Steve, dmb said "... 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."
And I agree. My comment to you was I'm not getting what your disagreement actually is ? So let's come back to your statement "moral (responsibility) and free will are not linked (as a logical necessity)" I say these things like this. There is a moral order / framework which exists logically independent of free will. That is the MoQ. It exists, whether I exert my free will or not, and whether I take responsibility for it, or not. BUT In so far as we exercise our choices within that framework - enabled by DQ, constrained by sq's - we are responsible for our exercise of that will, and its consequences. I am at a loss to understand how you are separating free-will from responsibility (at any level, common sense, science, MoQ or metaphysical in general). Ian On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:51 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > 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
