Steve, dmb, Michael Still not quite with you Steve ...
OK so we change the focus away from interminable free-will vs determinism debates by asking a more pragmatic question like "How do we make things better in the future?" I'm really good with that. But that doesn't mean "Free will is certainly not necessary ...." Patterns / concepts / behaviours we call our free-will are still in that first question - in the how do "we make" things better. It presupposes we are able "to make" things better in the world (or fail to make ...). We can describe / explain / name it differently in a MoQish context, but our ability to choose what to do and act on it is still in there, yes ? What would you call that ? (Before we get into any moral responsibility questions.) This is really Michael's pragmatic Randian suggestion ... the practical situation which gives rise to the free-will concept, however you explain or describe it. Still losing what it is you see as dmb or (anyone else) disagreeing with. Ian On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > HI dmb, > > >> Steve said to dmb: >> You have asserted that would need to drop the notions of blameworthiness and >> praiseworthiness if we drop the term "free will." But consider, where do >> Poincare's ideas come from? Certainly not his conscious willing of them. It >> is not _will_ that makes him praiseworthy as a thinker. Likewise it is not >> "free will" that makes bad behavior reprehensible. We simply do not need >> this concept to talk about morality. >> 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
