Problem with Free Will Premises

Libertarians typically have two conditions for free will. They argue that a choice must not be forced, and that one must be able to choose otherwise.

Libertarians argue that if only one choice exists (choice A), then free will is not present. If all I can choose is A, then it’s not really a choice. If, however, a second choice exists (choice B), free will is preserved, provided the choice is not forced. But this makes little sense to me. If one must be able to do otherwise, how can free will be preserved if only A and B exist as choices? Shouldn’t it follow that free will doesn’t exist unless I have choices A, B, and C? And if we believe that, where does the “otherwise” train stop? It seems that for libertarianism to uphold itself, an infinitude of options must present themselves before us.

Libertarians are stuck explaining why only two options must be present for free will to exist. If I only give you the choice to shoot yourself in the head or stab yourself in the leg, would a libertarian call that free? If I can only choose between red or blue, I’m not free to choose black. So what libertarians really mean is that free will is bound by the options that limit themselves due to intrinsic characteristics, universal properties, or external factors. Essentially, libertarians would agree that our free will is limited by the way our world was designed to work, the other agents in the system, personal characteristics, etc. That seems to be only one step removed from determinism, failing to follow the conclusion to its logical ending. The world so obviously constrains, our options are severely limited, etc.

The libertarian is essentially saying that we are free to choose, but only free to choose from the extremely limited options thrown at us, with the tools (or lack thereof) given to us. The libertarian nightmare is what we would call the “American Dream.” It’s something that is theoretically possible given the right circumstances, but nearly impossible for most. It’s not largely unattainable because the majority of people don’t want to accomplish anything or lack the values and ethic to do so. Rather, people live in a causal world where freedom is not defined by the libertarian mindset.

Not only do libertarians fall short in explaining why they aren’t consistent in enforcing their “otherwise” terms, they fall short in explaining how any action is forced. A libertarian would argue that if someone put a gun to my head and told me to hand over the money or die, my action would then be negated because I was “forced.” But unless someone takes over my mind or my muscular system, how can I be forced to do anything? Don’t I still have free will to choose whether or not to live and have money taken away from me, or die and avoid giving into a criminal? The “otherwise” is not taken away from me, so choice is still present. The only thing that is different is my disdain for the outcome of either path I select. If the libertarians are to be consistent, how can they then say that impoverished individuals have many choices in regards to morals such as stealing, prostitution, crime, etc? When I go to the bank to cash my miniscule check, I don’t really have a choice, because I truly want my check to be for 100 billion dollars. Most of us are faced with daily choices that have despised outcomes regardless of the selected path, some of these choices being quite weighty.

The same thing is true on the spiritual side. As long as two options are available, it’s impossible to be forced unless someone is controlling your body. But then if they were controlling your body, you wouldn’t really have a choice anyway. So that means if man has a nature such that he will always want to choose evil unless God pours out his grace, even though he COULD (but won’t) choose otherwise, he’s free. Libertarians think that if someone has a gun to my head, I no longer have free will. This isn’t because my mind/body has been taken over, but because they know my nature (i.e. constraints) so well, they can predict with 99% certainty how I’ll act. That’s not being forced, that’s understanding determinism accurately. Free will is slapped on things that we can’t predict with a high degree of certainty, assuming that because we don’t know why/how the decision was made, it is arbitrary or free.

What’s even more problematic for the libertarian is their hypocrisy on these points. When defending the otherwise position, they argue away the necessity for infinite possibilities by saying one has to choose from what they’re given. But when given a situation where they dislike the consequences of either limited choice, they quickly abandon their otherwise principle and say that force was involved. In summary, if the libertarians affirm force, they’re affirming causality, admitting that some stimuli are strong enough to cause us to choose a particular option. It’s as if they’re saying, “the options are so clear, you can’t help but do otherwise.” Isn’t that what determinists say? Furthermore, libertarians can’t uphold their idea of force if they modify their concept of otherwise to mean “whatever’s thrown at you.” But if libertarians don’t deny force, they realize that they are failing to explain how the world actually works. Finally, if the libertarian doesn’t modify their otherwise position, they are stuck explaining how we have free will with such limited options in front of us.

EDIT: MODERATOR: LINK REMOVED