If you could guarantee world peace at the price of the free will of all humans, would you do it?

Question

i.e.: Everyone's actions are controlled to prevent war, disease, famine, genocide, etc. No one can choose to harm someone else or make choices that could lead to a disruption of the world's peace. Please don't try to be argumentative by saying "well what do you mean by free will?" or something like that. Just honestly answer the question and try to give examples or explanations.

The point is basically to see how far we would go to protect ourselves, or bring "peace". (something to think on: the Patriot Act)

Answer 1

No. Peace that comes from "outside", done by force, is not peace, it is slavery. True peace comes from within, and is expressed from person to person. It cannot be guaranteed by law, although the law can ENCOURAGE it.

To eliminate free will in an effort to eliminate hatred, would also result in the elimination of true love. Only love brings true peace. Dictatorships only produce quiet, and only for a while.

Also, some of the things you mentioned, disease and famine in particular, are not necessarily the result of human action, and thus would not be eliminated by "wiping out" human free will. Weather and natural disasters cannot be controlled by men. No matter how "perfect" the society, there will always be earthquakes, tidal waves, hurricanes, fires, floods, blights, droughts, crop failures.

Answer 2

I would never sell human free will against world peace.
I think both are concilable. But there is a huge gap, to realize world peace. The problem is the New World Order. It's a world conspiracy and they want like you say offer world peace ,at the price of humanity free will of acting or thinking. They want to put brain implant on all humans, reducing the world population of 80 %, use mind control technologies on masses. use the martail law permanently, every crime would become terrorism, and it will become a nightmare because ther wouldnt have to make you a trial they could erases all traces of your existence, re-write the past, to control the present and the future, and far worse.

And all this **** will always be presented as a opprtunity for peace. They make war, they can stop it, to recreate it, to put fear in peoples and control them.

Answer 3

It would never work. There are plenty of countries now that are trying it...and have been for centuries. They still have civil wars, they still have dissidents. People have brains, and even though it may seem like they don't use them all the time...they do. It is in our nature to ask questions, to aruge, to disagree.
And the Patriot Act is not an attempt to garner our free will, but an attempt to insure that we can continue to exercise out free will. And to attempt to continue our pursuit of happiness.

Answer 4

I think by the words "free will" you mean "civil liberties"
In this case I would say definite NO!
World peace is overrated anyway. War drives progress both in terms of social organization and technological developments.
Civil liberties would be a high price to pay for something we don't need anyway.

Answer 5

As long as we have big government run by rich people for the benefit of rich people there can never be peace. It will not be their kids sent to war and besides they make a lot of money off of war. But that doesn't mean we get to keep our rights either because the rich and powerful continue to take away our choices in the name of protecting us from ourselves. 99% of politicians suck!

Answer 6

1 it would never happen
2 there will always be tryranny
3 there will always be unrest / war / famine
4 for your arguement, the rich would have to give up there money
5 and that means someone would HAVE to be in total control
6 and that takes alot of support
7 those who support would be eleet and thus have special privleges and advantages unafforded to the rest of the controlled masses
8 sooner or later a revolutinary is borne out of such masses
9 and you back to where you started, with famine, pestllance and war

Answer 7

Since the questions is hypothetical, yes I would. No need for free will since the "law" would be established to protect me and others. My actions would come not from my ego mind but from knowing that the World is in order therefore I am in order.

The biggest example is the garden of Eden and the initial intention God had when he created it..

Answer 8

So long as anyone wants to initiate force against another for any reason there will not be peace. This includes forcing someone to give up their hard earned money (taxes), forcing someone to not put certain things in their bodies (drug laws), forcing someone to live by the ways of your religion, etc.

Answer 9

I think this may be the only realistic way to bring about world peace.

The answer really depends on what we will get in return for surrendering our free wills.

if we can get a benevolent, wise, united worldwide government that lets us live the way we want to live and yet be able to resolve conflicts without violence, then why not ? (I doubt this is possible though)

However if we get a toliterian, dictorial world society (think North Korea), then I don't think we'll want that.

Answer 10

Glad to see eleven real Americans answering this and thinking more or less the way Benjamin Franklin and the rest of our forefathers did.