-
So you believe in the NAP and you don't derive this belief from your definition of free will, Autolykos. Am I wrong? Can you discuss what, in your opinion, makes NAP valid other than the existence of free will? I can imagine, from your perspective, saying something like "NAP is valid and moral responsibility exist because we experience the
-
Okay, good Autolykos. My trouble is working out what it all boils down to...as a Misesian, are you a consequentialist? That would help to start with. Then I'd like to ask if you therefore believe that free will is only illusion but a good working principle, as MaikU indicates? Believing this would imply that other considerations can supersede the
-
There is too much. I will sum up. MaikU: You appear to be a soft determinist/compatibilist to me. Your definition of free will requires less actual control than the inteterminist definition of free will. You also do not derive a moral system from the concept of free will but from some other basic concept that is not under discussion here. You do, however
-
Okay guys I'm going to put off my next reply until tomorow. This is going off in too many directions so I want to address everything reasonably. Thanks again!
-
Thanks MaikU, I appreciate that you clarify your ideas. I'd say that determinism means only one action is possible in any given scenario. Having choices limited by agencies outside of my control does not mean I live in a deterministic universe. Limited choices are not no choices. Also, how can harm always be wrong if free will doesn't really
-
My premises were: 1) that free will exists; I didn't rationalize this because my question was about how you'd react GIVEN this premise and a deontological libertarian approach. I don't think I'll meet many on this board who disagree with it, though. 2) that it is possible to be in a situation where all choices involve initiating harm
-
Ok, we don't agree. Your last statement was funny, but not a resolution to that particular problem. I don't think your premises are capable of giving you a way to answer my original question, so personally I don't think they are valid. But to each is own, and from now on I'll go armed to the chess board.
-
I follow what you're saying about our definitions being different, but I have outlined the rationales for my premises. I'd like it if you could do the same, because they're just not making sense to me. I should also point out that the Mirror Test I mentioned might demonstrate consciousness but I'm not actually convinced that it demonstrates
-
I pretty much entirely disagree with your analysis of the drowning man thing. Once you know about the situation you have a choice, and your choosing is an original action that requires you to accept moral culpability. You didn't create the situation; in fact you rarely create the situations you're reacting to in daily life; you only create your
-
How do you conclude that conscious behavior is rational behavior? Also, how do you conclude that instinctive behavior is conscious behavior and therefore (by your reasoning) rational behavior? I would not classify all animals or even most animals as conscious. As far as I can make out, the ability to think objectively is the best way to define rationality