dmb said:
Please notice that Steve has characterized my position as exactly the opposite
of what I plainly and explicitly said. If anyone knows how to communicate
effectively with someone like that, please step up and show me how because I
don't see how it can be done.
Steve replied:
Is this your way of saying that you've changed your mind, and you now see
Parfit as having given sufficient support for moral responsibility?
dmb says:
No, I'm saying that you have distorted and misconstrued things so badly and the
result is a failure to communicate. Since I have said nothing at all about
Parfit or moral responsibility, your reply is just one more piece of evidence
of this conceptual distortion.
Steve continued:
...You now see "I could have acted differently if I had wanted to" as free will
_even if_ "what I want" is causally determined? That still counts as free will
in your book?
dmb says:
No, the idea that causally determined act count as free will is probably one of
the stupidest things I ever heard. Free will is exactly NOT a causally
determined will. And, on top of that, causality does not even factor into the
sort of free will I'm talking about because the MOQ takes causality out of the
equation altogether and replaces with preferences. (That's why Parfit's causal
determinism is irrelevant.)
Steve continued:
If someone says, "I am free to choose whatever I want, but what I want is
causally determined," that counts as free will to you?
dmb says:
No, as a matter of fact, I think anyone who says that does not understand the
meaning of the terms "free" and "determined". The person who says that is using
the terms improperly or he doesn't mind making a fool of himself. It's a
blatant contradiction. It's like saying I'm a married bachelor. That claim can
be defeated by any dictionary and it should play no part in an intelligent
conversation.
Steve said:
Are you sure there is no "something extra" that you need to add to "the ability
to do you you want" to count as sufficient for free will in your view? No
"something extra" you insist on adding???
dmb says:
Nope. I never asked for something extra. Quite the opposite, in fact. It was
YOU who kept talking about the will to will and wanting our wants and all I
ever did was ask about this weird redundancy. I keep insisting that there's NO
good reason for this extra stuff and "free will" just means a will that is not
determined.
Steve said:
Ok, then what was all that business about "value determinism"?
dmb says:
"Value determinism" is the label I applied to YOUR incoherent position. It's
incoherent because you're adding the causal determinism of Harris and Parfit to
the MOQ's reformulation. Adding these together is a conceptual train wreck.
There is no possible way that move could ever make sense.
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
