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.

Rex

-- 
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 
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