Sometimes one is compelled to be conscientiously free as thousands of choices need be made continuously for-oneself. It is a hard thing to say, for example, that one is not free taking a small skiff miles through wind, cold water and large waves from variable directions Sometimes one survives because one is free rather than an automaton wondering if one has free will.
Each of thousands of free will decisions are then not actual decisions because there is a meta-decision negating the choices in a post hoc ergo propter hoc sort of way?
Each of those ‘contingent’ decision are reactions to emergent challenges of waves and wind.
Choices must be made that are the best among dozens of possible courses to take in response to the waves and position of the skiff and each of those choices are made with self-aware free will.
The choices are not made by the general present motivation of survival. Survival compels decisions to be made yet does not make them itself Instead they are specific decisions not made by an overall survival requisite although that is a present motivation.
Best choices are made by evaluating options among potential courses logically, instantaneously for hours.
Though one strengthens legs it is free will that chooses how to use them. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies are common misunderstandings… after this therefore because of this.
Legs enable one to walk, or ride a bike, make karate kicks or climb Mt Everest yet they do not compel one to do so.
Regard politicians that don’t believe in free will and further that their minds don’t really exist except as delusions so 37 trillion dollars of public debt is only an illusion too.
Thought isn’t something like a feedback loop with inflexible conditioned beliefs about percepts and the complete complex of compresence such that ratiocination is impotent and controlled deterministically. I am surprised that people would like to believe the subconscious makes all of the decisions and that intentional and extensional thought in consciousness are non sequiturs.
For those that believe in evolution or God they should not wager that God or evolution has made a self-deluding mind for humanity. Quite the opposite; a humans mind is the tip of the spear of reason seeking to realize itself in history. Conscious thought is sharply presented to comprehend mind and its place in nature. And for believers God said early on that humanity had become like little gods after eating of the tree of knowledge. Humanity my find ways to dumb themselves down, yet that’s not a good idea at all.
A society where many people hold such irresponsible beliefs probably would be doomed to fail since the populous believe their intentional thought is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. A political party of such would be like Democrats without even trying.
Some would vigorously defend the proposition that mankind doesn’t have free will. Slaves don’t have free will in a political sense yet may be free in a Christian context of free will with The Lord Jesus even so.
Some mean that human thought is not free and is entirely deterministic. I believe that was B.F. Skinner’s opinion in behaviorism. They tend to regard conscious volition as presenting an illusion of free will. Dictatorships would love the masses to believe they have no will of their own and only a dictator- a Leviathan has free will in a Superman paradigm ala Nietzsche.
The need to defend against free will moral, political and social self-determination tends to run strong through the Democrat Party.
Post-modernism did lead to a compilation of skepticism and moral relativism in various elites while some of the urban masses packed into the feelies social environment of Huxley were willing to dispense of their will and even mind with dope to love the one their with in a physicalist sense, with an ecstasy pacifier hanging round their neck and a little silver coke spoon in a pocket. They hated the idea of sin existing to disturb their dogmatic slumber.
Philosophy is not about ad hominems. Rational discussions cannot be advanced with personal attacks. Political philosophy does not require that one switch to political ad hominem mode. The consequences of a political party that has advanced post modernist moral relativist positions going so far as to say that truth is completely subjective and applies that sort of outlook to the national political system can have devastating practical consequences.
Philosophy is not about ad hominems. Rational discussions cannot be advanced with personal attacks. Political philosophy does not require that one switch to political ad hominem mode. So you accept that free will does exist. Good. That is the point of the OP- to confirm or deny the point. The consequences of a political party that has advanced post modernist moral relativist positions going so far as to say that truth is completely subjective and applies that sort of outlook to the national political system can have devastating practical consequences.
The competition for political power is strong. Those that have no concern about reality in politics and only about subjective concerns like abortion, homosexuality and legal dope disregard real economic challenges and other interests that should be of concern for a democracy. Democrat politicians seem to be concerned mostly with enriching themselves. That party forgot largely about environmentalism and peace the past four years. There were thousands of ways to get the environmental bill passed while Democrats had both houses of congress if they actually cared about the external world. Democrats did not protest the Ukraine war or find a way to settle that land dispute nor even express an interest in doing so. The default from the abandonment of reality in politics leads to plutocracy or worse. I am a political independent and support quality ideas for political planks in the real world. The inward subjectivism of atheist, hedonist post modernism seems to drive people away from concerns about the real empirical world where everyone exists. That is one of the reasons why I am unhappy with that trend since it leaves politics to the rich since they are concerned about reality. Democracy in the blind trust of the rich doesn’t make for a great country, yet it is better than just letting it fall apart going to seed.