compatibilism

[BigMike]

There is no distinction between moral behaviour and other behaviour like, for instance, breathing. The more I know I am nothing other than a mode of nature the more I know that moral behaviour * is like breathing.

*When I say "moral behaviour" in this context of free will/determinism, I mean ethical behaviour.

Well, I make a difference between moral behavior (which exists) and moral responsibility (which doesn't exist).

That is an interesting distinction, but I think I disagree.
It's immoral not to take responsibility for a child who is in danger, when you can help him. Same with an adult, if you can help then it's immoral not to help.In order to be able to help someone who needs help we must breathe and otherwise try to keep healthy and safe. So it's impossible to behave morally unless you also take responsibility.
Taking responsibility is actual action actual behaviour.

I understand where you're coming from, but let's break down your argument. You're saying that it's immoral not to take responsibility for someone in danger when you can help them, and I agree with that. But then you're equating taking responsibility with being able to help, and that's where I think we might disagree.

Let's say there's a situation where you could help someone, but for whatever reason, you're not able to. Maybe you're physically incapacitated, or you don't have the resources to help them. In that case, would you still consider it immoral not to help?

Additionally, you mention that in order to be able to help someone, we must take care of ourselves first. I completely agree with that. However, taking care of ourselves isn't necessarily the same thing as taking responsibility for someone else's well-being. We can take care of ourselves and still not be in a position to help others.

Finally, you mention that taking responsibility is actual action and behavior, and again, I agree with that. But I don't think it necessarily follows that taking responsibility is the only way to behave morally. There may be situations where we can't take responsibility for someone else's well-being, but we can still behave morally by showing empathy and compassion, or by advocating for policies that will help those in need.

So, while I agree with the general sentiment of your argument, I think it's a bit more nuanced than you're presenting it.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, this is the part that [to me] is the most mind-boggling. I think back on all of the extraordinary experiences I have had and my emotional reactions to them. Then, sure, I think, "is it really possible that all of that unfolded in a determined universe such that I had nothing to do with actually creating this reality other than in behaving autonomically [like a beating heart] given chemical and neurological cues in my brain?"

I agree, mind boggling. I think whatever is going on is mind boggling. If it's determinism, mind boggling. If we have free will, mind boggling. That there is a universe at all, mind boggling.

Yeah, that seems preposterous. But then I think back on all of the extraordinary dream "realities" I have "experienced". In the dream it was like I was not dreaming it at all. It was real. Only, of course, it wasn't.

Then the part where I conclude that the brain is just more matter. Unless "somehow" re either God or a No God Nature I did acquire autonomy. But: how to know this for sure?

Yeah, I don't know how one can be sure.

Again, from my frame of mind, what difference does it make in a determined world that Mary was a Catholic and was afraid of her father's opinion? All of that is no less an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

Just me explaining the causes that led to the abortion. That's all. Those in the determined world.
The ponit being, again, that a free will world allows both things that will be appreciated and things that are hated to happen. Just as in a determined world. That's all.

All I can suggest is that you bring this up with Jane.

Huh. Why are you suggesting I bring it up with her? Have you brought it up with her?

What "clear statement"? Whether in regard to morality or determinism here what am I saying re "If you say X is true. Or it must be X."

Not about morality and free will, per se. About what a free will world would be like....

Given a free will world how is moral responsibility pertaining to abortion not profoundly rooted in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome?

IOW you seem incredulous that dasein in a free will world will have effects on behavior. I don't know how you know this. If you are assuming this world is a free will world, you need to say this. But you've made it clear you don't know if there is free will or determinism in this world.

So, sure, in free will world, the number of abortions may rise and fall due to any number of social, political and economic factors.

When I bring up caprice/whims....

No, not in my view. Pure caprice would revolve around Mary just flipping a coin or rolling the dice to decide whether to give birth. And if Jane were to ask her mom about her birth, Mary might tell her, "well, you are here because a friend of mine convinced me to give birth to you." Then there are the existential, rooted in dasein causes behind her friend choosing to do this.

Great. I just don't see what free will means if we are talking about causes. In your version of free will it seems like Dasein lead to choices. You call it predisposes us. Well, if that means partially determines, what's the other part but caprice. If it means totally determines, then it's determinism.

So, sure, in free will world, the number of abortions may rise and fall due to any number of social, political and economic factors.

You lose me here. And please scrap the X. What in particular relating to abortion do you construe as being applicable to me?

I don't think you have a clear position on abortion.

It's the whole point from my end! Given a free will world how is moral responsibility pertaining to abortion not profoundly rooted in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome? This is precisely where the moral objectivists among us refuse to go in my opinion. Even in assuming human autonomy they want to believe that in using the tools of philosophy or one or another political ideology or their own take on nature [re Satyr], rational men and women can "deduce" the wisest, most virtuous and deontologically sound behaviors. Or, for others, one or another God.

I don't understand the Benjamin Button Syndrome. I've seen the film, but I don't know what this has to do with free will/deteminism. As far as the rest: have Big Mike and Phyllo said that using the tools of philosophy rational men and women can deduce the most virtuous and deontologically sound behaviors? Has Flannel Jesus? I certainly don't think that.

It seems like Big Mike is convinced we can deduce determinism and that this implies certain things about how we view people doing stuff we dont like. Perhaps he has laid out what the most virtuous and deontologically sound behaviors are in general, I don't know. Perhaps the others have. I understand they may have opinions aobut these things, but I missed them taking this kind of overarching position.

You complained about objectvists a few pages back. I don't think you named names, but it seemed like you were dealing with some in this thread.

Who do you consider objectivists here in this thread, in the last 10 pages of discussion?
Do you think it makes sense to associate these people with the gulags and if so why?
Have they made it clear that.....

in using the tools of philosophy or one or another political ideology or their own take on nature [re Satyr], rational men and women can "deduce" the wisest, most virtuous and deontologically sound behaviors.

[iambiguous]

Slavoj Zizek and the Case for Compatibilism
Philosophy for the People w/Ben Burgis

A couple weeks ago, I wrote something here debunking Sam Harris’s arguments against free will. I put my own (compatibilist) cards on the table, but my overall point was a narrow one—that Harris’s arguments don’t touch the most plausible compatibilist or incompatibilist accounts of free will.

With those like Sam Harris, I would ask the same thing: how far do they take determinism? Does it encompass the fact that even their own beliefs...their books, their articles, their YouTube videos, etc.... could only have been as they were? And that those who react either for or against their own points of view are equally included in the assumption that all human brains compel all human beings to think, feel, say and do things that are fated, destined. How do they make the distinction between fated, destined and determined?

Yes, determinism for Sam Harris encompasses all those things.

They generally don't need to distinguish between fate, destiny, and determinism, because their audience generally is not confused by these concepts. The audience knows generally what determinism means, there's no need explicitly to contrast it against fatalism.

Well, if Harris is convinced that everything he thinks, feels, says and does was, is and will be such that no distinction need be made between fated, destined and determined, then how is that not the case as well for those either confused or not confused by what he argues? It's not what anyone in the audience claims to know or not to know about him and his views but the fact that what they do claim to know or not know is in turn fated, destined, determined to be only that which their brains compel them know or not know.

You speak of what they need as though that is not also what they were only ever able to need. Back to Schopenhauer's, "you are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." Which, from my frame of mind, means that you were never really free at all...not as a libertarian would construe it. There is only the psychological illusion of being free to do what you want.

Harris comes off as someone intent on winning the debates, but what does winning and losing really mean when the winners and the losers themselves are fated, destined, determined to be only as they must be in the only possible world?

[BigMike]

Slavoj Zizek and the Case for Compatibilism
Philosophy for the People w/Ben Burgis



With those like Sam Harris, I would ask the same thing: how far do they take determinism? Does it encompass the fact that even their own beliefs...their books, their articles, their YouTube videos, etc.... could only have been as they were? And that those who react either for or against their own points of view are equally included in the assumption that all human brains compel all human beings to think, feel, say and do things that are fated, destined. How do they make the distinction between fated, destined and determined?

Yes, determinism for Sam Harris encompasses all those things.

They generally don't need to distinguish between fate, destiny, and determinism, because their audience generally is not confused by these concepts. The audience knows generally what determinism means, there's no need explicitly to contrast it against fatalism.

Well, if Harris is convinced that everything he thinks, feels, says and does was, is and will be such that no distinction need be made between fated, destined and determined, then how is that not the case as well for those either confused or not confused by what he argues? It's not what anyone in the audience claims to know or not to know about him and his views but the fact that what they do claim to know or not know is in turn fated, destined, determined to be only that which their brains compel them know or not know.

You speak of what they need as though that is not also what they were only ever able to need. Back to Schopenhauer's, "you are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." Which, from my frame of mind, means that you were never really free at all...not as a libertarian would construe it. There is only the psychological illusion of being free to do what you want.

Harris comes off as someone intent on winning the debates, but what does winning and losing really mean when the winners and the losers themselves are fated, destined, determined to be only as they must be in the only possible world?

I concur that the concept of winning or losing a debate is irrelevant given that the result was predetermined. However, winning or losing a debate is not the only reason to participate in one. Moreover, your claim that Harris comes off as someone intent on winning the debates is, presumedly, your own subjective opinion.

[Belinda]

Well, I make a difference between moral behavior (which exists) and moral responsibility (which doesn't exist).

That is an interesting distinction, but I think I disagree.
It's immoral not to take responsibility for a child who is in danger, when you can help him. Same with an adult, if you can help then it's immoral not to help.In order to be able to help someone who needs help we must breathe and otherwise try to keep healthy and safe. So it's impossible to behave morally unless you also take responsibility.
Taking responsibility is actual action actual behaviour.

I understand where you're coming from, but let's break down your argument. You're saying that it's immoral not to take responsibility for someone in danger when you can help them, and I agree with that. But then you're equating taking responsibility with being able to help, and that's where I think we might disagree.

Let's say there's a situation where you could help someone, but for whatever reason, you're not able to. Maybe you're physically incapacitated, or you don't have the resources to help them. In that case, would you still consider it immoral not to help?

Additionally, you mention that in order to be able to help someone, we must take care of ourselves first. I completely agree with that. However, taking care of ourselves isn't necessarily the same thing as taking responsibility for someone else's well-being. We can take care of ourselves and still not be in a position to help others.

Finally, you mention that taking responsibility is actual action and behavior, and again, I agree with that. But I don't think it necessarily follows that taking responsibility is the only way to behave morally. There may be situations where we can't take responsibility for someone else's well-being, but we can still behave morally by showing empathy and compassion, or by advocating for policies that will help those in need.

So, while I agree with the general sentiment of your argument, I think it's a bit more nuanced than you're presenting it.

Yes it's more nuanced. I tried to present it as nuanced but maybe I overdid the editing.

[BigMike]

Slavoj Zizek and the Case for Compatibilism
Philosophy for the People w/Ben Burgis



With those like Sam Harris, I would ask the same thing: how far do they take determinism? Does it encompass the fact that even their own beliefs...their books, their articles, their YouTube videos, etc.... could only have been as they were? And that those who react either for or against their own points of view are equally included in the assumption that all human brains compel all human beings to think, feel, say and do things that are fated, destined. How do they make the distinction between fated, destined and determined?

Yes, determinism for Sam Harris encompasses all those things.

They generally don't need to distinguish between fate, destiny, and determinism, because their audience generally is not confused by these concepts. The audience knows generally what determinism means, there's no need explicitly to contrast it against fatalism.

Well, if Harris is convinced that everything he thinks, feels, says and does was, is and will be such that no distinction need be made between fated, destined and determined, then how is that not the case as well for those either confused or not confused by what he argues? It's not what anyone in the audience claims to know or not to know about him and his views but the fact that what they do claim to know or not know is in turn fated, destined, determined to be only that which their brains compel them know or not know.

You seem to think that determinism means that nothing can be done about our future because it's all set in stone. That's fatalism, not determinism.

Determinism means that everything that happens is already determined by things that happened before. It's like a big chain reaction, where each event is caused by the one before it, and it's impossible to change the outcome.

For example, imagine a ball rolling down a hill. If you let go of the ball at the top of the hill, it will roll down to the bottom because of gravity. You can't stop it or make it go back up the hill. It's determined by the laws of physics.

Fatalism, on the other hand, means that everything that happens is predetermined by fate or destiny, and there's nothing we can do to change it. It's like everything that will happen in the future has already been decided, and we can't do anything to change it.

For example, imagine if someone believed that they were going to fail a test no matter how hard they studied because it was their fate. They might not even try to study because they believe the outcome is already determined.

[iambiguous]

Okay, given Mary and Jane, how would you distinguish them?

From my frame of mind, fatalism and determinism are six of one, half a dozen of the other. They both emanate from a human brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

No, fatalism is definitely not the same sort of thought process that physics-based determinism is.

Next up: physics-based fatalism?

So, given the laws of matter, were you fated, destined or determined to post this:

I'm going to demonstrate how to distinguish them, but it's not going to specifically have anything to do with Mary and Jane, because... that's just not relevant. Some questions aren't answered in terms of Mary and Jane. If someone asked me to explain why y=x^2 creates a parabola, that's fine. If someone asks me to explain it in terms of Mary and Jane... fucking, no. It doesn't make sense. Parabolas don't have anything to do with Mary and Jane in particular, and neither does the difference between Determinism and Fatalism.

So, I'll just start, and I'm going to forget about Mary Jane. And we might end up in the clouds, but... well, these are concepts, so the clouds are unavoidable.

Click.

This alone speaks volumes regarding the gap between us here.

For Fatalism, I always remember the case of Oedipus. His parents were warned by the Oracle, if I recall correctly, that he was fated to kill his father and marry his mother, so they got spooked and sent baby Oeddy to live somewhere else. Oeddy then grows up, finds out about the prophecy himself, leaves home to avoid doing those things to the people who raised him, then kills some dude and marry's that dude's wife. He fulfilled the prophecy unknowingly.

The idea here is, it *didn't matter* what his actual parents did. If they had kept him and raised him at home, he would have killed his father and married his mother. If they gave him up for adoption, same thing. You have point A (Oeddy's birth), and point Z (Oeddy killing his father and marrying his mother), and any change between A and Z will not change Z as the destination.

Right. And what on earth does that have to do with how some determinists think about human interactions? Except perhaps that everything that unfolded between him and all the others was never able not to unfold? Just don't call it fatalism?

This is a supernatural sort of world view, where the world conspires to make the prophecy come true. It's not about physics. It's not about "a human brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter". It's about a prophecy, and the fulfilment of that prophecy by any means.

No, say some determinists, it's about your brain compelling you to think this, to post this in the only possible world.

Physics-based determinism, which is what 99% of the people who call themselves determinists today are talking about, is not about the unavoidable fulfilment of some prophecy.

This makes absolutely no sense to me other than in a world where my own brain compels me to think this. How are human prophesies concocted in human brains not just another inherent manifestation of nature? Human beings themselves being but another inherent manifestation of nature with its "immutable laws of matter". Unless, of course, human brains are the one exception. Our brains -- re God or Nature -- having "somehow" acquired autonomy.

And in a world view of physics based determinism, for me I often end up bringinng it back to this thought experiment: if you suddenly found yourself with godlike powers, but not complete knowledge of the answers to everything, and you wanted to run some experiments to find out if the universe was deterministic after all, you'd probably run an experiment like this: Rewind time, press play and see what happens.

If the world is purely deterministic, you rewind time and press play and everything happens exactly the same, not a dust particle out of place.

If the world has some randomness, and is indetreministic, you rewind time and press play and at first things look largely the same, but perhaps little differences start building up, eventually some little different snowballs into a big difference, and you see things playing out notably differently after some time.

So, suppose you rewind time and everything happens the same way, and we do that again and again and again. At this point, you think, that seems to indicate the world is purely deterministic. BUT, maybe it also means the world is Fatalistic. How could we tell if the world is fatalistic or not?

Well, we rewind time, like before, and press play, like before, but this time we *change something in the middle*.

Note to the neuroscientists among us:

Get started on this, okay? Only in reality this time.

Just for fun, let's bring Mary and Jane back into it. I'll humor you. We rewind time and press play a few times and find that Mary aborts Jane every time -- that seems to indicate some sort of determinism at play, you surmise, but you want to find out now if the abortion is Fated, or just the consequence of physics. So, you rewind time again, but this time you decide to reach your god-like hands into the world and... mess with a few things. You get Mary's friend to plead with her not to abort the baby. You get her family and friends involved. You reach your god-like hands into Mary's head and give her dreams and visions about how bad her life is going to be if she aborts this baby, and then you see what happens. Does she abort, or not?

A physical-deterministic model of the world here fully allows for the possibility that, after you've meddled with your god-like hands all over Mary's life, that she doesn't abort after all. You've changed the casual history leading up to the abortion, which has the potential to change the choice made by Mary. Mary's not the same person this time around, now that you've meddled.

Right. All of this predicated on bringing "God-like" powers into play. Well, in that case, why not just become one of IC's Christians and explain human autonomy that way? The soul. Then you only have to reconcile it with an omniscient God.

Meanwhile, how relevant is any aspect of this "thought experiment" for actual flesh and blood women around the globe agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy? The fate of the unborn baby being anything but a "thought experiment".

A fatalistic model of the world, on the other hand, says that no matter what meddling you did, she was going to be aborted anyway. Just like our old pal Oeddy, all attempts to change the path don't change the destination.

Do you see the difference?

Wait, wait...are we still in the thought experiment?

Here's what Google has to say about the difference

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.

Of course: theoretically.

Take that to Mary.

To me, fatalism described here seems to suggest that down here on Earth there was no possibility of Jane not being aborted. But Mary was "somehow" "free" to take different paths to killing her.

Though, sure, I may well still be unable to grasp what you're arguing here correctly. I was fated to not grasp it but I had access to any number of paths to reach that point.

Note to others:

You tell me.

[iambiguous]

This favorite of yours must be clarified for it to be taken seriously.

What do you mean by acquire?
What do you mean by autonomy?
What do you mean by living matter?
What do you mean by conscious matter?
What do you mean by self-conscious matter?

Also, convince me that your definitions define something that actually exists.

On the contrary, over and over again, my main focus on this thread is to take the definitions and the deductions of others regarding compatibilism "up in the intellectual clouds" and make them applicable to Mary and Jane.

Your statement lacks specificity regarding what definitions and deductions are being referred to and how they relate to Mary and Jane.

Click.

How about your own definitions and deductions.

Additionally, the phrase "up in the intellectual clouds" may be seen as dismissive of abstract philosophical concepts and may not accurately reflect the nature of philosophical inquiry. You should know that philosophers often engage in abstract reasoning and conceptual analysis in order to develop a deeper understanding of complex issues, and this process can be valuable even if it does not immediately translate into practical applications and is beyond your comprehension.

For those here who wish to discuss compatibilism up in the philosophical clouds, by all means, do so.

What I am interested in though is the part where conclusions reached "up there" are brought down to earth such that in regard to actual human interactions that come into conflict over moral and political value judgments, those technical assessments are made relevant.

Free will, determinism, fatalism, compatibilism and moral responsibility in the world of flesh and blood human interactions.

[BigMike]

On the contrary, over and over again, my main focus on this thread is to take the definitions and the deductions of others regarding compatibilism "up in the intellectual clouds" and make them applicable to Mary and Jane.

Your statement lacks specificity regarding what definitions and deductions are being referred to and how they relate to Mary and Jane.

Click.

How about your own definitions and deductions.

Additionally, the phrase "up in the intellectual clouds" may be seen as dismissive of abstract philosophical concepts and may not accurately reflect the nature of philosophical inquiry. You should know that philosophers often engage in abstract reasoning and conceptual analysis in order to develop a deeper understanding of complex issues, and this process can be valuable even if it does not immediately translate into practical applications and is beyond your comprehension.

For those here who wish to discuss compatibilism up in the philosophical clouds, by all means, do so.

What I am interested in though is the part where conclusions reached "up there" are brought down to earth such that in regard to actual human interactions that come into conflict over moral and political value judgments, those technical assessments are made relevant.

Free will, determinism, fatalism, compatibilism and moral responsibility in the world of flesh and blood human interactions.

As a strong determinist, I cannot help but disagree with the statement that we should only focus on the practical application of philosophical concepts to human interactions while disregarding the broader philosophical discussions.

First of all, the understanding of determinism, free will, and moral responsibility is essential to our understanding of human interactions. We cannot make meaningful decisions and judgments about others without a solid foundation in these concepts. Ignoring the philosophical debates around these concepts would be equivalent to building a house without a foundation.

Furthermore, the practical implications of these concepts cannot be divorced from the broader philosophical discussions. How we interpret and apply these concepts in our day-to-day lives is heavily influenced by our philosophical views. Thus, if we want to have a meaningful conversation about human interactions, we must also engage in the philosophical debates surrounding these concepts.

Finally, it is important to note that philosophy and practical application are not mutually exclusive. While it is true that we should focus on the practical application of philosophical concepts, we cannot do so without also engaging in philosophical discussions. The two go hand in hand, and we must be willing to engage in both if we want to make informed decisions about human interactions.

So I believe that ignoring the philosophical discussions surrounding determinism, free will, and moral responsibility is not only short-sighted but also detrimental to our understanding of human interactions. As such, we must be willing to engage in both philosophical debates and practical applications if we hope to make informed decisions about how we interact with one another.

[iambiguous]

Yeah, and what does this have to do with demonstrating empirically, experientially, experimentally etc., that Mary either does or does not have free will? All that unfolded above may well have embodied the only possible reality in the only possible world.

And my Mary got pregnant as a result of a defective contraceptive. She ended the pregnancy simply because at that point in her life
a child would interfere with her education and her plans for the future.

Then back to him arguing that he himself had no free will in the "now" when he posted this, but that "somehow" anyone who does not share his own determined, "natural" assessment here is wrong. Even though they themselves were compelled to react to his post in their own "now" only as their own brains commanded.

Oh, look at you, trying to argue for the existence of free will. How quaint. You clearly don't understand the concept of determinism.

Click.

Of course: the concept of determinism. Back to the dueling definitions and deductions that finally pins that down up in the cumulus clouds of abstraction.

All actions, including your posting of that comment, were predetermined by the laws of nature and the state of the universe at the time of the Big Bang. Mary's decision to end her pregnancy was not a choice she made freely, but rather the inevitable result of the causal chain of events that led up to that moment.

Here we seem to be on the same page. If only because our brains, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compel us to be.

But then...

And as for your own argument, it's not really an argument at all, but rather a predetermined response dictated by the physical processes of your brain. So go ahead, pat yourself on the back for being so clever, but know that your thoughts and actions are predetermined and ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Got that? I was never able to post any argument other than what my brain compelled me to post. But it's still not really an argument at all. Only BigMike's arguments, wholly compelled in the only possible world in turn, are real arguments.

So, he seems to be patting himself on the back here for having put me in my place. Just as, say, henry quirk, the libertarian, might do in regard to buying and selling bazookas in a free will world.

In a word: huh?

[iambiguous]

Well, well, well! Looks like we've got ourselves a real head-scratcher with ol' Iambiguous here. The poor guy is as confused as a chameleon in a bag of Skittles, and he doesn't even know what's got him feeling all discombobulated. But hey, that's not gonna stop him from hitting us with a barrage of questions that make about as much sense as a fish riding a bicycle. I mean, come on, buddy! You gotta give us something to work with here! But fear not, my friend, for we shall do our best to navigate the murky waters of your befuddled brain and lead you to the promised land of clarity and understanding. And if all else fails, we can always just blame it on Mercury being in retrograde or something.

Okay, a Stooge it is then!!





Nature to iambiguous:

I agree.

[iambiguous]

That's not how anyone else uses the term. Just someone thinking they're correct isn't enough to qualify someone as an "objectivist", and criticizing them for being an "objectivist" just because they think they are correct about something is inherently hypocritical, because in the act of criticizing you show that you yourself think YOU are correct about something - that you are correct to disprove of them thinking they are correct, and they are incorrect in being an "objectivist".

Well, given free will, that's why over and over and over again I suggest that we take what we believe particular words mean philosophically "in our heads" out into the world of actual human interactions and explore the meaning given particular sets of circumstances.

Here on this thread [for me] Mary aborting Jane. If some do believe that their own argument regarding either the morality of abortion or their own take on free will, determinism and compatibilism reflects the most rational manner in which to think about the existential relationship between Mary choosing an abortion and her moral responsibility, well, if not an objectivist, what would you call them?

So, I mean, if that's what you want the word "objectivist" to mean, you can't criticise someone for being an objectivist without yourself becoming an objectivist.

I don't agree. I am fractured and fragmented in regard to both the morality of abortion and in regard to free will. Given both "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule"...pertaining to those things here that we don't even know that we don't know about regarding this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

But really, the label is entirely pointless. It doesn't provide any value to the conversation, it's a confusion and a red herring. If you think I'm incorrect about something, don't waste time calling me an objectivist, tell me what I'm incorrect about and why. I'm a philosopher, I'm used to being wrong. Skip the (entirely misused) label and tell me why I'm wrong

Right, pointless. On the other hand, down through history there have been any number folks [God and No God] who, once in power, acted out their own rendition of "right makes might". Think sharia law, the Inquisition, the Crusades, fascism, Communism and on and on.

For example, what would you call these folks now in power:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... e-divorce/

"Divorced and remarried, these Afghan women are outlaws under Taliban rule
Taliban law has voided thousands of divorces, experts say, and many remarried women are now considered adulterers"

Though, sure, given free will, if you deem it ridiculous to call these religious fanatics objectivists, fine. Use your own name.

[Flannel Jesus]

You have lost your mind. If you think the thing wrong with the Taliban is that philosophically they think they're correct about something, and therefore anybody who thinks they're correct about anything is now comparable to the Taliban, you have fully lost it. You're so far removed from any reasonable thought, I don't know what to tell you other than get some sleep, or maybe professional help.

And if you think you're CORRECT to call them objectivists, then that makes you an objectivist and therefore basically a Muslim terrorist.

[Iwannaplato]

Here on this thread [for me] Mary aborting Jane. If some do believe that their own argument regarding either the morality of abortion or their own take on free will, determinism and compatibilism reflects the most rational manner in which to think about the existential relationship between Mary choosing an abortion and her moral responsibility, well, if not an objectivist, what would you call them?

How about 'someone who thinks they are right on an issue, but who does or doesn not have enough support for their position.' Or 'someone you disagree with.' Then you go about arguing why they are wrong or why their evidence or argument is insufficient.

You have a somewhat rare use of the word. Your version fits moral objectivist, though it is much more common to call them moral realists.
It's usually associated with Ayn Rand, that is someone who believes in what she called objectivism. I don't think that fits most of the people you label that way. Sometimes, though more rarely, it is used to mean a kind of moral realist. But it seems like it gets applied to anyone who believes anything with too much certainty to you. Even if their certainty is about deteminism or free will without focusing on moral ideas.

But more importantly it's just plain assumed that you must label them and in this case with a term you consider pejorative and make that clear, sometimes, by adding negative adjectives and then connecting the people you call objectivists here with gulag makers and the Taliban for no good reason.

It's ad hom, in the sense of to the person, rather than their arguments. But further, it's as if one believes there are objective morals than one is somehow the same as these people.

AND NOTE the inherent hypocrisy. You paint them as associated with what you obviously consider evil. Moral realism or what you would clal objectivism is a part of your examples of the Taliban and gulags. Your smearing them does not make sense without your clear implicit condemnation of gulag makers and the Taliban as objectively immoral. The problem with objectivists is that they include these evil people. Without that implicit objectivism, bringing up these groups you consider evil makes no sense.

And of course, it's as if you HAVE TO label them. When in fact you could just disagree and criticize their arguments.

Objectivists often love to label their enemies in pejorative terms and associate those they disagree with with evil. Why do you use their tactics and implicit positions if you hate objectivism so much?

Flannel Jesus asked: But I think a better concern is: why label them at all? Why use a term that is obvious a pejorative one for you, instead of simply disagreeing and challenging their justifications?

I don't agree. I am fractured and fragmented in regard to both the morality of abortion and in regard to free will.

But that's not his point. His point is that you don't seem at all fractured and fragmented in labeling them negatively. Calling them fulminating fanatics. Associating them with people who not only is it clear you think are immoral, but who have committed what many consider to be mass scale crimes against humanity.

You don't seem the least uncertain when labeling them. You don't seem the least bit fractured when you associate them with people you obviously consider evil.
as you do here....

Right, pointless. On the other hand, down through history there have been any number folks [God and No God] who, once in power, acted out their own rendition of "right makes might". Think sharia law, the Inquisition, the Crusades, fascism, Communism and on and on.

For example, what would you call these folks now in power:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... e-divorce/

"Divorced and remarried, these Afghan women are outlaws under Taliban rule
Taliban law has voided thousands of divorces, experts say, and many remarried women are now considered adulterers"

Though, sure, given free will, if you deem it ridiculous to call these religious fanatics objectivists, fine. Use your own name.

Many of them were probably (ontological) realists also - believing in an external reality. But we don't hear about fanatical fulminating realists. Some were surely dualists. But we don't hear about fanatical fulminating dualists..and so on.

Perhaps you might consider that being a moral realist isn't insufficient to create mass murderers and sexist monsters. You know this in relation to nihilism and what some of those fringe versions are capable of.

[BigMike]

If some do believe that their own argument regarding either the morality of abortion or their own take on free will, determinism and compatibilism reflects the most rational manner in which to think about the existential relationship between Mary choosing an abortion and her moral responsibility, well, if not an objectivist, what would you call them?

The term that might best describe someone who believes that their own argument regarding the morality of abortion or the nature of free will, determinism, and compatibilism reflects the most rational manner to think about the existential relationship between Mary choosing an abortion and her moral responsibility would be a "subjectivist."

Subjectivism is the philosophical view that moral judgments and beliefs are subjective and relative to the individual, rather than objective and universal. In other words, a subjectivist believes that morality and ethics are matters of personal opinion or cultural norms, rather than absolute or objective truths.

Therefore, someone who argues that their own position on the morality of abortion or the nature of free will, determinism, and compatibilism is the most rational might be considered a subjectivist, as they believe that their view is based on their own subjective reasoning and perspective.