-
Hey Autolykos, I still don't see where we've arrived at "inaction does not cause harm". There are certainly cases where my choice not to do something can be harmful to others. In fact inaction, if free will exists, can be treated as just a form of original action. I chose not to pay for those spoons, etc...this is a separate "action"
-
Actually I'm not sure I think you can combine compatibilism and deontology all that well. Think about it: the compatibilist view must imply that free will exists by degrees, that when your choices are limited your free will is limited and therefore your moral culpability is limited. But as I said before, I don't think you can believe in free
-
It's off topic but I'd like to discuss that last comment. How do you distinguish between an agent operating by instinct and one operating by reason? If you don't, then animals could be defined as having free will as well. And moral culpablity is in question too; would you, a deontologist, hold the paranoid schizophrenic to the same consequences
-
Oh hey, I think I’m getting this. So the difference might be found in what they expected the injured party to rightfully do about the action? Like a consequentialist would expect you to take the context into account, whereas the deontologist would figure it was the victim’s right to react as though the context didn’t matter?
-
There's no interruption MaikU, it was an open question not a conversation...as to your thoughts: it sounds like you're suggesting that deontological libertarianism accepts a hierarchy of harm by degrees but maybe in a different way than consequentialist libertarianism, and maybe that answers my question. Whereas Consequentialists judge the moral
-
Maybe this response is simplistic, and I'm a total newbie myself. But I experience the process of making choices and acting on those choices. I experience this in a way that FEELS like I originate my choice/action. Two things are possible. 1) I'm experiencing an illusion, or 2) I am experiencing the world as it really is. #2 appears to be the
-
I'm so sorry, but something has happened to the thread in which I just asked this: Hey okay, so I'm finding the materials available here a little overwhelming... I have a question that will help me understand the deontological approach to ethics. In this viewpoint, how would an agent make a decision where 1) inaction would cause harm, and 2
-
Autolykos, I'd like to know how you arrive at this, logically. Also, what bearing does it have on the question? I'm not following.
-
Well, for example when it would result in the restriction of MY liberty. Or a loved one. Or speaking in a broader sense, of a group which has contracted with me for protection or something... I avoided being specific because specific questions usually get specific answers, which isn't what I'm looking for. There must be a general rule involved
-
Hey okay, so I'm finding the materials available here a little overwhelming... I have a question that will help me understand the deontological approach to ethics. In this viewpoint, how would an agent make a decision where 1) inaction would cause harm, and 2) all available actions would cause harm? Harm being taken to mean restricting or removing