Benevolence and Conflict

I'm confused. Isn't the benefactor God, or whoever is giving the benevolence? The recipients would be, what, benefactees?

Ah, yes, I knew that. Still confused, though. Bluejay, did you mean to say "beneficiary" in some places you said "benefactor"?

You touched on this a bit, but just to expand on it: not allowing us to "cause harm to others" is not just a problem of free will. Many of our decisions and actions (maybe all?) have ramificaions far beyond what we intended. I can have my son's best interest 100% at heart, and decide to take him on a nature walk where he's promptly squashed flat by a falling tree. Bad stuff happens, just by nature of the world we happen to live in. Restricting free will as you've described would probably improve our lives in general, but then again, maybe not.

So, the comparison is between the world as we perceive it - contains both free will and conflict - and a hypothetical world without free will or conflict. And the question is, how can the second be considered better for us than the first? Ignoring Stile's argument that we can have a world with SOME free will and no conflict, I think it might be a matter of opinion. Clearly, a lack of conflict is a substantial benefit. A lack of free will? It's hard to imagine how that would "feel". Would we be aware of the absense? If not, I think I might vote for the hypothetical paradise, at least for myself. On the other hand, if I had to make that decision for someone else, like my kids, it somehow seems different, like free will is to high a price to pay for peace.If we were aware of it, would we feel bad about not having it? In a world with no conflict, would we be able to feel bad?I don't think it's a slam dunk in either direction.