Steve: Why use a term when you can be nearly guaranteed to be misunderstood when you use it? Who outside of the handful of people participating in this forum would think you were defending the capacity to respond to dynamic quality when you say people have free will? How is that shorthand helpful even around here?
Ron: Compatibilism in this context has been around for quite some time and believe it or not would be understood by more than this forum. If you do a quick search on the topic you find that there would not be much confusion at all in using these terms. As Stanford encyclopedia writes: ".1 Free Will It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on this issue have been hunting for, maybe not exclusively, but centrally, is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally responsible for their conduct." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ ..... 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
