Yes, you can. You can decide not to act on that inclination. Or you can choose to act on a different inclination, since you always have multiple ones.
I was pointing to gambling to show that there are situations that the outcomes of the decision are not known.[/quote]Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:04 pmOf course. But that's different from arguing the gambler has no motive. He clearly does. And even if he's wrong about getting it, he certainly finds that motive appealing. That's why gambling is addictive, as well.
The outcome of gambling is different from your desire to win.
However, even in gambling, they are expected.
The gambler thinks he knows he can win. So it's not a countercase at all.
We have to disagree. i don't think it's at all plausible.It is very true.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:04 pmThat's the part I simply think is not believable.In the end, you have the ability to resist the final reason for no reason otherwise you are following a reason and you are not free.
Because you can't choose. Whether it's "moral" or not is moot.Why it does not make sense?Oh, it certainly does.Determinism has nothing against morality.
If I have no choice but to do one particular thing, it doesn't even make sense to ask, "Is that moral?"
In a Determinist world, there's only one way in which any situation can go. Not two. Not ten. Just one. And you can't have a "choice" of one, inevitable thing.
No. Because you are not response-able, meaning "not able to respond." You can only do whatever it was you were predetermined by fate to do anyway. You have no ability to change that.What does not make sense in a deterministic world is moral responsibility rather than morality.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm Moreover, in a Determinist world, there is not even a thing called "morality," apart from the fact that it designates an odd delusion that people are, for some unknown reason, preprogrammed and predetermined to have. It's not objective. It corresponds to nothing that exists in reality, other than this common delusion.
But that's just one evidence that Determinism is hogwash.
It's still not true. I can choose to follow, or not.I said if you follow by which I mean that you make an unfree decision.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pmNot at all.If a person follows this code then he is behaving deterministically.
If I read that it says in the code, "You must not steal," I'm still perfectly free to make the decision whether to believe that code or decide to steal anyway. If I choose to steal, that's my decision; but if I choose to take the code seriously and not steal, that is also a decision I have made. I'm still free. The code didn't "make" me do anything. It didn't even "motivate" me to do it. All it did was present an option to me, which I remained free to accept or reject.
No, they're quite different. I may have the "motive" or "inclination" to fly by flapping my arms. It sounds like a lot of fun, actually. But I cannot. I do not have that option. I certainly may have the "motive" to be king of the world; but I cannot. Other people prevent me. I do not have that option, though I have the motive.Motives or inclinations define options.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pmRight. And not just options, but motives as well. For one has to have reasons to choose one or another among many options. That doesn't imply the reasons "make" you choose one option or the other, as I suggested above. All it means is that you get to choose among the options, based on the motives you choose to pay attention to.Of course, options must be available otherwise no one can make a decision.
Options are what you CAN do.
Motives and inclinations speak to what you WANT to do.
Sometimes they're the parallel; but often, they're not.
A Determinist imagines that. But foolishly, she argues her case.We are programmed too.
Why argue a case if people cannot change their minds? Determinism says they cannot: there is only one way their mind can ever be, at a given time. So why argue? It cannot induce her interlocutor to "change" his mind. Change is not real. Whatever his mind was going to be anyway, that it will be.
Again, another reason why Determinism's idiotic.