u/PuzzleheadedTale4769

Leading character, played by Van Heflin, is very sympathetic. But: he made some serious moral errors.

A. In his past, his informing on his fellow POW'S plans to escape was perhaps justifiable, since they were sure to be discovered before the attempt. But- shouldn't he have told them that he had already informed on them? That would have stopped the escape, and saved their lives- in the short term.

B. When Van Hef learns that R. Ryan is on his trail, he leaves town for the convention in ( San Fran?) Thus, leaving his wife and child to the mercies of Ryan. In the event, Ryan does visit their home but leaves wife and kid alone. But how would Ryan have known he would do that?

How are the venerable notions of Fate and Destiny, so widely seen as discredited in light of modern thinking, especially scientific materislism-
Related, if at all, to "Determinism" ?

Every atom, every photon of energy, is at this moment in exactly in the place it would be, as determined by the Big Bang. Every molecule of liquid in all the oceans in all the cosmos is in exactly the place dictated by BB. Every molecule in cell in every living entity in the universe... set by BB. Every grain of sand (made of whatever) on every beach on every planet, sits where it sits and no other place, because of BB. Not to leave out- every gumball, in every gumball machine through the breadth of the universe, sits only where it could have sat according to BB.

Every thought in every brain of every intelligent or semi intelligent creature in every corner of the cosmos.....BB, and could be no other way.

Who buys this?

If people are believed to have obligations to each other, that are not lawfully required , but merely- " ought" to be followed, for mutual benefit .... to the extent that they do, are they " unfree"? Is "obligation" a violation of libertarian free will?

Ex: It is widely held that a person " ought" to keep promises, if they are "freely made". Does the obligation to keep a promise make me "unfree" ? Or does the "freely made" nature of the promise leave me with a definable margin of freedom?

Franklin: "For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe, the horse was lost. For want of the horse, the battle was lost. For want of victory in battle, the war was lost. For losing the war, an empire was lost...."

So goes my celebrated aphorism of plain wisdom.

You get the picture. Attend to the details and save yourself many troubles...

PQ: " I fully concur on your idea of the connectedness of all things and events. But all these events are fore-destined by the rule of Nature over all things and all men. The nail had to be lost! And so , the shoe, the horse, the battle, and on and on.

BF: "Are you saying 'a stitch in time , won't save nine?'"

PQ: "Well it might, but if it does, it was fore-destined- "fortunate", as it is said, in that Fortune is the ancient term for all the determining forces. But lacking the stitch and losing the nine may be equally determined, and equally "Fortunate" in that sense."

BF: Plain thinking and plain wisdom would not, I think, see the loss of the nine as "Fortunate" . Especially if they were holding up their britches!

PQ: "Ah, Franklin plays the risqué wag again. But plain folk seldom if ever consider these things philosophically. Hence- the usefulness of our Philosophical Society!"

BF: " I accept that as thanks for my work in founding the Society. Surely that was a Fortunate event in all senses, and it would have "unfortunate" if I had not felt its necessity. Suppose I had been called to some other duty, and so had not founded it? Or decided, as so many do, to put my efforts into more personally gainful enterprises?"

PQ: "But you could not have done so, and still be the person you are, composed of the same good parts- for which we are thankful, to the extent that it is rational to be grateful for something that could not have been otherwise. Yes, it is Fortunate, in the strict and rational sense, that we are all here today.
Yet- had there never been a Philosophical Society, events could not have turned out otherwise.

BF: " Dr. Quimby praises our Society and thanks me for actions which I could not have done otherwise. I will endeavor not to be too discouraged by his paradoxical gratitude, but I wonder how many of what he calls- the plain folk- will, on first hearing, consider his words without discouragement.

As we colonials begin to organize toward our national independence and for the rights of man to freedom, Dr. Quimby assures us that all ideas of freedom and choice are illusions. I had to write my little aphorisms, just as they were, and though I intended them to help people act more in their and other's interests, -- they can have no role in changing anything. I fear that the spread of Dr. Quimby's philosophical fatalism will be fatal to the great cause on which we hopefully embark. Though "hope", by his system, offers nothing different from despair.

I leave this meeting for another, where I will meet with brother and sister patriots working for our new cause. What will I tell them of what we said here? If asked, I will relate it to them as clearly as I can- not because I believe the sucess of our cause is pre- destined, but because I trust that their plain, strong powers of discernment will, in the course of our open, free discussion, lead us to the Truth.

Which, as a sage of old once said, will set us free."

CONCLUSION/UPSHOT

We can see from this debate just how much of our views of our own selves, our fellows, our individual actions and history, our mutual obligations, our hopes, fears, and perceived purposes- hangs on these debates on freedom vs determinism.