It took you 25 minutes to read, digest, and write a response. You're obviously not taking my request seriously. You did exactly what I thought you'd do.
We can't even get to the question what SORT of capacity free will actually is because you can't seem to grasp the fact that it has to be SOME kind of freedom or agency to even be called free will. You're disagreeing with the most basic part of the concept that no source fails to mention. You are defying every encyclopedia and dictionary on this point. So I'm all done talking to you. Besides, I've got friends to kiss, frisbees to throw and steaks to grill. > Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:13:10 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Moral Responsibility without free will > > Hi dmb, > > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:48 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Steve said: > > ...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: > > > > This issue is covered in the opening paragraph of Stanford's article on > > "Free Will". We have been going round and round and can't seem to agree on > > the most basic terms and ideas involved. ... > > Look at the first sentence of this first paragraph from this highly > > respected encyclopedia of philosophy. That first sentence should be enough > > to tell you why your claim (above) is simply wrong. Why can you not see > > this? It says that the term "Free will" means the capacity of an agent to > > choose. > > Steve: > No, it doesn't. You need to read more carefully. In fact I can't see > how could possibly take that sentence to be _supporting_ rather than > specifically _refuting_ your claim here. Maybe my emphasis added below > will help you get the point of this quote you provided: It says. "Free > Will” is a philosophical term of art for a PARTICULAR SORT of capacity > of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various > alternatives. WHICH SORT is the free will sort is what all the fuss is > about." > > You see? It is not at all taken for granted that the capacity of > rational agents to choose is equivalent to free will. That capacity is > deemed in this quote as _insufficient_ for free will which is rather a > _"particular sort"_ of this capacity. > > Further, it says "MOST philosophers suppose that the concept of free > will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. > Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the > METAPHYSICAL requirement on being responsible for one's action." First > of all, the fact that merely most rather than _all_ philosophers > taking this view should tell you that the link between free will and > moral responsibility is _not_ a logical necessity that forces the mind > of all true rational thinkers to agree with you on the matter. > Secondly, the word "metaphysical" should be a big red flag here for > you. We debated long and hard to agree that neither of us or any > Pirsigian or pragmatist ought to take free will as a metaphysical > matter. It is those that seek a metaphysical basis for human freedom > that assert free will as the supposedly needed foundation for moral > responsibility. Those people aren't us. We MOQers and pragmatists > aren't in the category "most philosophers." > > Best, > 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 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
