compatibilism

[phyllo]

Would anyone else care to demonstrate to me why I ought to think that winning/losing is irrelevant?

Two nights ago, you had a dream where you won an event and got all that comes from winning it.

Last night you had the same dream where you lost the event and got none of it.

So, here, what's the difference between winning and losing?

Though, sure, some will insist when the wide-awake brain makes you a winner or a loser that is...different.

Dreams only happen in your head.

Reality happens outside your head as well. There are tangible results and not just for you.

Imagine torturing your enemies. It may make you feel good or it may make you feel bad.

But it's very different from actually torturing your enemies.

Let me up the ante. A child is sexually assaulted. Since it's "predetermined", it's irrelevant whether the child was assaulted or not.

Again, that's the argument that does up the ante. Or you can ask, "if the Holocaust could never have not happened are the Nazis really morally responsible for pursuing it, for acting on it, for killing millions and millions? And if you say they are, is that just one more example of the only possible world unfolding in the only possible way?"

Moral responsibility and relevance/irrelevance are not the same thing.

I'm not even talking about moral responsibility at this point.

[iambiguous]

Defending Compatibilism
Bruce R. Reichenbach
at the Science, Religion and Culture website
[the focus here being on free will given an omniscient God]

Although theists advance divine foreknowledge in terms of knowledge, Fischer, in the company of other incompatibilists, uses “believe” in place of “know.”

Again, more word games? In regard to a God that we don't even know for sure does in fact exist, and is in fact omniscient, should we use the word "know" or "believe"? What God believed "in His mind" there and then when He created us about me typing these words here and now, or what God knew in His head there and then about me typing these words here and now.

Compatibilism and incompatibilism pertaining to nature revolve around the fact of biological evolution on planet Earth. Here the only alternatives are solipsism and sim worlds and dream worlds and the like.

But once God is brought into play, how is it all not just sheer speculation...in the absence of God Himself? You start with one set of conjectures; others start with very different ones.

We will argue that if we grant that God can have beliefs, only if all his beliefs come as components of his indubitable and complete knowledge can we properly use the term “believe.” As we will see later, denial of the contention that God’s states of knowing and states of believing are identical roots Fischer’s incompatibilist argument.

See the inherent problem? How on Earth would either Fischer or those who think other than as he does, go about establishing what they either believe or claim to know about God?

To me, belief revolves more around what you think and feel in your head regarding something, whereas knowledge pertains more to what you are actually able to establish in connecting the dots between "in my head" and "out in the world".

There are, Fischer suggests, three possibilities about the past that derive from these propositions.

If Jones were to refrain from doing X at T2, then God would have held a false belief at T1, or
If Jones were to refrain from doing X at T2, then God would not have existed at T2, or
If Jones were to refrain from doing X at T2, then God would have held a different belief from the one He actually held at T1.

Or...?

If Mary were to refrain from aborting Jane here and now, then God would have held a false belief there and then when we created us?

If Mary were to refrain from aborting Jane here and now, then God would not have existed there and then to create us?

If Mary were to refrain from aborting Jane here and now, then God would have held a different belief from the one He actually held when He created us?

You tell me.

[iambiguous]

Man managed to derail a conversation for 3 pages because he's afraid of people who believe different things than him. Wow. How does a person so afraid of other view points find themselves on a philosophy forum in the first place? This place must be inherently terrifying for someone so fragile.

Absolutely shameless!!

If -- click -- I do say so myself.

Let him/her cite particular examples of my being afraid of people who believe different things.

This when, over and again, I've made it clear that my own conjectures about these things are little more than subjective speculations based on my own accumulation of personal experiences, personal relationships and access to particular information and knowledge in books, magazine article and internet links.

I'm still keeping tally of the hypocrisy as well. Every post of his has a new one.

Okay, let him/her do this regarding my posts here from now on. Let's try to pin down precisely what he or she means by my hypocrisy.

And my fragility ironically enough revolves around my fractured and fragmented frame of mind in regard to both value judgments and the Big Questions. I am no longer an objectivist myself, able to truly believe that one set of behaviors is rational and virtuous while others are not. Able to truly convince myself that my opinions are in fact my own autonomous assessments.

All I can wonder here is if perhaps his/her caustic/declamatory reaction to me might revolve around the fact that my points are starting to sink in...and are now perturbing him/her. Threatening his or her own precious Self. After all, I have been encountering this reaction now for years. And, indeed, I still recall my own experiences when "I" began to...crumble?

[Flannel Jesus]

You made points? I haven't noticed. I thought you were too fractured/fragmented to make any points. What points have you made?

And if we're talking about caustic/declamatory reactions, I think you take the cake buddy. You're the only one talking about objectivist nazis.

Nobody here is threatening you, you don't have to be afraid to talk about ideas.

After all, I have been encountering this reaction now for years.

I wonder if you ever considered that it's YOU that is the common denominator in all of that...

[iambiguous]

And, again, assuming we do have some measure of free will, note specific examples of my hypocrisy. I'm always the first to acknowledge that in regard to my own value judgments in the is/ought world and in regard to the Big Questions, my own speculations here are ever and always rooted existentially, subjectively, subjunctively in dasein. Not to mention "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". The odds that my opinions here reflect the whole truth about any of these things is staggeringly remote given the even more staggering immensity of "all there is".

Gladly.

Any belief whatsoever is apparently the criteria for deciding someone is an objectivist.

Again, I challenge you -- dare you -- to note where I have ever posted anything that argues that anyone who has any belief at all makes them an objectivist.

My point is always to differentiate between what you believe about something "in your head" and what you are able to actually demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in as well.

Also, I am myself an objectivist in regard to any number of things I believe about mathematics and physics and chemistry and the empirical world around me.

No, instead, my distinction here revolves around what someone claims to believe about pregnancy and abortion as manifestations of human biology and what others claim to believe about them in regard to moral narratives and political agendas.

And in regard to whether Mary is in fact either morally responsible or not morally responsible for aborting Jane in a determined universe. As they understand it. Acknowledging, however, that others may understand it differently.

Then what?

Objectivists are to be feared. Examples: Nazis, Taliban.

If you are a Jew or an infidel, is it or is it not rational to fear them?

But: the point I make that most disturbs objectivists [as I understand them] is that there does not appear to be a way [philosophically or otherwise] to establish that either Nazis or the Taliban are inherently or necessarily irrational or immoral. Not in a No God world. All behaviors can be -- and most have been -- rationalized "in the absence of God".

That's what can make this such a scary world to live in. You come up against either the moral objectivists or the sociopaths and, try as you might, you can't "reason" with them. You can't make them see that there is a deontological moral agenda [yours] and that they should think and feel just as you do.

If you need specific examples of posts you've made with explicit or implicit beliefs, let me know. I assume they're obvious enough but I'm happy to help if not.

How about this:

Note specific examples of your accusations against me starting with this post...and any subsequent posts.

[iambiguous]

Because I believe that objectivists [God or No God] can be dangerous. And have been down through the ages.

There's a belief right there

So, what are you accusing me of here?

Are you saying that I am saying this because I believe those who do not believe in it in turn are wrong? Necessarily wrong?

No, instead, I am noting that, given those who do think that what they themselves think about Jews or infidels or homosexuals or capitalists or Communists or Trump or Biden or liberals or conservatives is what all reasonable and virtuous people are obligated to think, they have historically gained access to political power and acted out those beliefs. The rest is history, right?

Do you actually believe that moral objectivists [God no No God] have never really been dangerous at all to others down through the ages?

[iambiguous]

It's ironic that the person most afraid of "objectivists" "forcing" their beliefs on him is also the one apparently least tolerant of differing beliefs...

Here, of course, the only objectivists I have to be concerned with are those like Postmodern Beatnik over at The Philosophy Forum who "banned me for life" there for posting the same sort of stuff I post here. Not even any warnings.

If someone like that were to become a moderator here, how long am I going to be around?

But only a fool would imagine that Jews have nothing to fear from Nazis, or infidels from the Taliban.

And I am always tolerant of the beliefs of those I respect the intelligence of...and who respect my own intelligence in turn. And, sure, if my polemicist persona rubs them the wrong way, all they need do is to ask me to shift gears, and I will dispense with it.

With you though there is a measure of hostility that seems to point in another direction altogether. I have my suspicions as to what is behind it, but I suspect that revealing that further would only rile you all the more.

[iambiguous]

Because I believe that objectivists [God or No God] can be dangerous. And have been down through the ages.

There's a belief right there

Dangerous, meaning bad, from a moral nihilist, no less. He can't seem to fathom that by having an us/them in relation to objectivists he is being an objectivist AND a moral realist, while bemoaning that they are moral realists.

If you point this out, he will say something like....

Shameless!!! or Unbelievable!!!

And then say that he has said a thousand times that he is fractured and fragmented and isn't sure about his opinions.

Which is lovely. Explain your metapostion, then you are free to do as you like.

Imagine if this was racism.

Someone who states they are not racist with regularity.

They they call people n----------rs. When the hypocrisy is pointed out, they say.....

Unbelievable!!!!! I have said so many times that I am anti-racist. It's just my opinion that they are n-------rs. I am not sure they are.

Whatever.

The black hole of repetition, hypocrisy and cluelessness.

Of course this doesn't surprise me. Either as Moreno or karpel tunnel or Iwannaplato, he will from time to time sustain an actual substantive exchange with me. But sooner or later the Stooge comes out in him. Especially when coupled with the declamatory attacks of someone like flannel Jesus.

[Flannel Jesus]

With you though there is a measure of hostility that seems to point in another direction altogether. I have my suspicions as to what is behind it, but I suspect that revealing that further would only rile you all the more.

You're behind it mate. The first interaction about compatibilism I had with you, you asked me to explain the thought process to you, so I was trying to work through that in a step by step manner, and instead of engaging with me and my explanation you immediately started speaking over me and ignoring everything I was saying. You're behind it when you make up nonsense about people being objectivists because they believe things -- I provided quotes on the previous page of this thread to give context for that, you're apparently playing stupid on that. You're behind it when you make out that, because I have some particular belief I'm arguing for, that makes me in some way dangerous.

You have toxic communication patterns, and when people respond with toxicity back to you you act stupid about it. You're behind it.

[Flannel Jesus]

Again, I challenge you -- dare you -- to note where I have ever posted anything that argues that anyone who has any belief at all makes them an objectivist.

Start with this post: viewtopic.php?p=628543#p628543

And read the following two posts I made after it.

[Flannel Jesus]

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?

Here's a third unambiguous data point of how you've used the word objectivist. It's very clear here, again, probably even more clear than my other examples: an objectivist is someone who "believes their own arguments" about a variety of topics.

I'm tired of this game where you pretend like you didn't say this. It's dishonest, literally. It's a lie. You've been using "objectivist" in this way from the beginning, and only in the last couple of pages of conversation have you started pulling back from it and playing dumb about it. "Oh, point me to where I said that, nobody can show me where I said that." You've said it in 3 different ways at least!

[Iwannaplato]

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?

Here's a third unambiguous data point of how you've used the word objectivist. It's very clear here, again, probably even more clear than my other examples: an objectivist is someone who "believes their own arguments" about a variety of topics.

I'm tired of this game where you pretend like you didn't say this. It's dishonest, literally. It's a lie. You've been using "objectivist" in this way from the beginning, and only in the last couple of pages of conversation have you started pulling back from it and playing dumb about it. "Oh, point me to where I said that, nobody can show me where I said that." You've said it in 3 different ways at least!

It is truly odd and I appreciate that you can maintain the line.

well, if not an objectivist, what would you call them?

People who believe things.

It's like he expects people to not believe what they believe.

Further he uses objectivist in an idiosyncratic manner.

FJ

I'm tired of this game

I'm amazed you can keep dealing with the denial and posturing.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's probably poor judgement on my part that I keep trying, but I for some reason have a little bit of hope that he'll start being intellectually honest, drop the entire "objectivist Nazi" charade and start actually trying to move somewhere in the conversation about compatibilism/determinism/free will.

Or maybe I just have too much pride to let someone who is clearly being entirely dishonest have the last word.

In either case, I'm probably a moron for keeping it going.

Or I'm just bored.

[iambiguous]

Moral Responsibility Without Libertarianism
Lynne Rudder Baker

After centuries of reflection, philosophers still cannot seem to put to rest the matter of free will.

That's often my point as well. And it's the same with science. And, until theologians actually produce a God, the same with religion. Centuries go by and the quandary -- antinomy -- continues. So, I'm always the first to acknowledge that my own conclusions here are no less hopelessly problematic...sheer conjecture.

The issue of free will remains vital largely because of its connection to moral responsibility. What features are required for moral responsibility? Do we have those features?

This, too, is also of most importance to me. No free will and no moral responsibility. That seems entirely reasonable to me. And I continue to struggle with grasping those who somehow manage to convince themselves that the two are reconcilable. And, in particular, "for all practical purposes".

Thus...

Questions about moral responsibility are intimately connected to questions about social policy and justice; so, the issue of moral responsibility—of whether or not anyone is ever really praiseworthy or blameworthy—has practical as well as theoretical significance.

That's me again, isn't it? Okay, you go up into the intellectual stratosphere and, philosophically, you concoct a theoretical argument revolving around brains and minds and dualism. A world of words as I like to call them. Meanwhile down here on the ground the words we have concocted relating to moral and political value judgments continue to sustain all manner of actual conflicting human behaviors. The part that produces actual consequences.

Moreover, recent work on free will opens the gate for progress on moral responsibility.

Okay, we'll see...

There are two familiar main camps: one of compatibilists and the other of incompatibilists. Compatibilists take the conditions for moral responsibility to be compatible with determinism—where determinism is the thesis that the future is completely determined by the laws of nature together with antecedent conditions. Incompatibilists take the conditions for moral responsibility to be incompatible with determinism. Incompatibilists divide into two further groups: those who take us to meet the conditions for moral responsibility (called ‘libertarians’), and those who do not (called ‘hard determinists’). My interest here is mainly with the compatibilists and the libertarians, who agree that we are (at times) morally responsible for what we do, although they differ in what they require for moral responsibility.

In other words, truly familiar camps are delineated. Intellectually, philosophically, theoretically. Now, what do those in the various camps here have to say to Mary when she asks if she is in fact morally responsible for killing Jane?

Only, again, it seems to me, we must first assume that in bringing this up, we ourselves are not compelled by our brains to do so. Yet we seemingly have no way in which to establish that this is not the case. We're in our own rendition of Flatland instead.

[Advocate]

There is no sense in which the will is free but we may feel free to the extent we are ignorant of causality, to and the term 'will' alone is sufficient for that purpose.