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. Brent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---