty of mind that the proof of free choice finds its basis. It entails the capacity to pursue the diverse actions we have according to the forces dictated by the will. That is, if one chooses to advance an issue, he or she enjoys the freedom. Similarly, if the same person chooses to reverse the decision, they would enjoy the same level of freedom to do so as they would to perform the contrary (Cahn 869). That would offer a ten tentative means of determining free will. Since liberty of the mind and necessity have relationships, and God has a dictation on necessity, then God has control over the liberty of the mind. If necessity was to demand evil, liberty of mind that acts on the necessity would lead to choice of the evil. The relationship between necessity and liberty of mind may be a reason for immoral conducts of humans. Ethics and religion, in any society, show relationships and tend to be complementary. Religion plays a plausible role in making the society to submit. The presence of religion in the society renders the society to embrace ethical submissions, compared to if there was no religion. The human mind and the divine mind are distinct and different based on ethical considerations. The society’s moral qualities are different from the qualities set by religions. Religion, therefore, is of a central role in shaping the ethical standards of a society (Cahn 968). The demand of free will that humanity tends to presume to possess is impractical, to some extent that the demand may be void of specificity. The demand for free will should show the definite facet of the will needed. Decisions are made based on philosophical understanding of virtue, by the decision-maker. Philosophical decisions depict the notion that an individual has on common life, and they may not be satisfactory. Free will refers to the autonomy granted by God to people to embrace what seems right for them and which can absolutely favor their preferred choice. Boethius rejects the notion of randomness since there is God in existence and who is responsible for every happening. According to Boethius, there is no belief in anything happening by chance (Cahn 419). Nothing originates from the occurrence of chances, according to Boethius. On freedom, Boethius maintains that it is a fundamental tool, on which rational nature exists. Rational nature that results from freedom does anchor independent thinking, according to Boethius. Freedom of choice is vital when making any judgment. Human souls are freest when they have the will to discriminate the different things and choose their best (Cahn 420). Anyone denied the free will is most likely to deviate from the recommended way of independent reasoning. Boethius responds to the question on foreknowledge by maintaining that God possess prior acquaintance with anything that is to happen later. Boethius disagrees with the provision that since God has the foreknowledge of every happening then humans do not have the freedom and will to resolve on anything. Boethius holds that the foreknowledge that God possesses on future events has no interference with the freedom of the will to make rational judgment, even on future events (Cahn 422). Foreknowledge has no necessity on future events. It does not influence the freedom of the will of humans and making of rational judgments. Contingent actions, according to Boethius, are things that God has foreknowledge of and cannot happen. Necessary actions are of two distinct types, conditional and simple. Simple necessary actions are those that are almost inarguable (Cahn 426). Conditional necessary actions are those that one has knowledge that someone possesses on an issue. According to Boethius, necessary actions are those that God has a view of as present, from the foreknowledge that God has. Things become contingent if, for reasons of the foreknowledge, there was no provision that it will come to existence. Boethius addressed the question on the nature of God, as well. On consolation of philosophy, Boethius holds that there exists God who manages all things and keep them in the desirable state. That all things emanate from God and nothing originates from nowhere (Cahn 419). All things have a source, and that ascertains the presence of God. God existed since ancient time and continue to determine various things in the divine world. In my view, free will entails the ability and presence of authority to decide on an action in which one has no restriction to reveres. That is, I would have done another or considered a contrary decision instead of my apparent choice and preference. In my opinion, there are chances in life. If someone sets for a journey, for instance, the journey may end as desired or not. Possibilities are that there may be instances as accidents during the journey. Assuming that it was the by the person’s true will to set for the journey, the accident would be an occurrence by chance. The free will of person would have led him to postpone, or even cancel the journey. If, as Boethius argues, God had a foreknowledge of the accident, then it affects the decision to proceed with the journey. However, Boethius argues that the foreknowledge by God does not affect the freedom of will, by any chance, even in the case of an accident. Boethius consent to the fact that God controls the world and all that in it never occurred from nowhere. The argument that the foreknowledge by God has no influence in free will is a misconception. The misconception emanates from Boethius’ claim of God’s control on all things but fails to recognize the control that God has on accidental occurrences. His notion of contingent versus necessary actions is ambiguous in several aspects. The premise that conditional and necessary actions differ based on the foreknowledge of God does not receive perfect elaboration. It is questionable that if the God has the prior knowledge that accident would occur, then the free will of the person in deciding to go for the journey is limited. Knowledge requires necessity, according to Boethius. Only God holds that necessity to have foreknowledge and, therefore, restricts the exercise of free will. A further attempt is to explain the difference between the two types of necessity, simple and conditions makes the argument unacceptable. Simple necessity has a direct relationship with nature and its conditions that seem inarguable. Simple necessity has no relationship with contingent occurrences in the future. Conditional necessity, on the other hand, has a relationship with nature but also relates to some contingent occurrence in the future. Divine knowledge creates the notion of a condition placed on a future state of occurrences. This limits the free will of choice. The approval of divine knowledge, that something is dependent on another, renders it exclusive that its occurrence is inevitable. God has a perfect knowledge on what someone would perform at a given time. Divine foreknowledge dictates that individuals do not hold any prior awareness of their deeds. On religion, the role of prayer as a determinant of human morality is invaluable. All human should engage the role of prayer in determining the level of morality that the society requires. The fact that God has foreknowledge of what would happen in the future does not affect the morality of man. Man should not do wicked things and claim the reasons for wickedness that because God had foreknowledge of his the occurrence of such wicked conducts and; therefore, man has no control. It remains unexplainable on how God can have perfect foreknowledge of future events. If God has the foreknowledge that a circumstance shall happen, then humans have limited control of the circumstance to occur. Even if, someone would take measures to counter the occurrence of the circumstance, divine knowledge would cause it to occur. This is a vast compromise on the free choice of will by humans. Man cannot fail to do something that God had foreknowledge of its occurrence. Man, therefore, has no control over the occurrence of any virtue or vice. The expression of free will is vital in initiating autonomy of thought for individuals. Autonomy of thought constitutes one of the greatest promoters of liberty and freedom. Freedom and liberty empowers the society to embrace societal ethical values. The society should support natural religion given its role in supporting ethics in the society. Human morality and natural religion are important in the society. Work Cited Cahn, Steven. Classics of Western Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing, 2012. Print. Read More