free will and determinism compatibility: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » free will and determinism compatibility » free will and determinism compatibility

free will and determinism compatibility

Page: First 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

free will and determinism compatibility

Kingt2
RPI Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 137

Posted 04/10/09 - 08:18 PM:	#141
Isn't that pretty much obvious? Justice, by definition, is the reciprocation of something "bad" on someone who has acted "badly". If there is no such thing as "bad" then there would be no NEED for justice, it doesn't matter if it is "coherent" or not. Morality is only needed --in this case-- if we assume that justice is needed, or that the idea of justice needs be coherent. If we say "to hell with justice", then we can just as easily rid ourselves or morality. It is not a necessary thing by any means. EDIT: To the main: refer to my new topic "another look at compatibilism" for my personal examination of the matter
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -Isaac Asimov

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 2563

Posted 04/10/09 - 09:30 PM:	#142
Kingt2 wrote: Isn't that pretty much obvious? Not to Keda, it seems. Kingt2 wrote: Morality is only needed --in this case-- if we assume that justice is needed, or that the idea of justice needs be coherent. Agreed.
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! (Homer Simpson)

Kingt2
RPI Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 137

Posted 04/10/09 - 10:15 PM:	#143
I'm not sure how one could argue against that point...assuming he is indeed arguing against that point.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -Isaac Asimov

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3767

Posted 04/11/09 - 01:29 PM:	#144
reincarnated wrote: It was not an explicit premise – that’s why I called it an implicit premise (for a Christian). Lets have a look at what you actually said: From post #136: "(the premise that God would create a world where God grants eternal life to those who do believe in the Son of God, but who at the same time cannot control whether or not they do believe because they cannot control which parts of their atemporal programs are enacted temporally." The underlined is the part you've now left out. Obviously if you would have left it out from the start, it would be an implicit premise for a Christian, but you didn't, but not only that, this premise you previously argued: "most Christians would consider your argument unsound because one of the implicit premises is false" It seems like you need to double check what I'm responding to a bit more often as this seems to happen quite often. If you are so adamant that the premise is not needed, why are you trying so hard to argue that your argument is sound even with the premise included? If you are talking about the premise I refered to, it isn't part of my argument and I'm not even trying to argue my argument is sound with it included, but it seems more likely that you've lost track of the conversation since you left out the underlined. 1) Let’s say your atemporal will is that you believe in the Son of God if and only if Obama is elected president of the USA. 2) Atemporally, you neither believe nor disbelieve in the Son of God, thus your atemporal “program” alone does not lead to any consequences (such as God granting you eternal life). 3) Temporally, if Obama is elected president then you believe in the Son of God, and God grants you eternal life (from 1,2). 4) Temporally, if Obama is not elected president then you do not believe in the Son of God, and God does not grant you eternal life (from 1,2) 5) Temporally, whether Obama is elected president or not is not something that is necessarily under your control. 6) Hence, temporally whether you believe in the Son of God or not is not something that is necessarily under your control (from 3,4,5) Red herring. I'm not arguing that this sort of things don't follow. Read the shirt analogy earlier and comment on it instead since you seem to avoid my point no matter what. As I said, if you had been up-front about disagreeing with the usage of the word we could have saved a lot of wasted time. Its not my responsibility to keep track on what exactly you mean by any word. I just knew there was something fishy but couldn't pinpoint it until now which is why I merely responded with non sequitur. To tackle it you must provide with definitions to support your case, which you never did, but kept me guessing. I first used the expression “knowledge of what is wrong and what is right” back in post #115, but instead of pointing out that you disagreed with my usage of the word your response was (in post #118) “You don't need to know it”. I didn't disagree with this usage (in fact I went along with your usage here), but with the amphiboly (as I said) that was not committed until much later when you introduced your example with the court case. I can deal with you using a word in one way but not in two different ways at the same time. Basically it was not until you started using to know in the epistemological sense rather than the earlier lose sense that I started to smell something fishy. You are the one using the word here, and I'm just trying to guess what you mean. Its not me using the word and then hiding what I mean with them. Its the other way around. After you introduced the example with the court it occurred to me you were talking about it in the epistemic sense of the word so I countered from that perspective until I finally noticed you were exploiting an ambiguety in the word, so if my detective work appears confusing to anyone, it is largely due to the elusiveness of reincarnated's disingenous usage of the word "know" and now when caught redhanded he attempts to shift the blame on me for this. The discussion is not about “being moral”, it’s about the need for morality (an understanding of right and wrong). It never was. It was a red herring from the start and I should have stopped it and regret that I didn't. If you look up any dictionary, you'll find several usages of the word e.g: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/morality 1. good moral conduct 2. the degree to which something is morally acceptable: we discussed the morality of fox-hunting 3. a system of moral principles I was refering to #1 but of course, knowing your uncharitable ways to pick the least fitting and most absurd interpretation, you pick #3. If one does not understand the difference between right and wrong (morality), it follows that one may do wrong without understanding that one is doing wrong. Non sequitur of the form P => P /\ Q e.g. the possibility that one don't understand the difference and is unable to do wrong (e.g. through conditioning) is excluded. doing wrong entails being punished (justice) You better double check the content of the post before you post it. But since doing wrong entails being punished (justice), it follows that one needs to understand the difference between right and wrong (morality) if one wishes to avoid punishment. Non sequitur. One does not need to consider oneself “moral” at all. Red herring. My (5) clearly follows from (3) and (4). You have not shown how (5) is, as you claim, a non sequitur. It clearly doesn't, as I've just shown.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

Page: First 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.