DiscussMormonism.com

At what point do restrictions on people's actions crowd out the possibility for agency?

* When they're in a drug-induced coma.

More seriously, agency might be incfluenced to greater or lesser degrees based on real or perceived consequences to actions. However, when Mormons speak of agency they are generally speaking of the accountability each person has over his own thoughts and intents regardless of whether he has the opportunity to act accordingly. Circumstances certainly can influence thoughts to some degree, but I'm not convinced that it is the largest factor in influencing those thoughts.

Helping children to mature requires a balance between allwoing them to learn from their mistakes when they physically exercise their agency, and trying to discourage them from making serious mistakes in the first place. A few scraped knees probably does some good, but we don't need every kid to suffer 3rd-degree burns so they'll learn not to play with matches.

Social questions such as gay marriage are different. Currently we allow gays to exercise their agency in doing what they will behind closed doors. However, I don't see why this should be encouraged or specially recognized by the government. I don't see much of a loss of agency in the case of simply refusing to grant special governmental recognition to some human relationships. Now there may or may not be a benefit in granting such recognition, but I don't see how it's an issue of agency.


* Note: my joke at the beginning was not to suggest that homosexuals are drug-addicts. I was merely joking about my understanding of the nature of agency completely apart from the consideration of gay marriage.

The state refusing to recognize gay marriage does not prevent gays from marrying each other or having sex with each other.

bcspace wrote:The state refusing to recognize gay marriage does not prevent gays from marrying each other or having sex with each other.

Therefore, the state refusing to recognize the inalienable rights of gays to do so is either a frank denial of reality and the promise of the constitution, a purely theological driven "splinter" issue that in the end has no effect on the religious freedom of the "faithful", or a cover for the bigoted insecurities of certain groups and demographics.

Pluralistic representative state bodies are becoming convinced that there is no valid reason under their respective Constitutions for them to pursue those goals. None of them are valid goals for any federal or state government. Disenfranchising civil marriage from a steady 5% of the population based on a sexual variation that exists in all cultures, and over 1600 animal species makes no more sense than enforcing 1/2 voter status based on skin color.

Ergo, the continuing legalization that is happening.

While I would regard being voluntary a necessary property of a free choice, most LDS I've seen discuss the subject don't seem to think a free agency must be uncoerced. They are often fond of pointing out that while a person is free to chose whatever, that isn't incompatible with whatever consequences nature, us, or God places on that choice. In this sense, the rapist gives his victim a "free choice" when he puts a gun to her head. She still has the choice to have sex or take a hot lead injection to her brain. In order to deal how unfree this ultimately sounds, I've seen some more sophisticated LDS reject "free agency" for "moral agency" which just means people have an opportunity to do the right thing and be accountable for it, which isn't incompatible with being coerced into doing the right thing with threats. It provides a handy apologetic to approve of whatever threats and harsh treatment the Church is launching against people.

In any case, no Mormon is going to argue that free agency is a virtue to the point that no one should have their choices uncoerced. In short, laws that provide negative consequences for certain actions will be approved by almost all LDS. Chalk up the confusion more to how they might conceive agency more than anything.

EAllusion wrote:It provides a handy apologetic to approve of whatever threats and harsh treatment the Church is launching against people.

Because the church is known for making threats, right--at least more so than other mainstream churches such as Catholics? Is excommunication a threat? Puh-lease.

EAllusion wrote:In any case, no Mormon is going to argue that free agency is a virtue to the point that no one should have their choices uncoerced. In short, laws that provide negative consequences for certain actions will be approved by almost all LDS.

As well as by almost all people at least to some extent. Most of us don't like the idea of letting people have the freedom to put others in danger, harass them, or damage property. Most of us also think it's useful to provide incentives for good behavior such as insurance breaks for those who live a healthy lifestyle and maybe even laws to encourage the same in some circumstances (such as mandatory PE courses in school).

EAllusion wrote:Chalk up the confusion more to how they might conceive agency more than anything.

Granted, when Mormons talk about agency, we generally aren't referring to the what most people think. Perhaps we should use a different term. We aren't talking about uncoerced decisions, it's true. We are talking about personal responsibility. Someone who is coerced, does not have moral responsibility for that thing. I don't view Mormon agency as the ability to choose between dying by a bullet or getting raped. I view it as the personal responsibility I have to desire good and then to act accordingly when I have the opportunity. That responsibility cannot be removed, even at gunpoint.

asbestosman wrote:Because the church is known for making threats, right--at least more so than other mainstream churches such as Catholics? Is excommunication a threat? Puh-lease.

Since when am I comparing LDS to the Catholic Church? If this was a Catholic message board, I might have tailored my message to them. I don't find "Hey, we're no worse than the Catholics" to be an awesome defense.

As well as by almost all people at least to some extent. Most of us don't like the idea of letting people have the freedom to put others in danger, harass them, or damage property. Most of us also think it's useful to provide incentives for good behavior such as insurance breaks for those who live a healthy lifestyle and maybe even laws to encourage the same in some circumstances (such as mandatory PE courses in school).

I'm not sure if I agree with the latter, but sure, virtually all of us think there are morally proper times to coerce others. I don't harbor any beliefs about the virtue of free will that would incline me to think otherwise.

I don't view Mormon agency as the ability to choose between dying by a bullet or getting raped.

I'm saying that most Mormons I've seen discuss the subject describe "free agency" in such a way that this situation is included. It usually comes up in the context of trying to reconcile a God who coerces people, sometimes brutally, into certain choices with the notion that this same God finds "free agency" to be a desirable thing. It gets even more muddled if they argue that God desires people's freedom to choose certain actions so much that he won't act to prevent people from causing suffering lest he interfere with those choices.

I view it as the personal responsibility I have to desire good and then to act accordingly when I have the opportunity. That responsibility cannot be removed, even at gunpoint.

That's a shame, depending on what you mean. Many of us understand, myself included, that our responsibility for our choices is mitigated by things like being coerced into those choices. For instance, if I thought it wrong to have sex before marriage, which I do not, I still would not think a person to have engaged a moral wrong if they choose to have sex over the bullet to the head.

For what it is worth, I think the LDS notion of "agency" evolved out of a relatively simple concept about being able to choose one's religion freely. The various definitions we might discuss have evolved out of trying to carve out a coherent space for how the term is used in the context of the rest of the ideas the Church gets behind. That's more about trying to come to terms with thinking free will in the traditional sense the bees knees with being a rather authoritarian organization.

EAllusion wrote:I don't find "Hey, we're no worse than the Catholics" to be an awesome defense.

Very well, ignore the comparison to Catholics. Do you think the church harasses and or threatens critics? Do you consider excommunication to be harassment or a threat? In my eyes, excommunication only has power over believers, but if one believes, he or she would probably wish to willingly bring himself or herself in line with the church.

That's a shame, depending on what you mean. Many of us understand, myself included, that our responsibility for our choices is mitigated by things like being coerced into those choices. For instance, if I thought it wrong to have sex before marriage, which I do not, I still would not think a person to have engaged a moral wrong if they choose to have sex over the bullet to the head.

I agree with you there. My point was that bullets don't suddenly make one wish to do evil. Nor do bullets excuse anything except that which is related to the threat. If one is coerced at gunpoint to have sex outside of marriage, one would not be excused for then brutally killing an innocent bystander if there was no coercion involved for that. Furthermore as Mormons we do believe in "thought sins" as it were or rather that we will be judged not only for our actions, but our desires.

asbestosman wrote:* When they're in a drug-induced coma.

More seriously, agency might be incfluenced to greater or lesser degrees based on real or perceived consequences to actions. However, when Mormons speak of agency they are generally speaking of the accountability each person has over his own thoughts and intents regardless of whether he has the opportunity to act accordingly. Circumstances certainly can influence thoughts to some degree, but I'm not convinced that it is the largest factor in influencing those thoughts.

Helping children to mature requires a balance between allwoing them to learn from their mistakes when they physically exercise their agency, and trying to discourage them from making serious mistakes in the first place. A few scraped knees probably does some good, but we don't need every kid to suffer 3rd-degree burns so they'll learn not to play with matches.

Social questions such as gay marriage are different. Currently we allow gays to exercise their agency in doing what they will behind closed doors. However, I don't see why this should be encouraged or specially recognized by the government. I don't see much of a loss of agency in the case of simply refusing to grant special governmental recognition to some human relationships. Now there may or may not be a benefit in granting such recognition, but I don't see how it's an issue of agency.


* Note: my joke at the beginning was not to suggest that homosexuals are drug-addicts. I was merely joking about my understanding of the nature of agency completely apart from the consideration of gay marriage.

You're right -- my connection only makes sense if obtaining a gay marriage is sinful in and of itself, or if the Church was ever in favor of anti-sodomy laws.

EAllusion wrote:While I would regard being voluntary a necessary property of a free choice, most LDS I've seen discuss the subject don't seem to think a free agency must be uncoerced. They are often fond of pointing out that while a person is free to chose whatever, that isn't incompatible with whatever consequences nature, us, or God places on that choice. In this sense, the rapist gives his victim a "free choice" when he puts a gun to her head. She still has the choice to have sex or take a hot lead injection to her brain. In order to deal how unfree this ultimately sounds, I've seen some more sophisticated LDS reject "free agency" for "moral agency" which just means people have an opportunity to do the right thing and be accountable for it, which isn't incompatible with being coerced into doing the right thing with threats. It provides a handy apologetic to approve of whatever threats and harsh treatment the Church is launching against people.

In any case, no Mormon is going to argue that free agency is a virtue to the point that no one should have their choices uncoerced. In short, laws that provide negative consequences for certain actions will be approved by almost all LDS. Chalk up the confusion more to how they might conceive agency more than anything.

Yeah, it seems that LDS think of "agency" as synonymous with "free will". I'm not sure that I agree with that.

Interestingly, they also seem to conceive of it as related to political freedom, too:

The first basic principle is agency. The central issue in that premortal council was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed Him stood for the former proposition—freedom of choice; Satan stood for the latter—coercion and force.

The war that began in heaven over this issue is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality. And one of Lucifer’s primary strategies has been to restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments.

Look back in retrospect on almost six thousand years of human history! Freedom’s moments have been infrequent and exceptional. We must appreciate that we live in one of history’s most exceptional moments—in a nation and a time of unprecedented freedom. Freedom as we know it has been experienced by perhaps less than 1 percent of the human family.

-Ezra Taft Benson

This connection between the inspiration of the Constitution and agency doesn't work if we're not talking about substantial political freedom. In this light, attempts to outlaw immorality should be seen as contradictory to popular interpretation of Mormon doctrine.