Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is a perjorative way of putting it. Better would be:
How was he ever going to escape his destiny via a choice he could make?
His "destiny" was to make terrible moral choices.
...which, of course, he did.
Putting questions about his upbringing, mental health, etc, aside, these were choices that were freely made (e.g. no external agent forced him to make them). So he can be held morally responsible, even though he was "destined" to choose as he did.
Originally posted by dottewellThere WAS an external agent forcing him to choose that way. The cosmos. It was the cosmos (via determinism and physical laws) that forced Cho's character and circumstances upon him such that he was always going to do what he did. He was forced indirectly by the nature of his character which was under the control of forces external to him(biology , physics , the natural world ) . He did not have a gun to his head forcing him to do what he did but in terms of the character the universe forced upon him he might as well have done.
This is a perjorative way of putting it. Better would be:
His "destiny" was to make terrible moral choices.
...which, of course, he did.
Putting questions about his upbringing, mental health, etc, aside, these were choices that were freely made (e.g. no external agent forced him to make them). So he can be held morally responsible, even though he was "destined" to choose as he did.
He was forced because if he wasn't forced to do what he did then he might have had a chance of avoiding it , which in your view he didn't.
Originally posted by dottewellPutting questions about his upbringing, mental health, etc, aside DOTTY
This is a perjorative way of putting it. Better would be:
His "destiny" was to make terrible moral choices.
...which, of course, he did.
Putting questions about his upbringing, mental health, etc, aside, these were choices that were freely made (e.g. no external agent forced him to make them). So he can be held morally responsible, even though he was "destined" to choose as he did.
You can't just put these aside because they are integral to your view and are aspects of his character which ultimately forced his actions.
Originally posted by dottewellThis is a perjorative way of putting it. Better would be:
This is a perjorative way of putting it. Better would be:
His "destiny" was to make terrible moral choices.
...which, of course, he did.
Putting questions about his upbringing, mental health, etc, aside, these were choices that were freely made (e.g. no external agent forced him to make them). So he can be held morally responsible, even though he was "destined" to choose as he did.
His "destiny" was to make terrible moral choices.
...which, of course, he did.
DOTTY
Semantics and wordplay I'm afraid. Why put destiny in quotes as if it softens it? His terrible choices were forced upon him by the universe and the character and life bestowed upon him by the universe. I think it would be more appropriate to call his destiny terrible than his choices because his destiny was fixed long before his choices were made.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI see no reason why his life circumstances and his character should not be excuses for what he did. Do you? If so, then why did he do it? And what do you mean by 'excuses'? Do you mean 'an explanation for why he did it' or do you mean 'an explanation other than what he is being accused of'?
We might say that his life circumstances and his charactor are no excuse for what he did , but is this meaningful unless determinism can be subverted or counteracted?
Surely the accusation leveled at him is his life circumstances and his character were the reasons for what he did and thus to call them an 'excuse' is not quite right.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe cosmos is not an agent, making choices which cut against our own. So claiming it "forced" anyone to do anything is a simple category mistake. It is in no way comparable to someone holding a gun to your head.
There WAS an external agent forcing him to choose that way. The cosmos. It was the cosmos (via determinism and physical laws) that forced Cho's character and circumstances upon him such that he was always going to do what he did. He was forced indirectly by the nature of his character which was under the control of forces external to him(biology , phys ...[text shortened]... do what he did then he might have had a chance of avoiding it , which in your view he didn't.
Yes, he was always going to make the choices he did; but they were still free choices (in the sense that he went through a reasoning process and selected a way to act), and they were morally wrong choices.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm not talking about "quantum entanglement". This is a red herring. I'm accepting, for the sake of argument, that the world is perfectly determined in an orderly fashion.
Libertarian free will is mysterious and incoherent at times but so is quantum entanglement.
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt's not mere semantics. To claim the universe "forces" us to make choices - in the same way as someone pointing a gun at our head - is simply wrong.
This is a perjorative way of putting it. Better would be:
His "destiny" was to make terrible moral choices.
...which, of course, he did.
DOTTY
Semantics and wordplay I'm afraid. Why put destiny in quotes as if it softens it? His terrible choices were forced upon him by the universe and the character and life bestowed upon him by the u ...[text shortened]... ny terrible than his choices because his destiny was fixed long before his choices were made.
Moreover, if we phrase things that way it makes it impossible to hold a meaningful debate.
"Destiny" is in inverted commas simply because I don't want to allow the impression that we are being controlled by an external agent for its own ends (like a hyponotist, for example). It's not meant to "soften" anything; but you need to be precise and neutral in your wording.
You need to explain WHY the fact Cho was always going to make the choices he did (which I accept) means that he can't meaningfully be said to have made (free, morally consequential) choices. You STILL haven't done so.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think you are confusing me with someone else.
Putting questions about his upbringing, mental health, etc, aside DOTTY
You can't just put these aside because they are integral to your view and are aspects of his character which ultimately forced his actions.
I am simply assuming that whatever his mental health, and whatever his upbringing, he still (a) knew that what he was about to do was a terrible moral crime, and (b) chose to do so despite.
It is in the sense I want to put questions of his upbringing and mental health aside - i.e. to sharpen the debate.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis means that given the same situation again we should be able to choose differently should we not?
Compatibilism does not say that I cannot choose in the circumstance; nor that I cannot therefore be considered, ceteris paribus, (morally) responsible for my decisions. From the compatibilist view, my “choices” are neither fully pre-determined, nor random. VISTED
RESPONSE---
I understand this the compatabilist view I just don't understand why you his choice was not fullt determined then he must have been logically free to choose otherwise.
I already answered that in my post.
EDIT: If I made an error in my articulation of compatibilism as I understand it, I'll be appreciative if LJ or Dottewell correct it.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt depends what you mean by responsible really.
Consider this hypothetical (pace Harry Frankfurt). Suppose Cho resolves to go on his killing spree. Another person, Bo, knows this and rather fancies the idea. Bo wants the event to transpire through Cho's own doing, but he is also concerned that Cho may abandon his resolve. So Bo secretly arranges it such that if Cho waivers, then Bo will detect this d think yourself lucky you weren't born Cho otherwise you wouldn't be here right now.
Well, feel free here to take 'responsible' to mean precisely what you take it to mean when you go around from thread to thread shouting that one cannot be responsible for his actions if his actions could not be otherwise. Obviously, I'm trying to offer a counterexample to the principle of alternative possibilities.
The rest is blather. And no you don't understand my view. Do you honestly expect me to think you understand compatibilism, given your recent posts in the other thread?