If free will is assumed, is the will free?
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:16 pm
Might as well get to the point of the debate on free will.... I am sick of the sophistry.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
This is an old error.Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:38 pm if there is no free will there is no moral culpability ...
-Imp
it is determined that you weigh actions? by which standard?barbarianhorde wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:59 amThis is an old error.Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:38 pm if there is no free will there is no moral culpability ...
-Imp
Like: since there is gravity, you shouldn't try to stand up straight.
Moral culpability exists precisely because actions determine outcomes.
Whether or not actions are metaphysically seen as "free willed" has absolutely no diminishing bearing on our power of weighing our actions.
I assuming the the variable of the question (free will), does that mean free will exists if I assume it?David Smudge wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:33 pm We're you free to ask that question? If not, who's asking?
Moral culpability never was dependent on the metaphysical and utterly nonsensical because unfalsifiable question of free will.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:33 pmit is determined that you weigh actions? by which standard?barbarianhorde wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:59 amThis is an old error.Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:38 pm if there is no free will there is no moral culpability ...
-Imp
Like: since there is gravity, you shouldn't try to stand up straight.
Moral culpability exists precisely because actions determine outcomes.
Whether or not actions are metaphysically seen as "free willed" has absolutely no diminishing bearing on our power of weighing our actions.
didn't choose that either?
-Imp
Thats a beautiful solution.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:58 pmI assuming the the variable of the question (free will), does that mean free will exists if I assume it?David Smudge wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:33 pm We're you free to ask that question? If not, who's asking?
person A exercised his free will and chose to act ... that fact that you set whatever standard to judge that action, his own judgement or an outside judge, is still dependent on person A's choice of action ...barbarianhorde wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:58 amMoral culpability never was dependent on the metaphysical and utterly nonsensical because unfalsifiable question of free will.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:33 pmit is determined that you weigh actions? by which standard?barbarianhorde wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:59 am
This is an old error.
Like: since there is gravity, you shouldn't try to stand up straight.
Moral culpability exists precisely because actions determine outcomes.
Whether or not actions are metaphysically seen as "free willed" has absolutely no diminishing bearing on our power of weighing our actions.
didn't choose that either?
-Imp
Morality is a value judgment, not a question of 19th century pseudo physics.
In other words, the moral culpability of a criminal is actually a function of the mental health of the judge.
If you believe otherwise, you get this scenario:
sanity is defined as having a set of values (response patterns)
person A does something way out of has value set like kill a thousand civilians
person A says he thinks this was a righteous and moral act
person A is on that ground diagnosed as "insane"
on the grounds of insanity it is decided that person A can not be condemned for what he did
person A goes free
person A is thereby proven right that what he did was a moral, or at least not an immoral act.
See the question of morality must apply to acts and consequences, which can be discerned, and not to the interior world of persons, which cannot be discerned.