compatibilism

[henry quirk]

Ward made a brilliant discovery

Sure seems like it. I'm gonna get myself a copy of his book and see for myself.

[henry quirk]

There's no way I'm trudging thru 5 of yours posts to tease out of your musings, dissections, and insults anything worth responding to or commenting on.

If you consolidate your points into one post, mebbe I'll give responding a shot.

[Alexiev]

Ward made a brilliant discovery

Sure seems like it. I'm gonna get myself a copy of his book and see for myself.

I've read pretty much the entire Lewis ouvre (I haven't quite waded through all his poems). I'm reading the Narnias to my grandkids right now (we're up to the middle of Magician's Nephew). I believe Lewis read Philosophy at Oxford before switching to literature.

Among his less-well-known fiction is the excellent "Till we have Faces", another Christian story. Of course Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters are probably his best known apologetics. But all of his Christian writing is good. I like some of his more academic essays, too. I particularly recommend Walter Scott and High and Low Brows . In the latter he argues that the distinction between high brow and low brow novels is a false one; there are good novels and bad novels, but no reason to distinguish "literary" novels from mere popular entertainments. Lewis's spiritual autobiography, Surprised by Joy, is also very good.

If you are a deist, you might like The Abolition of Man, in which Lewis argues for "the Tao", a universal moral code.

By the way, in the trenches of WW1, Lewis made a mutual promise to a friend that if either was killed, the other would care for his family. Lewis's friend, Paddy Moore, was killed and Lewis lived with Mrs. Moore (the mother) for 20+ years, Speculation that the two were lovers was promulgated in one Lewis biography, but scholars aren't sure. IN any event, the first ten years or more of their cohabitation was prior to Lewis converting to Christianity. (Just to add a little literary gossip.)

[iambiguous]

Right, right. This thread is in the metaphysics forum. So, only when we pin down ontologically and/or teleologically what determinism and autonomy and compatibilism actually mean -- philosophically, technically, analytically -- are we even permitted as serious philosophers to take those theoretical assessments down to Earth?

Fine, go in that direction. My own direction however always revolves around taking these didactic assessments down out of the conceptual clouds and noting how "for all practical purposes" that are applicable to their own lives.

What bullshit. What I wrote wasn't up in the conceptual clouds, it was conceptual but pretty down to Earth. Can't you think in concepts at all?

Thinking in concepts that pertain to meaning, morality and metaphysics is one thing. Bringing those concepts down out of the theoretical clouds and noting how the arguments themselves are pertinent to the lives we live...? Well, for some of us here that can often be another thing altogether.

You'll either go there or you won't. Ah, but then those who insist that they have brought their academic abstractions down to Earth with me. Again and again.

I'm not "going in that direction", it's what we do on philosophy forums.

Yes, that is certainly the case regarding any number of discussions and debates that unfold here. After all, Philososphy Now magazine describes itself as a "magazine of ideas".

In fact, I have no problems with ideas. Nor with abstractions. Nor with definitions and concepts and theories.

It's just for those who are familiar with my posts, I make it clear from time to time that in regard to meaning and morality, my whole philosophy of life revolves around bringing these ideas down to Earth.

Same with issues like compatibilism. Only this gets particularly tricky [in my view] because so much of what we do does unfold in the either/or world. And yet that far out on the metaphysical limb...

Why something instead of nothing?
Why this something and not something else?
Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
What of determinism?
What of the multiverse?
What of God?

...you tell me where the ideas end and empirical proof [one way or the other] begins.

So, here, for you and for others...

...in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

Are you suggesting here that when it comes to moral responsibility, human autonomy is not the bottom line? And, again, in my view, you post here given a set of assumptions regarding the human brain that is no less than just another existential leap of faith. Another more or less intelligent wager to this rather than that "proposition".

That's why you should have read my comments. Which autonomy? In the philosophical free will sense or in the psychological/legal/everyday free will sense?

Back to Mary then. How would any compatibilists here explain to her how, from the defective contraception to the abortion, she was both determined and morally responsible for what she did, for what happened?

And, again, unlike others here, I start out by noting that because this is in fact so far out on the metaphysical limb, I'm always both utterly fascinated and utterly perplexed by it.

But not you? Let me guess: you too possess this Intrinsic Self that deep down inside you "somehow" allows you to grasp determinism in a way that fools like me [out of ignorance or stupidity] never will?

[iambiguous]

Even so, my point doesn't require God's backing.

...as a deist, I believe God is the measure and arbiter of good and evil.

On the other hand...

Besides, it's not like you yourself have anything definitive to provide us with in the way of noting what Deists might expect, say, "for all the rest of eternity"?

You're right, I have nuthin' definitive to offer about what anyone can or should expect in an afterlife. But, even if I did, none of that is germane to my point...

So, you do in fact believe -- given a more or less blind leap of faith? -- that the Deist God does exist. And that as a result of this you and others of your ilk were installed with souls hard-wired by God Himself to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature". Deists are said to be more focused instead on "scientific fact and natural observation"?

So, as with Kant and deontology, one might expect that mere mortals who embrace Deism would be more or less be on the same page regarding conflicting goods.

After all, what, for all practical purposes, would it mean for Desists to follow the dictates of Reason and Nature and yet ground themselves all up and down the moral and political spectrum.

Is that the case or not?

Then -- click -- this part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

So, is the Deist God also a sadistic monster? Or does He too have those classic "mysterious ways" that allow almost anything to be rationalized?

Then the part where the Founding Fathers themselves were said to be [more or less] Deists. Thus, enabling them to rationalize, among other things, slavery and genocide?

Or how about this: https://www.thepinknews.com/2017/10/19/ ... ory-month/

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Yeah, sure, if you were a castaway like Tom Hanks, it would all come down to either you and God or you and Nature. But suppose others showed up on the island, saw the way you did things, and wanted changes. You're absolutely natural/rational moral claim...or theirs?

Otherwise, all I can note are all the henry quirks among these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...who will concur that following the dictates of reason and nature is more or less their own thing too. But then it comes down to one or another rendition of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Come on, henry, you're the one insisting that if others don't share your own moral and political dogmas, you'll take them all the way to Ruby Ridge if, given moderation, negotiation and compromise, given democracy and the rule of law, the community you live in enacts strong gun control legislation.

In other words, when it comes to absolute moral claims, anyone can claim it's only their own that count. Right?

Just start here: https://gun-control.procon.org/

Those on both sides are able to make arguments that are reasonable. They simply start out with their very own non-negotiable set of social, political and economic assumptions.

[henry quirk]

I've read pretty much the entire Lewis ouvre (I haven't quite waded through all his poems). I'm reading the Narnias to my grandkids right now (we're up to the middle of Magician's Nephew). I believe Lewis read Philosophy at Oxford before switching to literature.

You're more widely read than me, then. I've read most of his fiction, some of his nonfiction, and none of his poems.

Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters

Excellent work, I think.

High and Low Brows . In the latter he argues that the distinction between high brow and low brow novels is a false one; there are good novels and bad novels, but no reason to distinguish "literary" novels from mere popular entertainments.

Gonna have to hunt that one down cuz I agree: high & low is an awful way to divvy up stories. Some of the best fiction I've run across was pulp; some of the worst was literary.

Lewis's spiritual autobiography, Surprised by Joy, is also very good.

I tried a couple or three times to read it but I'm not much for biographies.

If you are a deist, you might like The Abolition of Man, in which Lewis argues for "the Tao", a universal moral code.

it was that book, along with some pointed, powerful conversations, that moved me from atheist to deist. And it was His specific conception of The Way that undergirded my commitment to natural rights as reality.

By the way, in the trenches of WW1, Lewis made a mutual promise to a friend that if either was killed, the other would care for his family. Lewis's friend, Paddy Moore, was killed and Lewis lived with Mrs. Moore (the mother) for 20+ years, Speculation that the two were lovers was promulgated in one Lewis biography, but scholars aren't sure. IN any event, the first ten years or more of their cohabitation was prior to Lewis converting to Christianity. (Just to add a little literary gossip.)

Many converts lived spicy lives in advance of accepting Christianity. Such conversions deflate somewhat the atheist's indictment of Christianity as a refuge for sheep and the dull.

[Age]

There's no way I'm trudging thru 5 of yours posts to tease out of your musings, dissections, and insults anything worth responding to or commenting on.

I have not expressed one insult at all, nor alone insults, here. And, your attempt to DECEIVE, once again, is just more proof 'about you' and what you actually do.

Also, I do not care what you do or do not do. I have, already, proved your CONTRADICTIONS, and your HYPOCRISY, here.

If you consolidate your points into one post, mebbe I'll give responding a shot.

Once again, this one attempts to DEFLECT, and to DECEIVE, here.

The actual reason it is not responding to my points is because it cannot refute them, nor can it counter them.

As I have, already, proved True.

[Age]

Right, right. This thread is in the metaphysics forum. So, only when we pin down ontologically and/or teleologically what determinism and autonomy and compatibilism actually mean -- philosophically, technically, analytically -- are we even permitted as serious philosophers to take those theoretical assessments down to Earth?

Fine, go in that direction. My own direction however always revolves around taking these didactic assessments down out of the conceptual clouds and noting how "for all practical purposes" that are applicable to their own lives.

What bullshit. What I wrote wasn't up in the conceptual clouds, it was conceptual but pretty down to Earth. Can't you think in concepts at all?

Thinking in concepts that pertain to meaning, morality and metaphysics is one thing. Bringing those concepts down out of the theoretical clouds and noting how the arguments themselves are pertinent to the lives we live...? Well, for some of us here that can often be another thing altogether.

You'll either go there or you won't. Ah, but then those who insist that they have brought their academic abstractions down to Earth with me. Again and again.

I'm not "going in that direction", it's what we do on philosophy forums.

Yes, that is certainly the case regarding any number of discussions and debates that unfold here. After all, Philososphy Now magazine describes itself as a "magazine of ideas".

In fact, I have no problems with ideas. Nor with abstractions. Nor with definitions and concepts and theories.

It's just for those who are familiar with my posts, I make it clear from time to time that in regard to meaning and morality, my whole philosophy of life revolves around bringing these ideas down to Earth.

Same with issues like compatibilism. Only this gets particularly tricky [in my view] because so much of what we do does unfold in the either/or world. And yet that far out on the metaphysical limb...

Why something instead of nothing?

This is because of the way things are NOW, this means that what fundamentally makes up the Universe, Itself, has ALWAYS had to have been. In other words, because something exist NOW there is absolutely no way that there could be nothing, instead of something. Because there is something NOW, it could not have been any other way. That is; why there is something, instead of nothing, is because it could not have been any other way.

And, if absolutely any one would like to question and/or challenge me over this, then by all means please do.

I will only be showing and explaining, exactly, how this is irrefutably True, to only those who show curiosity and interest, here.

Why this something and not something else?

Again, because the Universe, Itself, exists, in 'the way' that It does NOW, then it is an absolute impossibility for there to be something else. See, because of 'the way' the Universe works, or behaves, there could not be absolutely anything else apart from what is existing NOW.

Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?

Obviously you would have to FIRST inform others of what is the 'human condition', exactly, and prove, irrefutably, that 'that' is so, before absolutely anyone could inform of how 'that condition' fits into the whole understanding of this particular something, itself. That is; of course if 'that condition' is even True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Also, and obviously, what 'whole understanding' of 'this particular something itself' is exactly could be off-kilter or off-track of what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct anyway, let 'us' not forget.

So, you would have to, also, explain what your own personal whole understanding is, first, as well.

What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?

What of them?

What of determinism?

Absolutely ALL matter is in the way, shape, and form it is due, solely, to pre-existence. So, absolutely all of it, at any moment, was determined by pre-determined circumstances/events.

What of the multiverse?

Considering how you people define the 'Universe' word, 'multiverse' could only work in one way.

What of God?

Just one of many words used as a label for the very Thing that is, actually, Creating all things.

...you tell me where the ideas end and empirical proof [one way or the other] begins.

The logical, and empirical, proof, for all things, begins, and ends, in and with 'agreement', solely.

And, if absolutely one even 'tries to' use the 'add populum' words as though they have absolutely any bearing on what I am saying, meaning, and getting to, then THINK AGAIN. Or, if anyone wants to 'try again', then please do. I can and will then, again, show and prove WHY 'that' does NOT WORK and has NO BEARING on what I am saying, and meaning, here.

So, here, for you and for others...

...in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

Are you suggesting here that when it comes to moral responsibility, human autonomy is not the bottom line? And, again, in my view, you post here given a set of assumptions regarding the human brain that is no less than just another existential leap of faith. Another more or less intelligent wager to this rather than that "proposition".

That's why you should have read my comments. Which autonomy? In the philosophical free will sense or in the psychological/legal/everyday free will sense?

Back to Mary then. How would any compatibilists here explain to her how, from the defective contraception to the abortion, she was both determined and morally responsible for what she did, for what happened?

And, again, unlike others here, I start out by noting that because this is in fact so far out on the metaphysical limb, I'm always both utterly fascinated and utterly perplexed by it.

But not you? Let me guess: you too possess this Intrinsic Self that deep down inside you "somehow" allows you to grasp determinism in a way that fools like me [out of ignorance or stupidity] never will?

[Age]

Even so, my point doesn't require God's backing.

...as a deist, I believe God is the measure and arbiter of good and evil.

On the other hand...

Besides, it's not like you yourself have anything definitive to provide us with in the way of noting what Deists might expect, say, "for all the rest of eternity"?

You're right, I have nuthin' definitive to offer about what anyone can or should expect in an afterlife. But, even if I did, none of that is germane to my point...

So, you do in fact believe -- given a more or less blind leap of faith? -- that the Deist God does exist. And that as a result of this you and others of your ilk were installed with souls hard-wired by God Himself to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

Here is another one who keeps calling and insisting that God is a "him", even though it is and would be an absolute logical and empirical impossibility to be so.

Deists are said to be more focused instead on "scientific fact and natural observation"?

So, as with Kant and deontology, one might expect that mere mortals who embrace Deism would be more or less be on the same page regarding conflicting goods.

There are no actual such things as "deists", and it is you very people here that proves this so.

Also, to keep mentioning one or some human beings names, as though what they said has any real bearing here is another reason why these human beings, back when this was being written were so LOST, CONFUSED, and so, so far BEHIND.

After all, what, for all practical purposes, would it mean for Desists to follow the dictates of Reason and Nature and yet ground themselves all up and down the moral and political spectrum.

Is that the case or not?

Then -- click -- this part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

So, is the Deist God also a sadistic monster? Or does He too have those classic "mysterious ways" that allow almost anything to be rationalized?

Then the part where the Founding Fathers themselves were said to be [more or less] Deists. Thus, enabling them to rationalize, among other things, slavery and genocide?

Or how about this: https://www.thepinknews.com/2017/10/19/ ... ory-month/

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Yeah, sure, if you were a castaway like Tom Hanks, it would all come down to either you and God or you and Nature. But suppose others showed up on the island, saw the way you did things, and wanted changes. You're absolutely natural/rational moral claim...or theirs?

Otherwise, all I can note are all the henry quirks among these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...who will concur that following the dictates of reason and nature is more or less their own thing too. But then it comes down to one or another rendition of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Come on, henry, you're the one insisting that if others don't share your own moral and political dogmas, you'll take them all the way to Ruby Ridge if, given moderation, negotiation and compromise, given democracy and the rule of law, the community you live in enacts strong gun control legislation.

In other words, when it comes to absolute moral claims, anyone can claim it's only their own that count. Right?

Just start here: https://gun-control.procon.org/

Those on both sides are able to make arguments that are reasonable. They simply start out with their very own non-negotiable set of social, political and economic assumptions.

[iambiguous]

UH-OH. They're BACK again, aren't THEY?!



Note to Nature:

Since it is utterly beyond his control in a universe that is wholly determined, please compel me to tolerate it.

[henry quirk]

On the other hand...

...my point remains: A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? I cannot see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

So, you do in fact believe -- given a more or less blind leap of faith? -- that the Deist God does exist.

Well, I don't believe my leap was a blind one, but, it seems to me: my religion and how I arrived at it has nuthin' to do with my point...

I can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Of course, as a deist, I believe God is the measure and arbiter of good and evil. However, as interesting as that belief is (to ax grinders) it has nuthin' to do with my point...

I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences.

And that as a result of this you and others of your ilk were installed with souls hard-wired by God Himself to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

No. I believe persons are free wills. We aren't hardwired. We aren't automation. We can and do choose. For example: a person can choose to live as though his fellows have a moral claim to their own individual lives, liberties, and properties, even if such a claim is a fiction.

Deists are said to be more focused instead on "scientific fact and natural observation"?

I'm not the spokesman for deists. But even if I were, my point...

I see no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, even if people are just meat with no real moral claim to anything.

...is what's on the table.

So, as with Kant and deontology, one might expect that mere mortals who embrace Deism would be more or less be on the same page regarding conflicting goods.

Considering the minimal claim of deism -- God exists, He created, He withdrew -- I can't see why deists would be inclined or fated to agree on other things. But, then, right now, I'm not inclined to examine such things. Really, my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

...is all I wanna talk about.

After all, what, for all practical purposes, would it mean for Desists to follow the dictates of Reason and Nature and yet ground themselves all up and down the moral and political spectrum.

I haven't a clue. I also haven't a clue what any of that has to do with...

My seeing no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each person has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, even if people are just meat with no real moral claim to anything.

Is that the case or not?

Again, I haven't a clue. I also haven't a clue what any of that has to do with...

My seeing no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each person has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, even if people are just meat with no real moral claim to anything.

Then -- click -- this part:

[disaster links]

So, is the Deist God also a sadistic monster? Or does He too have those classic "mysterious ways" that allow almost anything to be rationalized?

Mebbe I'll touch on God's nature in that post/thread on theodicy I threatened. Such thoughts fall outside the scope of my point, here and now...

I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences.

Then the part where the Founding Fathers themselves were said to be [more or less] Deists. Thus, enabling them to rationalize, among other things, slavery and genocide?

Not seein' how the possible hypocrisies (I don't know what justifications they used) of men I didn't bring up, have no allegiance to, don't give a rat's ass about, and have never seriously referenced in my 16 or so years in-forum, have anything at all to do with my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Or how about this: https://www.thepinknews.com/2017/10/19/ ... ory-month/

Was lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender stuff a feature of their time? Even if it was, it has nuthin' to do with my point...

I see no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, even if people are just meat with no real moral claim to anything.

Yeah, sure, if you were a castaway like Tom Hanks, it would all come down to either you and God or you and Nature. But suppose others showed up on the island, saw the way you did things, and wanted changes. You're absolutely natural/rational moral claim...or theirs?

Well, obviously, anyone who comes along and violates the natural rights of his or her fellows is someone I'd oppose. What else would I do? I truly do believe a person, even one stuck out on Gilligan's Isle, has a natural right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. That's my obvious answer to an obvious question.

Otherwise, all I can note are all the henry quirks among these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...who will concur that following the dictates of reason and nature is more or less their own thing too. But then it comes down to one or another rendition of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

I wonder how many of those folks believe...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property?

Come on, henry, you're the one insisting that if others don't share your own moral and political dogmas, you'll take them all the way to Ruby Ridge if, given moderation, negotiation and compromise, given democracy and the rule of law, the community you live in enacts strong gun control legislation.

Anyone with access to google knows the ruby ridgers were the assaulted. They didn't take anyone, anywhere. But, yes, if folks violate my natural rights, I will stand my ground. Simply, theft doesn't become right becuz The State, agents of The State, or The People, say it does. If a person has an absolute moral claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, it's not for others, no matter how well-intended or powerful, to violate that claim.

In other words, when it comes to absolute moral claims, anyone can claim it's only their own that count. Right?

Er, no. Clearly believin' a person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property can't be interpreted to mean anyone can claim it's only their own that counts.

Just start here: https://gun-control.procon.org/

Anything in there about a person, any person, anywhere or when, having an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property? Or is it all a bunch of political hokum?

Those on both sides are able to make arguments that are reasonable. They simply start out with their very own non-negotiable set of social, political and economic assumptions.

That may be the case. I, however, will stick with...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

[henry quirk]

I commend you on your brevity. However, you offer nuthin' worthy of my comment.

Ask questions. Be novel. As with the ax grinders, your same old-same old is boring.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand...

...my point remains: A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? I cannot see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

So, you do in fact believe -- given a more or less blind leap of faith? -- that the Deist God does exist.

Well, I don't believe my leap was a blind one, but, it seems to me: my religion and how I arrived at it has nuthin' to do with my point...

I can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Of course, as a deist, I believe God is the measure and arbiter of good and evil. However, as interesting as that belief is (to ax grinders) it has nuthin' to do with my point...

I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences.

And that as a result of this you and others of your ilk were installed with souls hard-wired by God Himself to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

No. I believe persons are free wills. We aren't hardwired. We aren't automation. We can and do choose. For example: a person can choose to live as though his fellows have a moral claim to their own individual lives, liberties, and properties, even if such a claim is a fiction.

Deists are said to be more focused instead on "scientific fact and natural observation"?

I'm not the spokesman for deists. But even if I were, my point...

I see no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, even if people are just meat with no real moral claim to anything.

...is what's on the table.

So, as with Kant and deontology, one might expect that mere mortals who embrace Deism would be more or less be on the same page regarding conflicting goods.

Considering the minimal claim of deism -- God exists, He created, He withdrew -- I can't see why deists would be inclined or fated to agree on other things. But, then, right now, I'm not inclined to examine such things. Really, my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

...is all I wanna talk about.

After all, what, for all practical purposes, would it mean for Desists to follow the dictates of Reason and Nature and yet ground themselves all up and down the moral and political spectrum.

I haven't a clue. I also haven't a clue what any of that has to do with...

My seeing no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each person has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, even if people are just meat with no real moral claim to anything.

Is that the case or not?

Again, I haven't a clue. I also haven't a clue what any of that has to do with...

My seeing no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each person has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, even if people are just meat with no real moral claim to anything.

Then -- click -- this part:

[disaster links]

So, is the Deist God also a sadistic monster? Or does He too have those classic "mysterious ways" that allow almost anything to be rationalized?

Mebbe I'll touch on God's nature in that post/thread on theodicy I threatened. Such thoughts fall outside the scope of my point, here and now...

I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences.

Then the part where the Founding Fathers themselves were said to be [more or less] Deists. Thus, enabling them to rationalize, among other things, slavery and genocide?

Not seein' how the possible hypocrisies (I don't know what justifications they used) of men I didn't bring up, have no allegiance to, don't give a rat's ass about, and have never seriously referenced in my 16 or so years in-forum, have anything at all to do with my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Or how about this: https://www.thepinknews.com/2017/10/19/ ... ory-month/

Was lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender stuff a feature of their time? Even if it was, it has nuthin' to do with my point...

I see no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, even if people are just meat with no real moral claim to anything.

Yeah, sure, if you were a castaway like Tom Hanks, it would all come down to either you and God or you and Nature. But suppose others showed up on the island, saw the way you did things, and wanted changes. You're absolutely natural/rational moral claim...or theirs?

Well, obviously, anyone who comes along and violates the natural rights of his or her fellows is someone I'd oppose. What else would I do? I truly do believe a person, even one stuck out on Gilligan's Isle, has a natural right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. That's my obvious answer to an obvious question.

Otherwise, all I can note are all the henry quirks among these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...who will concur that following the dictates of reason and nature is more or less their own thing too. But then it comes down to one or another rendition of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

I wonder how many of those folks believe...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property?

Come on, henry, you're the one insisting that if others don't share your own moral and political dogmas, you'll take them all the way to Ruby Ridge if, given moderation, negotiation and compromise, given democracy and the rule of law, the community you live in enacts strong gun control legislation.

Anyone with access to google knows the ruby ridgers were the assaulted. They didn't take anyone, anywhere. But, yes, if folks violate my natural rights, I will stand my ground. Simply, theft doesn't become right becuz The State, agents of The State, or The People, say it does. If a person has an absolute moral claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, it's not for others, no matter how well-intended or powerful, to violate that claim.

In other words, when it comes to absolute moral claims, anyone can claim it's only their own that count. Right?

Er, no. Clearly believin' a person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property can't be interpreted to mean anyone can claim it's only their own that counts.

Just start here: https://gun-control.procon.org/

Anything in there about a person, any person, anywhere or when, having an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property? Or is it all a bunch of political hokum?

Those on both sides are able to make arguments that are reasonable. They simply start out with their very own non-negotiable set of social, political and economic assumptions.

That may be the case. I, however, will stick with...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Note to Nature:

Have you no fucking shame?!!

[Age]

I commend you on your brevity. However, you offer nuthin' worthy of my comment.

Once more, this one 'tries' its absolute hardest to DECEIVE.

Let 'us' not forget that I have, already, proved, irrefutably, your CONTRADICTIONS, and HYPOCRISY, here.

And, the Fact that you cannot refute, nor counter, what I have already offered and provided proves what I have said and claim here True, and Right, and Accurate, and Correct.

Ask questions. Be novel. As with the ax grinders, your same old-same old is boring.

LOL once more, this one provides absolutely nothing that counters, nor refutes, and, again, just 'tries' to DECEIVE the readers here.

I suggest you 'try' something else next time "henry quirk", as obviously what you are and have been doing is not working at all for you.

[Atla]

Right, right. This thread is in the metaphysics forum. So, only when we pin down ontologically and/or teleologically what determinism and autonomy and compatibilism actually mean -- philosophically, technically, analytically -- are we even permitted as serious philosophers to take those theoretical assessments down to Earth?

Fine, go in that direction. My own direction however always revolves around taking these didactic assessments down out of the conceptual clouds and noting how "for all practical purposes" that are applicable to their own lives.

What bullshit. What I wrote wasn't up in the conceptual clouds, it was conceptual but pretty down to Earth. Can't you think in concepts at all?

Thinking in concepts that pertain to meaning, morality and metaphysics is one thing. Bringing those concepts down out of the theoretical clouds and noting how the arguments themselves are pertinent to the lives we live...? Well, for some of us here that can often be another thing altogether.

You'll either go there or you won't. Ah, but then those who insist that they have brought their academic abstractions down to Earth with me. Again and again.

I'm not "going in that direction", it's what we do on philosophy forums.

Yes, that is certainly the case regarding any number of discussions and debates that unfold here. After all, Philososphy Now magazine describes itself as a "magazine of ideas".

In fact, I have no problems with ideas. Nor with abstractions. Nor with definitions and concepts and theories.

It's just for those who are familiar with my posts, I make it clear from time to time that in regard to meaning and morality, my whole philosophy of life revolves around bringing these ideas down to Earth.

Same with issues like compatibilism. Only this gets particularly tricky [in my view] because so much of what we do does unfold in the either/or world. And yet that far out on the metaphysical limb...

Why something instead of nothing?
Why this something and not something else?
Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
What of determinism?
What of the multiverse?
What of God?

...you tell me where the ideas end and empirical proof [one way or the other] begins.

So, here, for you and for others...

...in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

Are you suggesting here that when it comes to moral responsibility, human autonomy is not the bottom line? And, again, in my view, you post here given a set of assumptions regarding the human brain that is no less than just another existential leap of faith. Another more or less intelligent wager to this rather than that "proposition".

That's why you should have read my comments. Which autonomy? In the philosophical free will sense or in the psychological/legal/everyday free will sense?

Back to Mary then. How would any compatibilists here explain to her how, from the defective contraception to the abortion, she was both determined and morally responsible for what she did, for what happened?

And, again, unlike others here, I start out by noting that because this is in fact so far out on the metaphysical limb, I'm always both utterly fascinated and utterly perplexed by it.

But not you? Let me guess: you too possess this Intrinsic Self that deep down inside you "somehow" allows you to grasp determinism in a way that fools like me [out of ignorance or stupidity] never will?

What on Earth are you complaining/lamenting about? What I said wasn't up in the theoretical clouds, it was clearly not academic level abstraction. If you can't understand simple concepts, then there's no point in proceeding to everyday life examples, because I don't see how you will understand those either - you can't cognize what they are examples of.

Now if you had understood my conceptual comment about ("philosophical") compatibilism, you would have understood that I think it's a non-existent position, and a non-existent position can't have examples. So you didn't understand my comment. How should I give examples of something I think is a self-contradiction?

So again, you don't think in concepts at all? Is this deliberate or can you genuinely not do it?