On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:20 PM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If there is a reason, then the reason determined the choice.  No free will.
>>>
>>> Unless you determined the reason.
>>
>> How would you do that?  By what means?  According to what rule?  Using
>> what process?
>>
>> If you determined the reason, what determined you?  Why are you in the
>> particular state you're in?
>>
>> If there exists some rule that translates your specific state into
>> some particular choice, then there's still no free will.  The rule
>> determined the choice.
>
> And if there isn't...you have an action that is reasoned yet
> undetermined, as required

If there is no rule that translates your specific state into some
particular choice, then what is it connects the state to the choice?

The state occurs.  Then the choice occurs.  But nothing connects them?
 That is accidentalism isn't it?



>>> I.1.v Libertarianism — A Prima Facie case for free will
>>
>> As for the rest of it, I read it, but didn't find it convincing on any level.
>>
>> RIG + SIS <> Free Will
>>
>> A random process coupled to a deterministic process isn't free will.
>> It's just a random process coupled to a deterministic process.
>
> If you insist that FW is  a Tertium Datur that is fundamenally
> different from both determinism and causation, then you
> won't accept a mixture. However, I don;t think Tertium Datur
> is a good definition of DW sinc e it is too question begging

It seems to me that when people discuss free will, they are always
really interested in "ultimate responsibility" for actions.

Any defense of "free will" must allow for ultimate responsibility for actions.

I say that ultimate responsibility is impossible, because neither
caused actions nor random actions nor any combination of cause and
randomness seems to result in "ultimate responsibility".

Ultimate responsibility means that reward and punishment are justified
for acts *even after* setting aside any utilitarian considerations.

So *if* it were possible to be ultimately responsible for a bad act,
we wouldn't need to justify the offender's punishment in terms of
deterring future bad behavior by the offender or others.

We wouldn't need to justify the offender's punishment in terms of
rehabilitating the offender so that they don't commit similar bad acts
in the future.

We wouldn't need to justify the offender's punishment in terms of
motivating better behavior by them or others in the future.

We wouldn't need to justify the offender's punishment in terms of
compensating their victims or insuring social stability.

Instead, we could justify the offender's punishment purely in terms of
their ultimate responsibility for it.

Using their free will, they chose to commit the bad act, and therefore
they deserve the punishment.  End of story.

So, given that the punishment would no longer need to be justified in
terms of anything other than ultimate responsibility, how would one
justify limits on the punishment's severity?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
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.

Reply via email to