On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 4/15/2011 12:16 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>> Critics of "free will in the absolute incompatibilist sense" are correct.
>> Critics of "compatibilist free will" object to the misuse of terms by
>> compatibilists, not to the concepts described by those terms.
>> There is no confusion.  The problem is quite clear...combatibilists
>> are engaged in word-jugglery.
> It is not word-jugglery.  It's legal terminology and distinguishes what
> someone does out of their personal desires as compared to what they do under
> threat of coercion.  Compatibilist free will corresponds with the legal
> term.

What court has ever ruled that libertarian free will does not exist?

What percentage of legislators, judges, lawyers, and jurors do you
think are compatibilists vs. libertarian on free will?

I would guess that the legal system, and the people who work within
it, and the jurors who participate, and the legislators who write the
laws that are enforced are *all* heavily biased towards a libertarian
view of free will.

Compatibilism corresponds to the legal term because that's the whole
*point* of compatibilism...to be "compatible" with the libertarian
view of free will which underlies every aspect of the legal system.

Change the definitions and justifications, keep everything else the
same.  Compatibilism.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to