Hi dmb,
> Steve replied: > But "agent" is not the same thing as a "free agent." The fact that humans > are agents--that we make choices--does not do anything to link free will and > morality. Choices are necessary for morality, but whether our choices are > free in some meaningful sense can be held as a separate question. > > > dmb says: > Yes, choices are necessary for morality. That's the point I've been trying to > make. If you have no choice in what you say or do, it makes no sense to blame > or praise those acts. That's all I mean by the logical necessity. But as soon > as you concede this point, you take it back in a way that simply doesn't make > any sense. If our choices are not free then how can we even call them > choices? If your actions are determined, it means you have no choice but to > act that way. I think it's very weird to argue against such an obvious point. > Like I said, "If you are willing to admit we make choices, then that's all we > need to say we make choices. If you saying we had no choice but to make that > "choice", then you are simply defying the meaning of the word "choice". And > that's nonsense..." Steve: It seems that you are going to insist on your particular definition of the word "choice" as equating to "freely willed choice" while I do not see any such necessary equation. But if you don't like the way I use "choose" them just substitute "opt" or whatever. All I mean is that we do one thing and don't do another thing. Having multiple available options is all that is necessary to talk about agency. Note also that Pirsig's formulation of freedom does not involve choice, so you are hammering on the wrong nail in any case. Pirsig says to the extent that we follow DQ we are free. He does not say that when we _choose_ to follow DQ we are free. That would be absurd. In a choice between A and B, our choice between the two is free if we choose A but not free if we choose B? > Steve said to dmb: > Perhaps you can't make sense of it because I am pointing out that the > position of free will is somewhat nonsensical or redundant when you look at > it deeply. And it isn't just me who is saying so. I've quoted Harris quoting > Einstein quoting Schopenhauer saying so. None of them are disposed to spout > nonsense. > > > dmb says: > > Right. You're way too deep for me. That's gotta be it. The fact that you're > defying logic and using terms in such a way as to defy their definitions by > 180 degrees couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Steve: My point is that if I am doing that then so are Harris, Einstein, and Schopenhauer since I am just saying what they are saying. If you think my argument defies logic and uses words to mean the opposite of what they mean, then you are saying that they are as well. Regards, Steve 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
