[Craig, previously]
Parfit's argument shows only that a causally inevitable act can be
morally wrong, not that the actor is morally responsible for the act.
[Steve]
What does morally responsible mean to you?
Probably the same as for you.
In the case of a person being morally responsible for
The below seems to have a familiar sound. *whistles innocently*
- - - - -
From Wikipedia:
The early usage of the concept it in this meaning may be see in a story by
Rudyard Kipling: It isn't beauty, so to speak, nor good talk necessarily.
It's just 'It'.[1] Elinor Glyn lectured: With 'It'
From Lila's Child:
Hugo: In my view, free will is a term that can only be used of
self-conscious (self reflective) creatures. Will is a term we may use
of any organism- of any autonomous entity- describing the goal involved
in autonomy. And free will is the ability to change that goal; the
Hi dmb,
dmb said:
..., the idea that a causally determined act could count as free will is
probably one of the stupidest things I ever heard. Free will is exactly NOT a
causally determined will.
Steve replied:
Ok, that was my understanding of your position as well. But that means that
Hi dmb,
Craig said:
Parfit's argument shows only that a causally inevitable act can be morally
wrong, not that the actor is morally responsible for the act.
Steve replied:
What does morally responsible mean to you?
dmb says:
Responsibility is not a controversial concept, Steve. Any
Hi Craig,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:32 AM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Craig, previously]
Parfit's argument shows only that a causally inevitable act can be
morally wrong, not that the actor is morally responsible for the act.
[Steve]
What does morally responsible mean to you?
Craig:
Hi Andre,
Nice job digging up those quotes and tying them together.
Best,
Steve
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote:
From Lila's Child:
Hugo: In my view, free will is a term that can only be used of
self-conscious (self reflective) creatures. Will
Andre quoted Pirsig on free will in the MOQ (from Lila's Child):
Hugo:
In my view, free will is a term that can only be used of self-conscious
(self reflective) creatures. Will is a term we may use of any organism- of
any autonomous entity- describing the goal involved in autonomy. And free
Hi dmb,
Pirsig's response:
Traditionally, this is the meaning of free will. But the MOQ can argue that
free will exists at all levels with increasing freedom to make choices as one
ascends the levels. At the lowest inorganic level, the freedom is so small
that it can be said that nature
Steve said to Craig:
I don't think he [Parfit] was trying to establish all the requirements of moral
responsibility. He was just saying that even under determinism, we would still
have enough _freedom_ for moral responsibility. We could have acted
differently if we had wanted to even if what
Steve said to dmb:
You seemed to have missed the quotes that add something interesting...
dmb says:
No, I didn't miss those quotes. I merely focused on one particular quote, the
one that utterly defeats your position. Naturally, you breezed right past my
actual without any apparent
Steve:
Nice job digging up those quotes and tying them together.
dmb:
Thanks, Andre. Nice work, as usual.
Andre:
Thank you Steve and dmb for your kind words in response to my last post.
I had hoped however that it would clarify some issues and perhaps (one
could only hope) that it would
Hi dmb,
Steve said to Craig:
I don't think he [Parfit] was trying to establish all the requirements of
moral responsibility. He was just saying that even under determinism, we
would still have enough _freedom_ for moral responsibility. We could have
acted differently if we had wanted to
Hi Andre,
It sounds to me like we are in agreement about how the old free
will-determinism issue gets dissolved in the MOQ. Or is there
something about my position you see yourself as disagreeing with?
Best,
Steve
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
There is one step before the choice which is the estimation of the Value of the
alternatives to choose between. The choice is usually made of the most
prefereable alternative, the one with the highest grade of betterness. This
pre-experience is based upon our individual set of preferences
Steve, Andre, Mark, and all Value enthusiasts --
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com
wrote to Steve:
Pirsig's response to Bodvar: This is a subtle slip back into
subject-object
thinking. Values have bee converted to a kind of object in this sentence,
and
Hi Marsha,
Marsha said:
But I think of a philosopher as someone who is curious about the
nature of Reality, or at least some aspect of Reality, not necessarily
someone who has an opinion about everything.
Matt:
I think I understood that this was your different view, as you
glossed as a
Hi Dave,
The Aphorism: One doesn't _have_ static patterns, one _is_ static
patterns.
Matt said:
I want to deny that we should think about the relationship between
the standards and the process on that analogy between static
patterns and DQ. I'm not sure yet how best to defend this on
Hi Ham,
Hopefully we are at the crux of our disagreement. Physics, metaphysics
follow differing logical rules. The logic for physics (mathematics) is
incapable of describing evolution (levels in existence), metaphysics.
Pirsig suggests that the template of metaphysics is DQ/SQ. This ennables a
hey Andre,
Good stuff, inserted at the perfect moment, thnx.
hope others take note
-R
From: Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Could have acted differently v. the extent to, which we
perceive DQ
Steve:
If the individual is a figure of speech, then talking about the
individual making choices is a figure of speech about a figure of
speech. At no point does it begin to make any MOQ sense to say that
the individual possesses or does not possess free will. We literally
are our value choices.
Matt,
Regardless of my disinterest in creating a distinction between
amateur and professional philosopher, you should probably
pursue your project until your curiosity is satisfied.
Marsha
On Sep 13, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:
Hi Marsha,
Marsha said:
But I think of a
Hi Arlo,
I appreciate your response. I especially liked your analogy of
having free will in the conventional sense that we say someone has
ADD, but I think there is an important possible difference. You said,
ADD is an attempt to describe Amy's behavior, often by a series of
inquiries into
Hello Steve,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:40 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Steve:
If the individual is a figure of speech, then talking about the
individual making choices is a figure of speech about a figure of
speech. At no point does it begin to make any MOQ sense to say that
the
24 matches
Mail list logo