Steve said:
...moral responsibility and free will are not linked as a logical necessity.
Pirsig said:
"This battle has been a very long and very loud one because an abandonment of
either position has DEVASTATING LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES." "In the MOQ this
dilemma doesn't come up."
dmb says:
Why does it not come up? Because in the MOQ, one does not have to abandon
either position. We are controlled to some extent and we are free to some
extent. We don't have to pretend that morality is "merely an artificial social
code that has nothing to do with the real nature of the world" in order to save
the laws of science and we don't have to "deny the truth of science" in order
to assert free will. The MOQ does not escape these devastating logical
consequences by abandoning free will and then simply defying logical
consequences of it. It avoid this dilemma by showing that you do not have to
choose one position to the exclusion of the other. The MOQ's reformulation is a
new kind of compatibilism. The freedom of DQ and the constraining order of sq
are both necessary.
Wiki says:
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible
ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically
inconsistent.[1] It may, however, be more accurate to say that compatibilists
define 'free will' in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism. ...In
contrast, the incompatibilist positions are concerned with a sort of
"metaphysically free will," which Compatibilists claim has never been
coherently defined.
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
