Sure Baby, but the question was if there is a necessary relationshipe between free will and moral responsibility.
I don't think that our dear politicians, who are the one that writes down the laws, I don't think they are absolutely determined to do what they do, it s always a step-by-step work of betterment. Even communists aren't determined to do what they do, They just don't understand what it is all about. Free will includes the right to be stupid, adapt just any dogmatic thinking and really fool around. This can also happen by serious people. An intereting thing regarding laws is thta they have to be written down in a way that anyone who is supposed to follow the law, must be able to understand the law. If it is impossible to understand a law,( or a philosophic assertion,) could one then be held responsible for breaking it? Anyway, I survived the ride and now we are a bit closer friends I think. I gave her some massage on the back and she was so sweet to me with her muzzle. Jan-Anders 8 aug 2011 kl. 19.58 skrev [email protected]: > J-A, > > I think that RMP says somewhere that until you become a mystic, you had > better follow the laws. That makes sense to me. Break the law and you will > probably be punished. But I also think if you understand Quality, you are > less likely to cause the kind of harm that will put you behind bars. Why? > Because you will be more aware of betterment. > > > Marsha > > > > On Aug 8, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote: > >> Hi Marsha >> >> Is it possible to put personal responsibl?lity upon a rock being a rock? >> Can you blame a squid for being a squid? >> Are the people on the Andaman Islands guilty for their culture? >> >> A person equal to the occasion with personal free will has his moral value >> concepts for what is right and wrong in his view but a kid that doesn't know >> all yet and is doing just what it is told can't be held responsible in the >> same way. Thats the difference between adults and infants. >> >> We are free to build our own personality or not. An adult individual is >> supposed to use his mental freedom. We are responsible for the moral we >> freely build by ourselves. We are responsible for the values that we freely >> can change by our own mind. Our moral values are our only property and >> nobody elses business unless we don't harm anyone else. >> >> Moral values that is not our own is not connected with free will. We can for >> example not be held responsible for race, color or sexual values. >> >> I can see that there is an interest by those who try to make us believe that >> there is no difference here wants us back to the sheep state so they can >> play the leaders. But why should we trust people that deny responsibility? >> >> Now I'm going to take a ride on my new horse. I got her cheap because they >> said she's nervous but I think she can dance. >> >> That's dynamic. >> >> Hoopla! >> >> Jan-Anders >> >> >> 8 aug 2011 kl. 17.31 MarshaV wrote: >> >>> The MoQ offers a four-tiered, evolutionary, hierarchical structure as a >>> moral framework. In what way does this translate into a logical and >>> necessary relationship between an agent with free will and moral >>> responsibility? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 8, 2011, at 10:57 AM, MarshaV wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Is there a difference between the law holding someone responsible & >>>> protecting citizens from further harm and a individual being "morally >>>> responsible"? Just a question... >>>> >> 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
