On Apr 24, 6:19 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is a standard use of language to say that people are responsible in > varying degrees for their actions. I don't understand why you claim > that your binary determinism is 'standard language' in some way. When > we talk about someone being guilty of a crime, that quality of guilt > makes no sense in terms of being passively caused or randomly > uncaused That's a rather shallow dismissal of compatibiism. We absolve people of guilt if they are compelled by an agency, but causaiton is not the same as compulsion. If someone weighs up options and makes a bad choice, they have not been compelled and so are responsible even if the process of choice was metaphysically deterministic. Under determinism, it makes sense to punish a person in order to modify their behaviour. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
