[pdonis]

How does that follow from a belief that people have free will? Is it somehow impossible for people who have free will to traffic in other human beings or force them into starvation? I don't see the logic.

Of course you are implicitly accusing those who "believe in free will" of saying that being trafficked or starving are the person's own fault; but I don't see the logic of that either. There is no requirement that believing in free will requires focusing on only one person's choices. The human traffickers and the corrupt leaders who allow their people to starve are making choices too--bad ones. And part of believing that people have free will is being willing to call a spade a spade when people make bad choices.

[Layke1123]

Because believing in free will as commonly referred to means it's ok to choose not to do something about bad behavior happening in the world. It's not ok to stand by and let child trafficking happen.

[pdonis]

> believing in free will as commonly referred to means it's ok to choose not to do something about bad behavior happening in the world.

Yes, that's true. However...

> It's not ok to stand by and let child trafficking happen.

...unless child trafficking is happening right in front of you, you're not "standing by". There are a zillion bad things always happening around the world. Are we all supposed to stop all of them? And how would not believing in free will help stop all of them? I don't see how that follows at all.

Furthermore, let's say we do stop believing in free will; then what? Do we all get forced to drop everything else in our lives and go stop child trafficking? Says who? There is no way to even implement a scheme like that unless someone makes a choice and decides what needs to be stopped and tells others to go stop it. Calling this "not believing in free will" strikes me as pointless at best, and deliberate manipulation at worst.

[Layke1123]

Actually, yes, we should all stop what we are doing and fight child trafficking immediately. To argue anything else is a morally indefensible position.

Now, you might say you fight child trafficking currently because you vote for people who make the laws that say it's illegal and "dust your hands", but yet it's not enough because child trafficking still happens. At the end of the day, you are ok with child trafficking happening because, "Well, at least I choose not to traffick children, so that's enough."

[pdonis]

> we should all stop what we are doing and fight child trafficking immediately.

Are you doing that? If so, how are you posting here?

[Layke1123]

Well, I am debating against someone who claims free will is what will stop child trafficking. If I can convince you to move your position to mine, I can't influence others to also move to my position, and if all people end up viewing it similarly to me, I believe we will solve child trafficking.

[pdonis]

> I am debating against someone who claims free will is what will stop child trafficking.

I have made no such claim. I have said that, on net, a society where people's right to make free choices is respected will have less suffering and more good things than a society where it isn't. But that doesn't mean no bad things will ever happen in the former type of society. Nor is respecting others' right to make free choices the same as "free will" by itself.

If you can't see why respecting other people's right to make free choices is inconsistent with child trafficking, isn't it obvious? Child traffickers don't respect the right to make free choices of the children they traffic in. So getting more people to respect other people's right to make free choices would obviously reduce the prevalence of child trafficking.

[pdonis]

> I am debating...

And to you, this counts as stopping everything you are doing and fighting child trafficking immediately? Hm.