appolose said:
appolose said:
I think the first result may actually not be as unfair as it seems.
While I agree that, if we assume that external factors can influence free will, a person mightmake the choice to be saved or not based on the information he is again, I do not think that means it was unfair. A Christian viewpoint of free will one might have is that, while desires or motivations can make a choice more easy or difficult, free will is ultimately responsible. That is, no matter the pressure or temptation to make a decision, a free-willed person can still go the other direction. Therefore, if someone has at least the choice to be saved available to them at all, then they have enough. That some other person might have more motivation to make the better choice does not lift responsibility from him.
|
I'll just quote myself here, for noticing sake.
|
"That some other person might have more motivation to make the better choice does not lift responsibility from him."
This is the problem I see in your argument. Why would you not judge a person who had more motivation to make the better choice differently from another person who had less motivation?
Let's say that there is a maniac holding innocent people hostage. If all one person need to do to save five complete strangers from certain death is to throw a cat off a cliff, while another person need to cut the throat of another innocent man, I would understand if only the first person would do the right thing and save as many humans as possible.
The decision was clearly tougher for the second person, and not taking the circumstances into account would be cruel.
