Response To Evodius's On Free Choice Of The Will

In “On Free Choice of the Will” by Augusutine, Evodius asked questions to Augustine “I would like to know from you the origin of that movement by which the will is turned away from the common and immutable goods … because if free will has given in a such way that this movement is natural to it, then it is turned to lesser goods by necessity. There is no blame to be found where nature and necessity rule”. (85) Because he thinks God is responsible for human being including its behavior and will, he claims the movement which turns away from goods is natural. So, he concluded it is not blameworthy. However, Augustine objects to Evodius’s insistence and answers Evodius’s question by the example of “stone’s movement”. In this paper, I will discuss what the “stone’s movement” is, and how this example replies to the Evodius’s worry.

Therefore, he produces the definition of the actual natural movement by this example. On the other hand, before this discussion, Augustine and Evodius concluded that the mind cannot become a slave of lust except through its own will. It cannot be forced to sin by something superior because this is unjust, and also cannot be forced by something inferior because the inferior things do not have the power to enforce something. So, the movement for a sake of lust is caused by will itself. Therefore, it is not the natural movement, but the voluntary movement because it is not caused by