On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:51 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 7/18/2012 6:28 AM, R AM wrote:
> Dear Bruno, compatibilist free-will is defined as "without coercion".
> Metaphisical (non-compatibilist) free-will is a property or ability people
> claim to have when making decisions (i.e. they are so absolutely free that
> even natural law does not coerce them). Compatibilist free-will is NOT
> something people have, since it is defined by the external situation to the
> agent (i.e. the agent is not externally constrained).
> That seems like a strange conception of what it means "to have". I have a
> motorcycle. The fact that it is external and is mine because I paid for it
> and it is registered in my name doesn't negate my having it.
I don't think we say we have free-will in the same sense than owning a
Here is an example of what I mean:
1) Someone is coercing you to give some secret information. A member of
your family will be killed if you don't comply. You decide to provide the
information: you are coerced => no compatibilist free-will, but you still
exercised your "metaphysical free-will".
2) You decide to provide the information without coercion. Here you have
both metaphysical and compatibilist free-will (you have not been coerced).
>From the point of view of compatibilist free-will, the only difference
between 1 and 2 is the external situation (the coercion). Compatibilist
free will is not something you have, or something you do, or a "power" of
you. It's something that happens to you.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at