Rex Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> Rex Allen wrote:
>>> In this case, I am not responsible (common usage) for the fortune or
>>> misfortune that has befallen those who I have stumbled into as a
>>> result of the universe's constant pushiness.
>>> I AM responsible if we use Dennett's non-standard definition of
>>> "responsible", however.
>> No you are not, because none of the above hypothetical events were
>> caused by who you are, your brains and experience and values. There
>> would be no point in rewarding or punishing you for those actions
>> because they are not instances of *your* behavior - unless you try to
>> make yourself very big.
> So if you want to redefine responsibility in terms of the utilitarian
> applicability of positive and negative reinforcement with the goal of
> producing socially optimal behavior, that's fine with me.
"Redefine"? You haven't defined it at all - you just assert examples
and assert that they are common usage. I think my definition
corresponds very well with common usage.
> But that's
> not the common usage. And I think it would be better to abandon the
> term "responsibility" and go with something less entangled with
> antediluvian notions of libertarian free will...which is basically
> consistent with the common usage.
> And again, my question stands with respect to why you introduced that
> quote into this thread.
It seemed apropos of your view that determinism eliminates the self.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at