Distinguish between reason and will

The moral person is endowed with an intellect and will. The "will" is what "disposes" what the "the intellect proposes." Reason conducts the study, research, investigation, and fact-finding. It uses logic, the principle of Consistency, and avoids fallacious reasoning to come up with a truthful and accurate proposition. In a research study, the product or work of reason is the body of facts gathered, organized, synthesized, and evaluated. The job of the will is to make a decisive conclusion. The will is the faculty of the mind that is associated with decision-making. It's the one that says yes or no. This author says this, that author says that all others are saying the same thing. Now, decide with your will what you yourself should say or think. 

Decision making which is an activity of the will can be developed. Early in life, like children, one should already be given the opportunity to exercise his will, like being trained to make choices from alternative. Do you want to eat or not? Rice or bread? Coffee or tea? This is true of societies where a culture of choice give opportunities for the development of the will. A culture of spoon-feeding does not develop the will. Banking education, a method of teaching where the teacher simply deposits facts and concepts and withdraws the same period during quizzes and tests without encouraging the students to think and reflect, does not promote the development of the will.

Jean Paul Sartre, the French Philosopher, and the most existentialist was popular saying that an individual person is nothing until he/she starts making decisions. What ultimately constitutes who a person is are his/her decisions. The essence of being a person equals his/her bundle of decisions. Apparently, the mark of the maturation of culture is manifested through the development of a culture of moral strength or virtue or will power or its free will. "Free virtue, or will Wil is the "capacity of rational a course of action from agents to choose among various alternatives." 

Free will is the ability to choose between different actions unimpeded, the possible courses of power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. It is the power of self-determination. When the will is free, there is freedom.

To Hornedo (1972), the stuff of the freewill is a multi-dimensional power, energy, or strength. One is free to the degree that has energy, that is, physically free to the degree that he is physically strong, and so on.

Emphasis is made on what freedom is, and not on what it is not. To say that one is free when there is an absence of an obstacle is to give a picture of a weak person who cannot walk to get out of his room despite an open door. Freedom must not only be understood as the absence of obstacles, it must be an autonomous energy. It is useless talking about being free to move, and walk if you have not strength to move or walk. It is useless saying you are free to go to Manila by bus, if you have no money for your fare. Freedom implies power, energy, strength in all human dimensions, as the stuff of freedom. A free person is one who is physically healthy and strong, psychologically normal, financially stable. It is useless shouting in the streets for "economic freedom" if one is economically weak. In terms of morality, moral strength is moral freedom. Morally strong people would not allow a tyrant to thrive or last long. In the words of Jose Rizal is the statement, "There can be no tyrants where there can be no slaves."

The Courage To Be

"Purity of heart is to will one thing," says Kierkegaard. But to "will one thing" needs courage. According to Paul Tillich (1952), (C)ourage is self-affirmation 'in-spite-of, that is in spite of that which tends to prevent the self from affirming itself." Courage is "the affirmation of being inspite of non-being" This implies affirming, accepting oneself inspite of one's defects, lack, or imperfections, affirming the world we live in inspite all that it lacks. In specific terms, courage is affirming, allowing the drug addict or drug dependent to live in spite of his drug addiction. "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." Courage is not giving up because of setbacks and failures. It is keeping right on keeping on. In politics, courage is affirming or accepting one's people in spite of their ignorance, and poverty. Political will means the courage to promote the greatest good of the greatest number in spite of their selfishness, greed, and unruly behavior. Commitment, engagement, fidelity, and authentic existence are all forms of "affirmation of being inspite of non-being," Courage is affirming the world in spite of its tragedies. The last line in Desiderata says it so, "(w)ith all its sham, drudgery and broken arms, it is still a beautiful world.

1.St Paul said: "I know the good to do but why is it that I do the opposite of the good that I know?"

a) Do you experience the same? Does this mean unity of the intellect and will or lack of unity?

b) For individual persons to be truly moral, how should their intellect and the will function?

2. When is a person said to be weak-willed? Would you consider Governor Pontius Pilate weak-willed? Why?

3. Interpret Robert Frost's immortal lines in the context of making moral decisions.

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

4. Relate Kierkegaard's "purity of heart is to will one thing," Paul Tillich's "courage is self-affirmation 'in-spite-of, and Hornedo's stuff of free will as a multidimensional matter to leading a moral life.

CHECK FOR UNDERSTANDING 

1. Distinguish the roles of intellect and free will.

2. According to Tillich, Kierkegaard and Hornedo, how can the will be strengthened?

REFLECTION 

Like St. Paul have you also experienced knowing the good to do but ended up doing the opposite of the good that you know? What have you been doing to strengthen your will?