Hi Matt, About an hour before getting your post I experienced a felt intention to write to you to see what you thought about all this, so I was glad to see this:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve said: > Playing the causation game doesn't depend on any particular > metaphysics. But once you start looking for explanations in terms of > causes, the serpent of causation is found to run over everything. > > Matt: > That's a good way of putting it. One of the most powerful, succinct > statements of this view--that once you start "playing the causation > game" the viewpoint of morality based on free will seems to > disappear before your very eyes--is Thomas Nagel's "Moral Luck." > Nagel ultimately believes morality does need a notion of free will, but > he nevertheless acknowledges how paradoxical the Kantian > framework is (which he considers necessary to morality). The idea > is that free will is flexed when you have _control_, and Nagel's point > is that when you look too close, you don't have control over much. Steve: I'll try to look up some of your references. Thanks for providing them. What is your personal view on the matter of free will? Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
