2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou only challenged my patience. I have nothing further to say to you on this issue, since you are incapable of understanding compatibilism generally, my version in particular, anything about moral psychology, and even basic notions like how not to beg questions in debate. You are in Nemesio's very capable hands now, so good luck.
Hi barr, I 'm sorry you felt you had to leave our last thread. Do you see yourself as trying to educate me , or are you up to being challenged yourself?
Originally posted by bbarrI know I can be b**** patronising but really barr. In nemesio's capable hands?? What is this Professor , just a place for you to dispense wisdom from on high? I always understood what your compatabilism was it's just I thought it was a fudge. You put determinism and randomness into the pot and out comes a free will stew (except it's fudge because your choices are either random or determined and cannot produce free will). I simply stated that we are either free from determinism and randomness or we ain't . You wanted to say that we ain't but somehow we still are. So yes , I went on the attack , broke a few rules , but if I was guilty of anything it was trying to get past the trailers to the car chase asap. I also had this shocking idea that just because you've read all those books didn't mean I had less to say about this than you did.
You only challenged my patience. I have nothing further to say to you on this issue, since you are incapable of understanding compatibilism generally, my version in particular, anything about moral psychology, and even basic notions like how not to beg questions in debate. You are in Nemesio's very capable hands now, so good luck.
The thing was I was never in your capable hands so I don't see you as "handing me over" to Nemesio.
" Sun rises a miracle each day ,
And wise men point the other way,
Soft she comes like a pillow to my breast ,
With the burning passion and the warm embrace of love..
Loved with dignity,
Whispers deep inside of me,
A million years away ,
From what the experts have to say.....
We don't know nothing,
We don't know much,
Just and aching and a longing..to be loved" (Martyn joseph)
Originally posted by shavixmirAwareness is not enough. The real ability to be able to choose possible A over possible B in a meaningful way is what free will is. If A is only ever possible then we are not free even if we are aware of the so called choice. If A or B are selected on a random basis our choices become meaningless. So what's left? We need something more , something that compatabilism doesn't offer.
Good grief. How complicated.
There's me thinking that "free will" is the freedom a person has to choose between the options he's aware of.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm sorry, I don't understand your answer to my specific question. My question was: Was your electing
Yes , this is possible. I do not believe that we necessarily always exclusively have free will all the time. We are still subject to determinism on many occasions but on many other occasions we are able to "override" determinism and make free choices. Determinsm obviously exists , but to me not exclusively.
to save the child a choice you chose freely or not?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf I may stick my 3.14 cents here: Your example seems to me to come under the aegis of reflexive action, like if you burn your finger, you yank your hand back. There is no choice in that unless you are masochistic or trying to prove a point on how you can take pain.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your answer to my specific question. My question was: Was your electing
to save the child a choice you chose freely or not?
Nemesio
Well, in light of that last remark, it would seem even that can be seen as free choice but only if the conscious mind takes it upon itself to dwell on it. If no dwell, I would think reflexive action.
Like I have this dumb prediliction to help a victim if I see one, a purse snatching say, dumb because these dudes sometimes have saturday night specials on them but my instinct is to protect, but when I see it I have no left right fight flight thoughts, I just jump in. Seems like that is not free choice but deep conditioning. Like a karate move, which is trained to be reflexive.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhy don't you just say give me a straight yes or no answer? Then I would say no . The reason why I said possibly or probably is because it's hypothetical. You want a straight answer then no.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your answer to my specific question. My question was: Was your electing
to save the child a choice you chose freely or not?
Nemesio
My question - Straight yes or no answer - are men morally responsible for their actions?
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister
Why don't you just say give me a straight yes or no answer? Then I would say no . The reason why I said possibly or probably is because it's hypothetical. You want a straight answer then no.
I thought I did ask you for a straight answer.
My question - Straight yes or no answer - are men morally responsible for their actions?
Men (and women) are morally responsible for some actions. For example, there are some actions
which do not have moral implications; this morning you and I both got dressed, we (presumably) both
bathed, and we both probably ate breakfast. Assuming you didn't steal clothes, didn't deny water
to an individual dying of thirst, or murder any persons for breakfast, our actions (freely chosen)
had no moral implications.
Some actions do have moral implications but because of circumstances, an individual may be absolved
of responsibility. For example, recently, there was a gentleman driving a car and, while driving, he
had a stroke and, in crashing, he inadvertently killed another person. He had no previous medical
history which would have given anybody any clue that this was even a remote possibility. His actions
had moral implications, but because they weren't intentional or the result of negligence, I'd say he
was not morally responsible for their deaths (but he may feel morally responsible [i.e., guilty], or
may feel a moral responsibility to the person's family, &c.).
Or, a person may be absolved of moral responsibility if the choices before them offer them no morally
responsible response. Two common examples spring to mind. 1) You are a German hiding Jews from
the Nazis in your attic. They knock on your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. You respond in the
negative, lying. Your lie is still wrong, but to not lie would be to sentence innocents (and yourself)
to death. I would say that you are absolved of any moral responsibility in this case. 2) Imagine
that a train with 100 people is careening out of control. You are at the last switch before the train
crashes, very likely killing the people. The switch diverts the train to an escape track with a sandbag
safety stop (designed for safely stopping runaway trains). However, there is a repair man on the
track who you know to be hard of hearing. If you divert the train, he will be killed, but most if
not all the 100 people will very likely be saved. Obviously, you ought to flip the switch and, if you
do, I would say that you are morally absolved from 'murder' (again, you may not feel that you are).
So, my answer is, yes, people can be morally responsible for their actions when those actions were
freely chosen and when those actions had moral implications to begin with.
Okay, having answered your question, I wish to return to my example.
You said that you didn't have a free choice in saving the child. Let's take the same example, but
imagine someone more or less like you (young, physically hale, intelligent), but the meanest, most
selfish, nastiest prick whose only interest is himself. He sees the child drowning and says, 'I don't
want to get my clothes wet.' Did he freely choose not to save the child?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou said that you didn't have a free choice in saving the child. Let's take the same example, but
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Why don't you just say give me a straight yes or no answer? Then I would say no . The reason why I said possibly or probably is because it's hypothetical. You want a straight answer then no.
I thought I did ask you for a straight answer.
My question - Straight yes or no answer - are men morally respo ...[text shortened]... nt to get my clothes wet.' Did he freely choose not to save the child?
Nemesio
imagine someone more or less like you (young, physically hale, intelligent), but the meanest, most
selfish, nastiest prick whose only interest is himself. He sees the child drowning and says, 'I don't
want to get my clothes wet.' Did he freely choose not to save the child? NEMESIO
Ultimately it's impossible to say ( I would be God if I could get inside his mind) but here's your straight answer.....
I would guess his actions were evil and as such must have involved some choice on his part at some stage , whether at that precise moment or over his whole life. So his choice would be free. He was not predestined to become the man that he is. His conscience was seared away to the point where he was unable to feel compassion but this could only happen if he had allowed it to happen of his own volition.
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioSo, my answer is, yes, people can be morally responsible for their actions when those actions were
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Why don't you just say give me a straight yes or no answer? Then I would say no . The reason why I said possibly or probably is because it's hypothetical. You want a straight answer then no.
I thought I did ask you for a straight answer.
My question - Straight yes or no answer - are men morally respo nt to get my clothes wet.' Did he freely choose not to save the child?
Nemesio
freely chosen and when those actions had moral implications to begin with. NEMESIO
Ok, now notice that you have used the phrase "freely chosen" which to me implies free will. As you know it would be quite irrational to hold a man accountable for his actions if only one outcome were ever possible. Cards on the table now . I am going to show you how the concept of moral responsibility is irrational unless you introduce free will into the equation. So, my simple follow up question would be....
Do you believe that all mens actions come about as a direct or indirect result of determinism (dictated by natural laws) and randomness such that only one outcome is ever possible to those actions OR alternative outcomes are possible but can be attributed to random chance. ?
Originally posted by knightmeisterI just want to be clear here: If you or I elected to rescue the drowning child, it would not be an exercise
I would guess his actions were evil and as such must have involved some choice on his part at some stage , whether at that precise moment or over his whole life. So his choice would be free. He was not predestined to become the man that he is. His conscience was seared away to the point where he was unable to feel compassion but this could only happen if he had allowed it to happen of his own volition.
of free will, but if an evil individual elected to ignore the child, he is exercising free will?
Assuming I am correct, what accounts for this disparity? For you, your conscience compels you to
act. In his, his selfishness compels him to ignore (or perhaps his love to see others suffer). Why do
you see a material difference in these situations such that you opine that you are not exercising free
will but that the evil man is?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI would like to answer this, but I am not clear on the question. For example, I don't know what an
Do you believe that all mens actions come about as a direct or indirect result of determinism (dictated by natural laws) and randomness such that only one outcome is ever possible to those actions OR alternative outcomes are possible but can be attributed to random chance. ?
'indirect result of determinism' is as distinct from a direct result? Could you elaborate a bit please?
In terms of my position on randomness, I think indeterminacy plays only a very small role in making
decisions. Before he threw in the towel, I tried to query bbarr on this because I don't know as much as he
about neurophysiology and neurochemistry to make an informed statement on the issue, but intuitively
I would say that such randomness would only manifest in those circumstances where the choices are
roughly equally meritorious (or disastrous, or neutral). That is, I don't think randomness could ever
compel you or me not to jump in the lake and save the child (or for the evil guy to be convinced
that he ought to do so). But, unlike you, I think both choices are the product of free will.
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell I am not a Christian or theist so I have a completely different view of morality and accountability than yours.
Now holding men morally responsible for their actions is FW's speciality . Your world view cannot stand up to mine in this area so if you want to step into the hornets nest feel free.
What is interesting is that it appears that if your ideas on free will are shown to be wrong, then your whole world view on morality etc will also collapse. What is also interesting is that you are yet to articulate in any understandable fashion what you are trying to say free will actually is.
So far I hear you saying that:
1. a free choice is not caused by anything
2. a free choice is not random.
3. a free choice could go either way.
But in my view 2. is defined by 1 and 3 so the three statements are incompatible with each other. So please redefine the word random so that it becomes compatible and I will have to come up with another word when I want to say "not caused and could go either way."
Originally posted by NemesioI would like to answer this, but I am not clear on the question. For example, I don't know what an
I would like to answer this, but I am not clear on the question. For example, I don't know what an
'indirect result of determinism' is as distinct from a direct result? Could you elaborate a bit please?
In terms of my position on randomness, I think indeterminacy plays only a very small role in making
decisions. Before he threw in the towel, I tried ...[text shortened]... to do so). But, unlike you, I think both choices are the product of free will.
Nemesio
'indirect result of determinism' is as distinct from a direct result? Could you elaborate a bit please? NEMESIO
Basically it's to do with complexity. Some processes like the sun shining as a direct result of nuclear fusion are clearly directly determined. Others , like a man choosing whether to marry his wife or not might be said to be far more complex because it's difficult to trace the outcome back to it's root cause , but logically all actions for the determinist must be as a result of the preceeding events that cause them ven if this happens indirectly via billions of years of evolution. Barr's contention was that the worm was not free and we were. My argument was that it's only a matter of complexity and whether the outcomes can be directly or indirectly traced to their original cause. Of course it makes no difference because indirect complex determinism is no more free than than simple causation , it just looks like it is (for the determinist). A complex computer is just as programmed as a simple one. This was my point with BARR all along , the worm is just as "free" as we are , but hey what does little ol uneducated me know?
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is interesting is that it appears that if your ideas on free will are shown to be wrong, then your whole world view on morality etc will also collapse. What is also interesting is that you are yet to articulate in any understandable fashion what you are trying to say free will actually is.
Well I am not a Christian or theist so I have a completely different view of morality and accountability than yours.
What is interesting is that it appears that if your ideas on free will are shown to be wrong, then your whole world view on morality etc will also collapse. What is also interesting is that you are yet to articulate in any understandable f ...[text shortened]... ill have to come up with another word when I want to say "not caused and could go either way."
.
WHITEY
If my ideas on free will are wrong then it would be because God does not exist , so I would be shafted anyway.