Why I am not a vegan

[Aion]

I'm not yet sure if free will means that an entity is able to have its desires met or that free will means that an entity is able to choose how to respond to experience.

I think it's the latter.

The simplest definition of free will (in a Law of One context) is the ability to choose.

I don't think it even has to be a conscious choice. A human child might not think consciously whether s/he wants an apple or a cookie, but if you offer both, s/he will choose one or the other, none, or both. That is choice. Is a 2-year-old toddler consciously choosing the cookie? Maybe not. But s/he is choosing nonetheless.

The degree of consciousness associated with the choice seems to be commensurate with the degree of sentience, but not necessarily with spiritual awareness, so it seems to have nothing to do with spiritual awareness. Even fully sentient beings (like adult humans) don't always consciously think about their choices. Yet they do choose, nonetheless.

Does free will automatically mean an entity should have its desires met,

In most cases, no. Ask anyone what they want in life and most will say some variation of the same theme: a happy family, a nice house, financial prosperity, good health, etc. Every one of those people has made choices (within preprogrammed parameters) which got them to the point they're at now. But how many of them have achieved their desires? Not too many.

I don't think choice has much to do with getting desires met. Only by learning from life, do we begin to make choices that are more in alignment with our deepest desires.

In the meantime, what happens is that choices simply get added in to the karmic mix.

As Mick Jagger said: You can't always get what you want...But if you try sometimes you might find...You get what you need.

whether these are instinctual or of higher intellect? Or is free will more a matter of the ability for an entity to choose from the moment it's actions, feelings and thoughts? What is that ability to choose, exactly? To have preference?

In the context of this discussion, I'm anticipating that some may argue that an animal's choice is based on instinct rather than intellect.

I would counter that by pointing out that human toddlers, even babies, make choices, and their intellectual ability hasn't developed much yet. (In fact, as a side note, studies have shown that dogs and pigs figure out puzzles faster than human toddlers!) So unless one is going to say that human toddlers are also acting purely on instinct, then that whole argument falls apart.

Even adult humans, who may be intellectually advanced but not necessarily spiritually aware, often make choices that aren't very conscious. So I really don't think it matters where the choice is based, or if they can even prove that at this point. We do, however, know that human babies and animals all make choices.

I realized in assessing the many approaches in this conversation that it often comes back to the idea of free will, however I am not sure there is actually a consensus on what free will is or what the idea of it implies.

Good idea to clarify this!

I am looking for the connection between free will, choice and impulse.

When that toddler gets an impulse to grab a toy, it's still a choice.

Is free will only a conscious activity or is it also unconscious activity?

Could be either. We participate more in the programming of catalyst when we start making conscious choices, instead of it being done automatically for us based on our unconscious choices. But it's all still choice.

At what point does the free will of one entity 'cross' that of another? What exactly is the manifestation of this apparent reality or is it just a philosophical idea of 'freedom' that has been shaped from a particular ideology?

I think it's summed up well by the adage: One person's freedom ends where another's begins.

Profound concepts such as this predate religious ideologies.

...

Just sounds to me like everyone is enslaved by everyone by that measure. If free will is about choices made in experience then what relevance does the desires of an entity have to their free will? Thus, the desire to live would have nothing to do with free will except for the choice not to end one's life. If free will is a matter of response then the infringement only comes when the response is controlled and manipulated.

If we consider free will to be a universal concept then it would function the same across all densities. So, an act against another which is not in accordance with their desires isn't necessarily infringement of free will unless they are manipulated in a way that they cannot respond to the act freely. The easiest example on that note, to me, would be 'brainwashing'.

Do you think animals can be brainwashed and their responses manipulated?

Or is it that you see the 'limiting of choices' as being an infringement? That wouldn't make sense to me if free will is a function of response because if that is the case then it doesn't matter what act occurs towards an entity so long as that entity has the freedom to respond in whatever way it chooses, whether that be with pain, joy or anything else.

What it seems to me that various people are suggesting is that free will is more about the life conditions one has and their state of relative freedom of body and mind. This, however, appears to me to fit in to the first concept where free will is about desires rather than the second where free will is about response, so that's why I'm mentioning it.