On Apr 19, 6:24 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Apr 2011, at 21:16, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> >>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> >>>> Hence Rex might well be right that the discussion here continues because
> >>>> we do not have free will.
>
> >>> This shows only that we don't have free-will in the absolute
> >>> incompatibilist
> >>> sense, but there are  compatibilist theories, which explains well the
> >>> correctness of a relative (to the subject) incompatibilist feature of
> >>> free
> >>> will.
>
> >> The free will that we don't have in the "absolute incompatibilist
> >> sense" is the free will that most people believe in.
>
> > How can you know that?
>
> “In a massive survey of people in 36 countries, more than 70% agreed
> with the statement that their fate is in their own hands
> (International Social Survey Programme, 1998).”
>
> Okay, so that rules out incompatibilism for “most people”.

Surely you mean it rules out determinism for most people.

> How many
> of that 70% do you think answered that question in the affirmative as
> compatibilists?
>
> I’ve met a lot of people who are libertarians on free will, and I’ve
> met a few who are incompatibilists,


Incompatibilist determinists, you mean?

>but I’ve never actually met a
> compatibilist in person.

Nonetheless, it is  a popular position amongst proffessional
philosophers.


> BUT...maybe compatibilists don’t want to make things clear?  Maybe
> they welcome the confusion that reusing the older term causes amongst
> the layman?
>
> > Th fact that you say that compatibilist free will is "faux will" or worst
> > "subjective will" means that you *do* believe in incompatibilist free will.
>
> Huh?
>
> > You act like atheist who defends a very particular definition so as to
> > better mock the concept.
>
> Libertarian free will deserves to be mocked.

Because...? You have a proof of determinism?


> The damage is done, and there’s no undoing it.  The question should be
> how best to repair the system and its parts, and to make improvements
> so as to minimize recurrences.
>
> And this is where “free will” and “moral responsibility” do their
> damage, in that they distract people from these practical concerns.
> They whet the appetite for punishment and retribution instead of
> repair and improvement.

Is that the argument against libertarianism, then? That you don't
like what you take to be its consequences? But if determinism
is true, that doesn't mean we will change. We might carry on being
punitive libertarians. We might change into non-punitive determinists.
We might become *punitive* determinists. We will do as we are
determined to.

> They focus too much attention on the individual, and not enough on the
> system that produced the individual.
>
> As I said, rewarding bad behavior will get you more bad behavior, but
> the question is why did the bad behavior manifest in the first place?
> To declare yourself yourself uninterested in that question, to be so
> eager to just chalk it up to “free will” - that is...peculiar.

So 100% of libertarians have 0% belief in environmental
influences and causes....that is obviously a straw man.
LIbertarianism means people have some non-zero level
of freedom, not that they float free of all causation.

-- 
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