Steve said:
I have always granted that most philosophers have traditionally linked the
concepts of free will and moral responsibility. I am saying that that link is
not necessary. It is not a logical necessity.
dmb says:
Okay, then please explain how it is possible to have moral responsibility
without some kind of human agency? Go ahead. Explain how that would work. I'd
really like to see you try to make that case. Maybe you will finally realize
what I'm saying in the attempt to actually articulate moral responsibility
without any kind of freedom to act. If that agency isn't necessary, then one
plausible example is all you need. Good luck.
And I do not think it's true that you've always granted this is true in most
cases, but I'm just going to let that go. I just want you to show how it is
logically possible. That would count as an actual argument. At this point, it's
like that Monty Python skit where the guy pays for an argument but gets nothing
but mere contradiction.
What I find most disturbing is that you are completely unmoved by the simple
logic of it.
If we are not free to choose our actions, how can we be held responsible for
those actions?
You really don't see how it would be logically bogus to say we cannot choose
our actions but we can be held responsible for them?
Man, I just don't know how to make it any simpler or more obvious or more
broadly supported. And you're still not persuaded. And you're amazed that I'm
not persuaded even though you have zero pieces of evidence and your assertions
can't pass the most basic logical standards. Dude, you got nothin'. Your
position is so weak it can be defeated by two sentences from an encyclopedia.
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
