Free Choice: Pre-Write

Thesis: In Paradise Lost, God forbids Adam and Eve to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil much in the same way that governments or other higher powers practice censorship and forbid certain ideas from the public as address in Areopagitica. 

--Why doesn't God want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of Good and Evil?

          Most likely, he is trying to protect them. He wants them to enjoy their lives without them having to experience or really know about evil. I kind of get upset about this--God gives them free choice, so He is almost setting them up to fail in the first place, especially because he gives them the commandment (along with not eating the fruit of that tree) to multiply and replenish the Earth. Is that possible without becoming moral (which eating the fruit would cause)? 

          Anyways, this kind of "protection" from knowledge is similar to what is addressed in Areopagitica. Much of the texts that are banned from readers go against the church or are of some heretical nature. The root of the reason of wanting to ban these kinds of works is actually good--to protect people from the evils outside of the church that might make them fall away. We are deprived certain knowledge because it's assumed that we would be unable to handle it without being negatively influenced by the content. 

--Choice is taken away when we are unable to actually choose good over evil.

          I addressed this in another one of my posts: "No reason or agency is involved when we choose good over evil, simply because evil is not available to us by our mothers." (Obviously, the wording would change with the situation.) Isn't knowing someone is choosing good over evil because they personally rejected evil and chose to be good...as opposed to choosing good because they didn't even know there was another option? How beneficial is censorship in the end? We are "good people" because we were led to it, but is that sincere goodness? Besides, sin still exists, even if the books about it are taken away. You can only be protected so much.

The Evolution of Liberty and Mormonism

A sign like this would have driven Milton crazy. One of Milton's crowning arguments of Areopagitica is that God gave man reason and temptation to use. He says

"Many there be that complain of divine providence for suffering Adam to transgress. Foolish tongues! When God gave him reason, He gave him freedom to choose; for reason is but choosing; . . . God therefore left him free, set before him a provoking object, ever almost in his eyes."

The idea that reason allows us to choose good from evil necessitates unrestrained options. If you have no options you cannot choose. If this is true and Milton himself doesn't have the rights he desires, is it any wonder then that Milton lobbied for freedom of press, freedom of religion, and a free government? One scholarly review by William Haller argues

"the more each protesting body suffered from intolerance the more tolerant it became, that the more it was forced to contend for liberty for itself the more nearly it approached the conception of liberty for all, with the result that implied principle was finally by the ultimate dissenters extricated from all the pain of cumulative persecution and kindled, as it were, 'on the top of a light-house, on its own account.'"

"How great a virtue is temperance!"

          When I was in high school and still under the jurisdiction of my parents, I heard my them discussing a book called "Under the Dome" by Stephen King. By the way my mother talked about it, I decided that this should be the next book I endeavor. When I asked her if she could give it to me to read...SHE REFUSED. I was like, "Um, excuse me? How can you not expect me to feel the need to partake of this goodness?" The grounds on which she refused to give me the book were that of inappropriate language, violence, and explicit sexual references.
          I don't know why, but I just felt stupid. And I felt untrustworthy--like I couldn't be expected to be able to handle such a book with tact and maturity.
          I believe the most important part of Areopagitica is that Milton argues the fact that we can't fully know what is good in this world if we are not give the chance to experience evil. No reason or agency is involved when we "choose" good over evil, simply because evil is not available to us by our mothers.

Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall

*The passage that I wanted to focus on for this post is found in Book III, lines 93-111. It was a bit longer so I didn't want it to take up too much space.*

          Growing up, my dad was always obsessed with talking to us kids about free will and choice. Every time the littlest allusion was made--be in from TV, books, or elsewhere--he couldn't seem to help himself from going on these long tangents on about how central the idea of free will is and how we probably can't understand exactly how important. Yada yada yada... (I actually grew to love our conversations, and they can still last for hours at a time.)
          Luckily, I was reading Book III of Paradise Lost at my parents house, and when I came across this passage, I yelled for my dad to come listen so I could read it to him.
          It really got me thinking...where would this story have gone if we didn't have free will? What if they had gone along with Satan's plan and taken away the free agency of Man?