Hmm...had no idea this would fire up so many people. Well, I'll respond to trismegisto. As I said in the first post (perhaps not clearly enough) that my concern is not about the actuality of free will (do we have it or not), but, assuming that we do (or at least that we have convinced ourselves so, which seems to be the case for many people), is it everything it's shaped up to be?
And by bad implications I generally mean that fact that we always have bad as well as good choices--it's often noted by apologetics that we must have such a choice, otherwise we are not truly free. But is this really so?
You seem to be saying two different things 1. That the downside of freedom of the will is having bad, as well as good choices, and 2. you are asking whether unless we have bad choices we would not be free. Isn't that right?
1. I don't see how we can have only good, but not bad choices. (See 2) But that might, indeed be a downside of freewill.
2. Since if we have a good choice, then it would be a bad choice not to do the good choice, how would it be possible to have a good choice and not a bad choice? It would not be possible. And unless we have choices, we would not be free, so, it follows that unless we have bad choices we would not be free.
---------- Post added 04-10-2010 at 11:40 AM ----------
In other words, we have ways of choosing, which are essentials of free will!
If an "essential of free will" is only a necessary condition of free will, then of course, if we have only the necessary conditions of free will, then it does not follow that we have free will unless we also have the sufficient conditions of free will. Now, we may choose, yet be forced to choose. In that case, we are not free even if we can choose.