Closer look at Soft Libertarian-ism

Sketo

Active member
I thought this might shed some light on some very important factors of Soft Libertarian-ism! Enjoy...

How does moral accountability work with soft libertarian-ism? Some people say that you can't be blamed for doing wrong if you are unable to do good, and you can't be praised for doing good if you are unable to do bad. But if your nature restricts the scope of your options to good or to bad, then how can you be morally accountable for your actions?

Let's suppose you're in a situation where you can either choose to do X or choose to not do X. Doing X is morally obligatory, which entails that not doing X is wrong. If a person's nature constrains them in such a way that they can only do the right thing, then wouldn't that determine their choice in this case?

The reason I ask is because they define soft libertarianism as being constrained to your nature, but free within your nature. But when it comes to individual choices, it's not a matter of doing X or doing Y; rather, it's a matter of doing X or not doing X. I can see how if your nature is good, and X and Y are good, then you could choose between X and Y, but if X is good, and not-X is bad, and you had to choose between X and not-X, you'd be determined to choose X, in which case soft libertarianism seems to reduce to determinism.

I suppose you could say there are some goods that are not obligatory. Or some actions are morally neutral. For example, there's nothing wrong with playing a video game or writing a blog post, but there's also no obligation to do either. They're morally neutral. So you're free to do either. But in cases where some action is either forbidden or required, that wouldn't be the case. If it's forbidden, and your nature is to always do the right thing, then you'd be determined to choose not to do it. If it's required, and your nature is to always do the right thing, then you'd be determined to choose to do it.

So I'm not sure soft libertarianism accounts for a lot of the moral choices we have to make. If you are required to do X, and your nature is to do either right or wrong, then whether you choose X or not, you could not have done otherwise. Can a person be morally responsible for failure to do their duty if it was not within their nature to do their duty? Or can they be worthy of praise for doing their duty if it was not in their nature to refuse?

One of the objections to the notion that Jesus or God had libertarian freedom is that it entails the ability to do evil which they are unable to do because of their perfectly moral character. The fact that Jesus and God are worthy of praise even though they are unable to do evil shows that libertarian freedom isn't necessary for moral responsibility.

Soft libertarianism appears to be designed to avoid these criticisms. But I don't think it works. If we're going to say that some kind of libertarian freedom is necessary to be morally responsible, then there are a lot of things Jesus can't be praised for. The demands of the Mosaic law, combined with Jesus' perfect moral character, would've determined his choices in a lot of cases. Also, it seems that under the supposition that libertarianism is necessary for moral praise and blame, an act can only be good if one could've done otherwise, and the otherwise must be not good. How could one be worth of praise for choosing one good thing instead of another equally good thing? It seems like the instead of would have to be a bad thing or at least a less good thing. Can you imagine saying, "Oh, you are such a wonderful person because you chose to do that good thing when you could've just as easily chosen to do a different good thing"? That doesn't make sense. I would like to know from anybody who subscribes to soft libertarianism and thinks some kind of libertarianism is necessary for moral praise and blame, why does my ability to choose an equally good option instead of the one I chose make me worthy of praise? How does this improve upon a situation in which I'm determined by my moral character to choose a specific good action, and I couldn't have chosen a different action that was equally good? It seems to me, given the usual way that libertarians think of moral responsibility, I can't be praised for doing good unless I could've chosen evil, and I can't be blamed for choosing evil unless I could've chosen good. So soft libertarianism doesn't seem to solve the problems raised by compabilitists against libertarianism concerning Jesus and God's moral abilities and inabilities and their worthiness of praise.

by Sam Harper

 

TomFL

Well-known member
I thought this might shed some light on some very important factors of Soft Libertarian-ism! Enjoy...

How does moral accountability work with soft libertarian-ism? Some people say that you can't be blamed for doing wrong if you are unable to do good, and you can't be praised for doing good if you are unable to do bad. But if your nature restricts the scope of your options to good or to bad, then how can you be morally accountable for your actions?



That claim is actually false in the model of soft libertarian free will presentedd here previously

Ultimate responsibility (UR) Ultimate responsibility indicates the ultimate origin of decisions.

Agent causation (AC) A person is the source and origin of his choices.

The principle of alternative possibilities (AP) At crucial times, the ability to choose or refrain from choosing is genuinely available.

The reality of will-setting moments A person does not always have the ability to choose to the contrary. Certain free choices result in the loss of freedom.

The distinction between freedom of responsibility and freedom of integrity The Bible presents freedom as a permission (the freedom of responsibility) and as a power (the freedom of integrity).

Freedom of responsibility holds the agent remains responsible for his actions even though he may have lost freedom. Freedom of integrity is the ability to do what you know is right,. This soft model holds this may be lost while the freedom of responsibility remains (
adapted)

From Kenneth Keathley - Salvation and Sovereignty
 
Last edited:

ReverendRV

Active member
In Quantum Physics, they have a notion called 'The Cosmic Cheeseburger'; it's a simple way of describing the Multiverse. Suppose one night you were deciding whether to have Mexican food or going out for a Cheeseburger. If you chose the Mexican food, you would eat it and go home. If you chose the Cheeseburger, and met your future wife; the Choice changes your Life forever. This is how they describe the existence of multiple Universes; Choice creates different true Realities (don't ask me how, that's just what they say). That kind of Free Will causes an infinity of Realities. ~ But Quantum Theory also teaches the 'Loaf of Space-Time', which consists of the Past, the Present and the Future already in existence. If this model is correct, then there is no Free Will because the end of the Loaf of Space-Time is already baked; there is only one Universe. In that example, our Wills are both Free and they are already determined; even if they are only determined by ourselves if there is no God. ~ It pays to Know a little bit about what your Opponents believe, so you can use it against them or to your advantage. Biblically speaking, we are already seated with Christ in Heavenlies; that Loaf is Baked. You cannot, Cannot, CANNOT choose to ever Fall Away; unless you believe you can go for a Cheeseburger and meet an Atheist Apologist that changes your Life forever. In one Universe, you may have never ever believed in the first place; but isn't it true that God will lose none? So that Reality will never ever exist...
 

Sketo

Active member
Let's suppose you're in a situation where you can either choose to do X or choose to not do X. Doing X is morally obligatory, which entails that not doing X is wrong. If a person's nature constrains them in such a way that they can only do the right thing, then wouldn't that determine their choice in this case?

The reason I ask is because they define soft libertarianism as being constrained to your nature, but free within your nature. But when it comes to individual choices, it's not a matter of doing X or doing Y; rather, it's a matter of doing X or not doing X. I can see how if your nature is good, and X and Y are good, then you could choose between X and Y, but if X is good, and not-X is bad, and you had to choose between X and not-X, you'd be determined to choose X, in which case soft libertarianism seems to reduce to determinism.
So basically SLF-ism gives the illusion of “freewill”!

It has been affirmed (on this forum) by a proponent of Soft Libertarian Freewill-ism that within their MODEL God, Satan, and Man all have “freewill”!

If “set” is only sin then the set is only 1 option... sin!
If “set” is only non-sin then the set is still only 1 option... non-sin!

Consider God in SLF-ism...
If God’s “nature” and “character” limit the “sets of options” to only non-sin options then sin is not an option!
This leaves only 1 option... non-sin... but SLF-ism still calls this “freewill”!

Consider Satan in SLF-ism...
Satan’s “nature” and “character” limit the “sets of options” to only sin options then non-sin is not an option!
This leaves only 1 option... sin... but SLF-ism still calls this “freewill”!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Let's suppose you're in a situation where you can either choose to do X or choose to not do X. Doing X is morally obligatory, which entails that not doing X is wrong. If a person's nature constrains them in such a way that they can only do the right thing, then wouldn't that determine their choice in this case?

I know this was written about soft libertarianism, but I wanted to point out that in Compatibilism, it's not so much that you "cannot" choose the other alternative (as if you desired to, but were prevented), it's that you DON'T WANT TO choose the other alternative.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
So basically SLF-ism gives the illusion of “freewill”!

It has been affirmed (on this forum) by a proponent of Soft Libertarian Freewill-ism that within their MODEL God, Satan, and Man all have “freewill”!

If “set” is only sin then the set is only 1 option... sin!
If “set” is only non-sin then the set is still only 1 option... non-sin!

Consider God in SLF-ism...
If God’s “nature” and “character” limit the “sets of options” to only non-sin options then sin is not an option!
This leaves only 1 option... non-sin... but SLF-ism still calls this “freewill”!

Consider Satan in SLF-ism...
Satan’s “nature” and “character” limit the “sets of options” to only sin options then non-sin is not an option!
This leaves only 1 option... sin... but SLF-ism still calls this “freewill”!
He is not externally constrained is He ?

God cannot be evil. t is against his nature but he is free to do as he pleases
 

Sketo

Active member
He is not externally constrained is He ?
If your asking if his “will” is externally constrained... then, according to SLF-ism Yes, it is constrained by his “nature” which determines the “sets of options” for his will to choose from!
God cannot be evil. t is against his nature but he is free to do as he pleases
Because his nature determined he has no other choice!


Satan cannot be good. It is against his nature but he is free to do as he pleases

Would this also be consistent with man, if man can not be good (Total Depravity). If it is against his “nature” is he still free to do as he pleases?
 
Last edited:

CrowCross

Active member
How does moral accountability work with soft libertarian-ism? Some people say that you can't be blamed for doing wrong if you are unable to do good, and you can't be praised for doing good if you are unable to do bad. But if your nature restricts the scope of your options to good or to bad, then how can you be morally accountable for your actions?
Your post stated..."and you can't be praised for doing good if you are unable to do bad"

Do you praise God?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
If your asking if his “will” is externally constrained... then, according to SLF-ism Yes, it is constrained by his “nature” which determines the “sets of options” for his will to choose from!

That is not external
 

Sketo

Active member
Your post stated..."and you can't be praised for doing good if you are unable to do bad"

Do you praise God?
Yes! Although I think you missed the point of your quote!

Can Satan be held accountable for doing bad when he is unable to do good?

It shows the inconsistency of SLF-ism!
 

CrowCross

Active member
Yes! Although I think you missed the point of your quote!

Can Satan be held accountable for doing bad when he is unable to do good?

It shows the inconsistency of SLF-ism!

Didn't Satan when he could do good try to overthrow Gods throne? Will he be accountable for that? Are you saying Satan shouldn't be accounable for what he is currently doing?
 

Sketo

Active member
The nature is not external to the man
This is YOUR definition...
soft libertarianism contends a person’s character simply determines what sets of choices are available.
Available to what?

And if you cannot address God's freedom

Whether his “nature” allowed him to create or not create
By your own definition the “character” and/or “nature” determines the “set of options” available! In your MODEL, what are the options available to... if not to the “Will”?

I sense an error of Circular Reasoning coming!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Seriously

Your think a man's is outside himself ?

Its part of him
What I "think" is unimportant.
Just like what you "think" is unimportant.

The only thing that is important is what the BIBLE teaches.

So where were we on that Bible verse I asked for?
(Oh, that's right... You don't have one.)
Double standards much?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
What I "think" is unimportant.
Just like what you "think" is unimportant.

The only thing that is important is what the BIBLE teaches.

So where were we on that Bible verse I asked for?
(Oh, that's right... You don't have one.)
Double standards much?
I think you have lost it

The phrase itself a man's nature should give you a hint

2. natural characteristics or disposition

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 869.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I think you have lost it

The phrase itself a man's nature should give you a hint

<sigh>

More insults by you... And ZERO Biblical support for your ridiculous claims.
Maybe that's why nobody buys your worthless theology.
 
Top