I asked you "what is moral responsibility".iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:47 pmClick!phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:26 pm"Rules of behaviors", "rewards and punishments" ...First, in my view, even though neither you nor I are able to pin down definitively whether I am typing these words and you are reading them of our own volition, all I can do here [compelled by my brain or not] is to type "Click" and assume that we do have some measure of free will.
And, if we do have free will, moral responsibility revolves around the fact that in any human community [historically and culturally] there will be a need for "rules of behaviors". You can do this, you can't do that. Then rewards and punishments to enforce the rules/laws. Then one or another combination of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.
I then suggest that, given free will in a No God world, moral and political value judgments revolve largely around dasein. Rooted historically and culturally in our indoctrination as children and in the experiences we have as adults out in a particular worlds understood in a particular way. And, in turn, in world awash in contingency, chance and change. The Bejamin Button Syndrome.
There is no reason why those would not exist in a deterministic world.
So there is moral responsibility for determinism, compatibilism and free-will.
Case closed.
Click!!
Click!!!
Determinism as I understand it here and now:
"Somehow" matter came into existence. "Somehow" it configured into biological matter on Earth. "Somehow" conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" self-conscious matter came to exist here on Earth. "Somehow" that evolved into us.
So, disregarding what we still don't -- can't? -- know about how or why this happened...
Mary aborts Jane because her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compels her to. Some hold her morally responsible and others do not. Why? Because their brains too, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compel them to.
Jane is no more.
Free will as I understand it here and now:
"Somehow" -- God or No God -- human brains acquired autonomy. Mary, re dasein, re an accumulation of her own personal experiences, gets pregnant and chooses to abort the unborn baby. Her friend, however, of her own volition, persuades Mary not to have the abortion.
Jane is still among us.
If, on the other hand, Mary [re dasein] had aborted Jane of her own volition, some, of their own volition [re dasein], would insist that she behaved immorally. Others, of their own volition [re dasein], would insist she had not behaved immorally.
Okay, Mr. Philosopher and Mr. Ethicist, deontologically, given a free will world, which is it?
Compatibilism as I understand it here and now:
Mary aborted Jane because her brain compelled her to. She was never able to opt not to abort her. But "somehow" she is still morally responsible for doing so.
Here, however, I always acknowledge that, given free will, I may not be understanding determinism, free will and compatibilism correctly. But noting in turn that going back to the birth of philosophy and science there does not appear to be an argument able to be demonstrated experientially/experimentally/existentially etc., establishing the One True Path to understanding it objectively.
And that for those who insist human autonomy is linked to a God, the God, their God, not a single solitary God has ever [to my knowledge] been shown to exist.
Now, how about you? In regard to Mary and Jane, or given your own context, how do you construe determinism, free will and compatibilism?
You replied that "... moral responsibility revolves around the fact that in any human community [historically and culturally] there will be a need for "rules of behaviors". You can do this, you can't do that. Then rewards and punishments to enforce the rules/laws."
I pointed out that rules or behavior, rewards and punishments exist within determinism, compatibilism and free will.
And you come back with this response that in no ways deals with what you just wrote and what I just wrote. It doesn't talk about rules of behavior, rewards and punishments at all.
Do you see that it doesn't deal with my point?
It's just a repeat of your position. It's Page 1 again.