On 4/15/2011 1:36 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
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
What court has ever ruled that libertarian free will does not exist?
What court has ever ruled that it does exist? None. That's not a
question courts rule on. They decide on coerced vs not coerced,
competent vs not competent. They don't address metaphysics.
What percentage of legislators, judges, lawyers, and jurors do you
think are compatibilists vs. libertarian on free will?
What percentage are pre-destinationists? What percentage are
fatalists? Who cares?
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.
And theism and capitalism.
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