The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination
regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion
or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary.
But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held
responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or
evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it
is believed that man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to,
and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what he
desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under his
particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong
or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had
he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note.
Supposing
the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself
because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his
will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice;
consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not
hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like
hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born,
growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.
Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but
cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and for
various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment
compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing,
shelter, etc., what is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed
his family the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if
he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil,
that he could have chosen an option which was good; in this case almost
any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it
appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three
that were available to him – so does this make his will free? It is obvious
that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is
also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if
they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the
circumstances.
In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every
moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We
cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out
our lives the best we can, or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with
this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own
desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to
employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is
absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time,
and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing
suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given
the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from
all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never
satisfied to remain in one position for always like an inanimate object,
which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment
of time or life here for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment
coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and
space called here and you are given two alternatives, either live or kill
yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are
without moving a hairs breadth by committing suicide.
“I prefer…†Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to
answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that
you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here and
prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the
motion of life which is any motion from here to there is a movement away
from that which dissatisfies, otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain
here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the
motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an
expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously
move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction.
It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at
any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life obeys this
invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices,
decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available during his lifetime
that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances.
For
example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his
benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his
motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater
satisfaction. During every moment of man’s progress he always did what
he had to do because he had no choice. There are no exceptions as you will
soon observe. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not
free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I
will elaborate.
Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which we shall
designate something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum
of your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that particular moment
of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could sway you
from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy,
given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something
considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be
possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an
alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are
they not compelled by their very nature to prefer A; and how can they be
free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of
their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction?
To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to
prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t
want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t
want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in
the direction of dissatisfaction.