compatibilism
-
- Posts: 2700
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: compatibilism
That was certainly the most mature thing you could have posted
Re: compatibilism
You can't explain what it is, how it works or why determinists don't have it.What's magic about it? If "somehow" non-living matter did manage to evolve into living matter here on planet Earth, and then "somehow" evolved further into conscious and then self-conscious matter, human brains do acquire the capacity to opt among different behaviors.
Therefore, it appears to be a magical ability.
Determinists don't claim that she has to end up in the abortion clinic. That's just you and possibly fatalists.Mary is then not just another domino toppling over inevitably into the abortion clinic.
I'm just saying that based on your posts, she must be using some magic mojo because otherwise it's impossible to explain your claims.And she's still waiting for you to explain the magic mojo stuff.
I'm not saying that this magic mojo actually exists. I think your analysis of the situation is incorrect.
Re: compatibilism
What is moral responsibility and who cares about it?
If somebody comes around and starts beating on you with a baseball bat, you probably don't care if he is morally responsible or not.
You want it to stop and you don't want it to reoccur. People in the community probably don't want it to reoccur.
Which is why the beater is restrained and imprisoned in a jail or a mental hospital.
Jailing stops him and acts as a potential deterrent to others.
Responsibility is more pragmatic than philosophers make it.
If somebody comes around and starts beating on you with a baseball bat, you probably don't care if he is morally responsible or not.
You want it to stop and you don't want it to reoccur. People in the community probably don't want it to reoccur.
Which is why the beater is restrained and imprisoned in a jail or a mental hospital.
Jailing stops him and acts as a potential deterrent to others.
Responsibility is more pragmatic than philosophers make it.
-
- Posts: 2700
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
-
- Posts: 6829
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: compatibilism
Just to agree and make it more complicated at the same time....phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:44 pm What is moral responsibility and who cares about it?
If somebody comes around and starts beating on you with a baseball bat, you probably don't care if he is morally responsible or not.
You want it to stop and you don't want it to reoccur. People in the community probably don't want it to reoccur.
Which is why the beater is restrained and imprisoned in a jail or a mental hospital.
Jailing stops him and acts as a potential deterrent to others.
Responsibility is more pragmatic than philosophers make it.
When people dive into words like responsibility philosophically, they have, often without knowing it, very specific assumptions about what truth and communication are. That a true assertion represents reality (correspondence) but there are others: coherence, pragmatic - which sounds like your base - redundancy, and semantic theories That communication contains truths that are sent to the other person and they take the truths out: Reddy's conduit metaphor critique..
https://www.reddyworks.com/the-conduit- ... or-article
So, yes, instead of dealing with something on the ground, they want to rev the whole discussion up into a very abstract one where we endlessly deal with determinism and morals and other tricky issues, when in fact it's not so complicated that this kind of language based trying to fix things is actually an odd, culturally bound and local set of ideas about truth and communication that we need not have.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7938
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: compatibilism
post deleted.
Last edited by iambiguous on Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2700
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: compatibilism
You are replying to a person, referring to that person as "you", and that person isn't here. You're talking to a person that isn't here.
Why don't you go talk to that person on the forum they made that post on? What do the people on this forum care about some out of context post from another forum? They don't. They don't have a reason to care about these contextless thoughts at all.
Why don't you go talk to that person on the forum they made that post on? What do the people on this forum care about some out of context post from another forum? They don't. They don't have a reason to care about these contextless thoughts at all.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7938
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: compatibilism
But that's the point. No one seems able to explain it. But here we are. And science is attempting to connect the dots...scientifically. But, to the best of my knowledge, nothing definitive yet. Let alone a way to determine if something claimed to be definitive was only claimed to be because that too is but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:08 pmYou can't explain what it is, how it works or why determinists don't have it.What's magic about it? If "somehow" non-living matter did manage to evolve into living matter here on planet Earth, and then "somehow" evolved further into conscious and then self-conscious matter, human brains do acquire the capacity to opt among different behaviors.
Therefore, it appears to be a magical ability.
So, sure, why not call it magic?
Mary is then not just another domino toppling over inevitably into the abortion clinic.
Right, and what is the science behind demonstrating where and when and why determinism ends and fatalism begins in Mary's brain?
"In short, fatalism is the theory that there is some destiny that we cannot avoid, although we are able to take different paths up to this destiny. Determinism, however, is the theory that the entire path of our life is decided by earlier events and actions."
One of many distinctions no doubt.
Anyone here make the attempt to take the theories down off the skyhooks and examine them existentially with a woman struggling with an actual unwanted pregnancy?
And [Mary] is still waiting for you to explain the magic mojo stuff.
I never said I could explain my claims. Let alone demonstrate them. You must have me confused with someone else.
I'm just interested in hearing arguments that reconcile determinism and moral responsibility.
Fair enough. Besides, given "the gap" between what I think here and now about Mary's abortion and all that there is to be known about it going back to all that there is to be known about the existence of existence itself, what are the odds that my analysis actually could be correct?
I merely suggest that's applicable to everyone else here too.
-
- Posts: 2700
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: compatibilism
I don't understand why you focus so heavily on abortion. That's not a great example of a moral issue. Every time I ejaculate I have millions of abortions and I (or my gf) flush them all down the toilet without a second thought. Who cares if Mary has an abortion or not?
Are you against abortions? Why don't you choose an example that most people will agree is a moral problem?
Are you against abortions? Why don't you choose an example that most people will agree is a moral problem?
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7938
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: compatibilism
No, really, how ridiculous is this?!!Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:02 am I don't understand why you focus so heavily on abortion. That's not a great example of a moral issue. Every time I ejaculate I have millions of abortions and I (or my gf) flush them all down the toilet without a second thought. Who cares if Mary has an abortion or not?
Are you against abortions? Why don't you choose an example that most people will agree is a moral problem?
On the other hand, it's not like he could freely opt not to post it.
Re: compatibilism
You claimed something ("Free will gave Mary the option to not abort Jane") but you provide no reasoning to support the claim.phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:08 pm
What's magic about it? If "somehow" non-living matter did manage to evolve into living matter here on planet Earth, and then "somehow" evolved further into conscious and then self-conscious matter, human brains do acquire the capacity to opt among different behaviors.
You can't explain what it is, how it works or why determinists don't have it.
Therefore, it appears to be a magical ability.
But that's the point. No one seems able to explain it. But here we are. And science is attempting to connect the dots...scientifically. But, to the best of my knowledge, nothing definitive yet. Let alone a way to determine if something claimed to be definitive was only claimed to be because that too is but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.
So, sure, why not call it magic?
That's not reasoning. That's not philosophy. That's making up a story.
Fatalism begins in Mary's mind when she starts to think that she knows what her fate is and that she can't change it.Right, and what is the science behind demonstrating where and when and why determinism ends and fatalism begins in Mary's brain?
We already know the characteristics of determinism and fatalism through observation and reasoning. Science has nothing to do with it.
If you can't explain why your ideas about Mary's abortion are better than other ideas, then what are you doing here?I never said I could explain my claims. Let alone demonstrate them. You must have me confused with someone else.
You got arguments. And you don't seem to be interested in any of them.I'm just interested in hearing arguments that reconcile determinism and moral responsibility.
If you have some reasoning to back up your statements and it passes scrutiny, then your odds of being correct increase.Besides, given "the gap" between what I think here and now about Mary's abortion and all that there is to be known about it going back to all that there is to be known about the existence of existence itself, what are the odds that my analysis actually could be correct?
I merely suggest that's applicable to everyone else here too.
But you don't have anything.
-
- Posts: 2700
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: compatibilism
Man has pretty much explicitly refused to listen to anybody's actual reasoning. He doesn't want to hear, he wants to be heard.
I can relate to that, we all want a voice, a lot of us are on these forums because we want to share our ideas. But when you say you want to hear another idea, and you co-opt that as an opportunity to speak over the person you said you wanted to hear... that's poopoo.
Re: compatibilism
You can just put it out there if you want.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 1:03 pmMan has pretty much explicitly refused to listen to anybody's actual reasoning. He doesn't want to hear, he wants to be heard.
I can relate to that, we all want a voice, a lot of us are on these forums because we want to share our ideas. But when you say you want to hear another idea, and you co-opt that as an opportunity to speak over the person you said you wanted to hear... that's poopoo.
Might be interesting for someone besides Biggus.
-
- Posts: 2700
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: compatibilism
There's so many different paths to go down, to talk about. It's actually quite interesting, really.
Here's a rundown of some of the different paths of the conversation:
1. Randomness as a source of freedom is not satisfactory
2. What purpose does the concept of moral responsibility have at all? And would a society full of rational, pro-social determinists be able to make use of that concept (or an effectively identical one)?
3. Different approaches to "the feeling of having free will" or "the feeling that I could have done otherwise" - are those feelings actually contrary to a deterministic model? I think there's a case to be made that they aren't.
I don't really know where to start, and I don't really feel like ranting about it to myself haha.
Re: compatibilism
Clarifying what people mean by "moral responsibility" and how it fits in with free-will and determinism is probably your best option.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:29 pmThere's so many different paths to go down, to talk about. It's actually quite interesting, really.
Here's a rundown of some of the different paths of the conversation:
1. Randomness as a source of freedom is not satisfactory
2. What purpose does the concept of moral responsibility have at all? And would a society full of rational, pro-social determinists be able to make use of that concept (or an effectively identical one)?
3. Different approaches to "the feeling of having free will" or "the feeling that I could have done otherwise" - are those feelings actually contrary to a deterministic model? I think there's a case to be made that they aren't.
I don't really know where to start, and I don't really feel like ranting about it to myself haha.
As I said before, "randomness" never seems go anywhere.
And "feelings" are probably too vague and subjective to produce an interesting discussion.