compatibilism

[Noax]

This post has actually a minimum of mouth foaming. Didn't see it sooner since I skip over most of them.

So, what is the distinction you give between 'choice' and 'free choice', exactly?

In the context referenced, the distinction is between a natural agent and a supernatural agent respectively.

Some others simply distinguish between hard determinism and fundamental randomness, but it is unexplained how randomness yields responsible choices when deterministic processes do not.

So, when, to you, did "mary" or another human being become 'definitely responsible' for all of their choices, exactly?

There was never a time when this was not the case, even long before humans evolved. Bad choices result in consequences for the agent. That's puts responsibility on the agent.

Does it matter what country "mary" might be in at any given moment?

No, it matters what the local law is where the deed was committed. Where she lives is not entirely relevant. There are exceptions. It is against say Texas law for a Texas resident to have an abortion any place at all, even places where it is legal. The exact wording may be different. Maybe it's crossing state lines with intent that they get you for.

This example is a legal one. One is legally responsible to obey the law. The law is one definition of what is right or wrong, but not the only one, and it certainly isn't an example of objective responsibility.

If it's legal but she is also a regular in pro-life rallies, then she's a hypocrite and rightfully should bear the scorn of both sides of the issue.

[What] if the 'criminal law', itself, is Wrong?
Or, do you believe that EVERY 'criminal law' in EVERY country, at EVERY moment, is right?

This mixes definitions without defining all of them. Unanswerable. Right/wrong relative to what exactly? The absence of the qualification suggests absolute right/wrong, which I already said was incompatible with a naturalist view.

But, under 'naturalism' 'free will' exists, as 'nature' 'determined' that it would and did happen.

That is a contradiction with the definition of free will I gave. You put several things in scare quotes, so maybe that means you intend totally different (and unspecified) meanings for those words, in which case I don't know what you're talking about. None of the sentence seemed to require that.

[iambiguous]

What on Earth does it mean to live in a world where you are never able to opt not to abort but others still insist you are morally responsible for it. Well, to any number of hard determinists, it means that others are no less compelled to hold her responsible.

The problem with the way you are phrasing it is that it is as if you exist in the world and are not part of the causes in that world. If someone wants to do something and does it, they are aligned with the action and compatibilists and determinists will hold them responsible. And you probably do too. And would even if you were 100% sure determinism was the case.

On the other hand, there can be no problem with the way we phrase anything at all because we were never able to freely opt to phrase it otherwise.

And, no, if hard determinism were established to be the case, and it was in fact determined that everything we think, feel, intuit, say and do is solely, entirely in sync with the laws of matter...? That, in other words, we really are basically just Mother Nature's automatons.

You would react differently to the person who trips over wire running over the sidewalk and ends up stumbling up to you and pushing you. And the bully who makes a beeline to you and pushes you with obvious joy in dominating someone.

So what? If I reacted only as I was ever able to react to something that was never able not to happen?

Same with the bully.

We consider the first person one kind of person and the second one someone who is kinda fucked up. Most of us. If they did it at work, we'd probably advocate for them being fired. If we were the boss, we'd just fire them. The person who tripped, we most likely wouldn't.

Over and over again, it's not what we consider about something -- about anything -- but whether we were ever free to opt to consider something else.

I'd be happy to test this out with any hard determinist. I'll follow them around pushing them and laughing and I'll bet they treat me as if I am acting immorally, despite me pointing out that my actions are inevitable.

Right, like the test itself was not an inherent, meceassry component of the only possible reality.

So, you're pointing out as you have hundreds of times that hard deteminists would see both those men who pushed as performing actions that were inevitable, they will treat them differently.

They will be treated only as they were ever able to be treated. The actions of the bully and the reactions of others to the bully and the bully's reaction to that are all intertwined in the only possible manner in which matter unfolds given the laws that govern it.

At least until the hard guys and gals are finally able to determine how we must understand the human brain going back to, well, you tell me.

I throw a baseball and my hand slips and it hits you in the head.
I throw a baseball with the intention of hitting your head.

Set aside the categorization of these in terms of morals for a second. Pretty much everyone will treat the second baseball thrower very, very differently from the first baseball thrower.

So what? Pretty much everyone -- in fact everyone -- will treat others only as they are compelled to by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Unless the human brain really is "somehow" the exception to the rule. Re God for example?

[iambiguous]

What on Earth does it mean to live in a world where you are never able to opt not to abort but others still insist you are morally responsible for it.

I agree with this. I occasionally hear stories of such a thing occurring.

You continue to use 'compelled' despite it being entirely inappropriate. What's the point of rendering the viewpoint if you ignore me pointing out the mistakes? I'm not compelled to argue that one is responsible for their choices. I worked it out with logic.

Here we go again. I'm not thinking this through "appropriately". Why? Because I don't share your own assessment of compelled. As though a brain sustaining the only possibly reality in the only possible world can't be said to be compelling us to think, feel, intuit, say and do only those things we were never able not to.

I understand that determinists, hard ones, would consider both actions inevitable.

Inevitable. That word seems to fit better.

Right. And what on Earth for all practical purposes is the difference between the brain sustaining a world where everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do we are never able not to think, feel, intuit, say and do and the brain compelling it?

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy

A simple machine has autonomy. Under naturalism, humans are just a little more complex, but not fundamentally different.

Okay, note a simple machine that has autonomy. And how would naturalists go about demonstrating that what they think about nature is not merely what their brains compelled them to think about it.

when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter

I don't consider any matter to be living (or conscious). A living thing is composed of (or is a process involving) matter, sure, but not of living or conscious matter. That is more along the lines of property dualism. I suppose opinions differ on this point.

Well, if only for thousands of years now going back to, say, the pre-Socratics? And it's not what you consider here that most interests me. Instead, it's what you can actually demonstrate about what you believe here such that all reasonable men and women would be obligated to believe the same.

Like me and most of the others here, all you are providing us with is "sheer speculation" up in the philosophical clouds. Compatibilism in a world of words.

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well.

My, but you use that word a lot.

And what word could possibly be more crucial in regard to human interactions? Either our lives have meaning and purpose rooted essentially in one or another God or one or another secular rendition or mere mortals just make it all up as they go along.

Click, of course.

As for the definitions used here, well, we'd have to run them by the folks who study the brain scientifically, wouldn't we.

I don't think those folks care much about which definition of 'free will' is used. It doesn't seem relevant to their research, so they're not all likely to have the same opinions about it.

Besides, when you explore the human brain empirically, experiential and experimentally it's not personal opinions you are after, so much as scientific fact, evidence, proof.

Again, they make no distinction between moral responsibility and objective moral responsibility, so I don't speak for them. Yes, under determinism as I see it, Mary is definitely responsible for all her choices, just not objectively responsible since determinism is not compatible with objective morals. Free will is required only for the latter.

Again, say the detrerminists, the distinction they make is but another necessary manifestion of the only possible reality. Just as you own assessment here is. Just as mine is

You also often use the phrase 'only possible reality'. There are lots of possible realities. This is just one of them. Are those other ones just as real as this one? That's a whole different debate, unrelated to the issue of determinism or compatibilism. For the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about this reality, whatever that is, not other possible ones.

No, there are lots and lots of theories regarding what the word reality means. And one of them argues that all material things are wholly in sync with the laws of matter. Including the human brain.

You make it sound like only the determinists have only one possible evolution of a given state, but if they were right, then this is true of everybody, not just the determinists, and if they're wrong, then it isn't even true of the determinists. Either way, your assertion is fallacious.

All of us are inherently embedded in the only possible states there can ever be in a wholly determined universe. Only those who propound this are not any different from the rest of us. They can believe whatever they do. But that's not the same thing at all as demonstrating that what they believe is in fact not fallacious at all.

Again, all of this unfolding in a world where she was never able to opt not to abort

Yet again, this is a strawman. The option was always there. She just didn't want it.

Again, she wants only that which her brain compels her to want. So these "options" are illusory. Only those who believe this have no way of demonstrating it themselves.

Determinism doesn't remove options. It just means that your choices are implemented via processes that do not contain any components of randomness. This is a good thing, and you're attempting to spin it as a bad thing. Evolution would not have selected for deterministic methods (even if determinism wasn't the case) if it wasn't what worked best.

Talk about a "general description intellectual contraption". How, for all practical purposes, can Mary be wholly compelled/determined to abort Jane, yet still be said to have had an "option" to?

And how on Earth would you go about actually demonstrating -- empirically, experientially, experimentally -- that this is, in fact, the objective truth?

It's kind of anecdotal. Seriously, you don't know somebody who wants to quit a vice and yet chooses the vice? This isn't a demonstration of 'wiling what he wills' (and only sometimes successfully)?

Again, what part about the brain determining everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do, is irrelevant here? Whether I know someone like that isn't the point. Instead, it's how we go about determining that what we think I know or what others do contains at least some measure of human autonomy.

Okay, then back to Schopenhauer's conjecture that, "a man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

Not sure what that means. I want to quite smoking but I chose to light up anyway. Yes, there's definitely examples of wanting to will something else, but 'cannot' goes too far.

And how on Earth would you go about actually demonstrating -- empirically, experientially, experimentally -- that this is, in fact, the objective truth? You think you chose to light up but ultimately if the human brain does determine EVERYthing that you think and feel and intuit and say and do in regard to smoking, well, where's the part where autonomy comes in here?

That's a complex thing in itself. When it comes to choosing, there is more than one will going on, sort of a angel and devil on each shoulder, except it isn't between good and bad, but rather rational vs animal, and it's very obvious which one is boss.

Again, where's the part where human autonomy comes into play here. Encompassed as simply as you can.

[Noax]

if hard determinism were established to be the case

According to the reasoning you've been pushing, this cannot ever happen since all beliefs would be determined and not subject to alteration via, say, evidence, all of which would also be determined, rendering the concept of 'established' contradictory. If you're going to push a strawman, at least be consistent with it.

we really are basically just Mother Nature's automatons.

That, at least, is closer to the mark.

Unless the human brain really is "somehow" the exception to the rule.

Is this what you're pushing then? Anthropocentrism? Sure, it's a thing, but not one that merits serious scientific consideration. Iwannaplato certainly didn't suggest this in the bit you quoted.

Why? Because I don't share your own assessment of compelled.

No, not because of that. Because somebody who is actually a determinist would not choose that word. It carries the incorrect implication of being forced to do something other than what you would choose. You cannot use your own assessment of how things are when discussing a view with which you don't agree. That would be like using tensed language when discussion a non-presentist viewpoint. It is fallacious reasoning.

As though a brain sustaining the only possibly reality in the only possible world can't be said to be compelling us to think, feel, intuit, say and do only those things we were never able not to.

This is definitely dualist thinking. The wording makes no sense until 'brain' and 'us' are two separate things in contention.
Stop using 'brain' and 'us' in the same sentence as if they're different things. It's all just 'us', and a brain is an organ just like a kidney, all part of the whole, not two competing things. You do this in a great number of your sentences.

Well, if only for thousands of years now going back to, say, the pre-Socratics?

Yes,it definitely has a long history. Doesn't make it the same view as naturalism.

Compatibilism in a world of words.

Now you lump me with the compatibilists despite my explicit statement otherwise.

Either our lives have meaning and purpose rooted essentially in one or another God

Ah, there it is. I'm not claiming that sort of purpose, no. Meaning and purpose, yes, but rooted elsewhere. I've also wondered what this 'Click' is that appears randomly in your posts. Have not figured that out.

Again, she wants only that which her brain compels her to want.

Yet another example of the dualist wording. You don't seem to realize that you're doing it. You can't argue against a non-dualist stance by presuming dualist concepts.
I cannot respond to every comment where you do this, since it is the majority of them.

The way to argue against a particular view is to presume it to be the case, and then, using only its own premises, drive it to some sort of contradiction, or in contradiction with anything empirical. Instead you beg presumptions from a completely different view.

Again, where's the part where human autonomy comes into play here.

Two parts are required: Informed decisions are needed, which require input and an information processor. Secondly, the absence of being compelled is required. The agent needs to be able to enact its choice. None of this is anything that say a computer cannot do. The computer (let's say a self driving car, more of a complex human written program than an actual AI) has such autonomy.
You seem to equate autonomy to free choice, but it instead equates to choice. It is the 'free' part which I don't see serving any useful purpose, and in fact may qualify as the compelling since under most models with free will, there are actually two different things in contention which might want different things, and a decision can be made only by one compelling the other to make a choice it doesn't want.

Now in the bit of mine you quoted I did describe this sort of dual will thing going on, using the analogy of the angel and devil on the shoulders, the animal and the rational, the instinct and the conscience, but both very much deterministic. That conflict is very much noticeable via introspection (if you pay attention to it), and is often the source of there being more than one obvious option when a decision is to be made. For instance, the animal part does most of the driving of the car since it is much better at it, but occasionally the other part needs to interject and supply some navigation, especially in unfamiliar locations. Of course, I now see the latter task taken over by nav apps to the point where some people could not find the end or their driveway if they didn't take their phone with them. I don't even own a mobile phone, and i jump at opportunities to make fun of those that have offloaded so many important skills to them.

[Age]

This post has actually a minimum of mouth foaming.

So, what are you 'mouth foaming', minimally, in regards to, exactly?

Didn't see it sooner since I skip over most of them.

So, what is the distinction you give between 'choice' and 'free choice', exactly?

In the context referenced, the distinction is between a natural agent and a supernatural agent respectively.

And, what is the distinction you give between a so-called 'natural agent' and a so-called 'supernatural agent', exactly?

Also, what about in all contexts', and not just some particular ones?

Some others simply distinguish between hard determinism and fundamental randomness, but it is unexplained how randomness yields responsible choices when deterministic processes do not.

Okay if you say so.

But, here is ANOTHER PRIME example of WHY these human beings took SO LONG, here.

So, when, to you, did "mary" or another human being become 'definitely responsible' for all of their choices, exactly?

There was never a time when this was not the case, even long before humans evolved. Bad choices result in consequences for the agent.

So, HOW EXACTLY BEFORE there were human beings existing could so-called 'bad choices' have been made, exactly?

And, what 'agents' are you talking about and referring to, here, exactly?

That's puts responsibility on the agent.

What is put responsibility on 'the agent', exactly?

And, who and/or what 'agent' are you even talking about, here, exactly?

I just asked you, 'When do human beings become responsible for all of their choices, exactly?'

In other words, 'At what age does a human being become responsible for all of their choices, exactly?'

Does it matter what country "mary" might be in at any given moment?

No, it matters what the local law is where the deed was committed.

What, EXACTLY, is the 'it', here?

I am NOT SURE 'what' matters to the 'local law' other than TO the 'local law'.

Where she lives is not entirely relevant. There are exceptions. It is against say Texas law for a Texas resident to have an abortion any place at all, even places where it is legal. The exact wording may be different. Maybe it's crossing state lines with intent that they get you for.

This example is a legal one. One is legally responsible to obey the law.

This sounds rather 'circular'.

you are responsible to 'the law' because 'the law' says that you are responsible to 'the law', itself.

The law is one definition of what is right or wrong, but not the only one, and it certainly isn't an example of objective responsibility.

Very, very True.

If it's legal but she is also a regular in pro-life rallies, then she's a hypocrite and rightfully should bear the scorn of both sides of the issue.

[What] if the 'criminal law', itself, is Wrong?
Or, do you believe that EVERY 'criminal law' in EVERY country, at EVERY moment, is right?

This mixes definitions without defining all of them.

HOW, EXACTLY?

Unanswerable.

So, "noax" is, supposedly, NOT ABLE TO INFORM ANY one of what it BELIEVES, here.

Right/wrong relative to what exactly?

GREAT QUESTION, which is WHY 'I' was ASKING 'you' FOR CLARIFICATION.

The absence of the qualification suggests absolute right/wrong, which I already said was incompatible with a naturalist view.

If you SAY and CLAIM SO.

SO, what, EXACTLY, is 'absolute right/wrong' COMPATIBLE WITH, again EXACTLY?

you can list ALL of the things that you BELIEVE and CLAIM 'absolute right/wrong' are NOT compatible WITH. But, things might be somewhat sped up here if you just inform us of what 'absolute right/wrong' are compatible WITH, EXACTLY, to you, INSTEAD.

But, under 'naturalism' 'free will' exists, as 'nature' 'determined' that it would and did happen.

That is a contradiction with the definition of free will I gave. You put several things in scare quotes, so maybe that means you intend totally different (and unspecified) meanings for those words, in which case I don't know what you're talking about. None of the sentence seemed to require that.

LOL AGAIN, NOT A SHRED OF INQUIRY WAS SOUGHT OUT, by this one.

AND, ALSO AGAIN, NOT A so-called 'scare quote' was made. Although this is OBVIOUSLY CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, here, BY SOME.

I WILL REPEAT, I put words in single quotation marks for the very reason the definition/s of NEED to be SOUGHT OUT and DISCUSSED for A True UNDERSTANDING to be OBTAINED.

By the way, what is 'totally different meanings' relative to, EXACTLY?

[Noax]

This post has actually a minimum of mouth foaming.

The subsequent post did not meet this criteria. It displayed no actual interest in that to which it was responding.
It displayed automatic 'knee jerk' responses to almost every comment so lacking in displayed comprehension that multiple replies requested clarification on his own quotes.

Since you don't care, you don't need more reply than that.

[Flannel Jesus]

This post has actually a minimum of mouth foaming.

The subsequent post did not meet this criteria. It displayed no actual interest in that to which it was responding.
It displayed automatic 'knee jerk' responses to almost every comment so lacking in displayed comprehension that multiple replies requested clarification on his own quotes.

Since you don't care, you don't need more reply than that.

His readers from the future aren't going to be very happy with you about this. Fair warning.

[iambiguous]

if hard determinism were established to be the case

According to the reasoning you've been pushing...

I'm not a "my way of the highway" objectivist. Or a "one of us or else" authoritarian. I don't "push" my reasoning here in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics. On the contrary, in being fractured and fragmented regarding "I" in the is/ought world, I'm actually far more intent on finding someone able to convince me that "for all practical purposes" there is no need at all to be drawn and quartered at, say, the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy?

...this cannot ever happen since all beliefs would be determined and not subject to alteration via, say, evidence, all of which would also be determined, rendering the concept of 'established' contradictory. If you're going to push a strawman, at least be consistent with it.

In other words, think this through as consistently as you do. Really, I get that part. In fact I get it all the time here. And there.

we really are basically just Mother Nature's automatons.

That, at least, is closer to the mark.

The mark. And, of course, five will get you ten it's your mark. Only how far back do you go in establishing this empirically, experientially and experimentally? All the way back to, say, the Big Bang, to the Multiverse, to God? Or is this just a "frame of mind" that "here and now" you sustain "in your head"...philosophically?

Unless the human brain really is "somehow" the exception to the rule.

Is this what you're pushing then? Anthropocentrism? Sure, it's a thing, but not one that merits serious scientific consideration. Iwannaplato certainly didn't suggest this in the bit you quoted.

Push? Again, no can do. And once again, no doubt, you're convinced that your point here is relevant to my point above. And, once again, I see little or no connection between them at all. Click, of course.

Why? Because I don't share your own assessment of compelled.

No, not because of that. Because somebody who is actually a determinist would not choose that word. It carries the incorrect implication of being forced to do something other than what you would choose. You cannot use your own assessment of how things are when discussing a view with which you don't agree. That would be like using tensed language when discussion a non-presentist viewpoint. It is fallacious reasoning.

This is almost gibberish to me.

On and on and on you go telling me in a wholly determined universe what determinists really would or would not choose. As though the whole point of many particularly hard determinists is actually not to argue instead that they are certainly not exceptions to the rules embedded in the laws of matter. They choose only what they were ever able to choose. It's just that any number of others will still be compelled to hold them responsible. Why? Becasue they themselves were never free to opt otherwise.

As though a brain sustaining the only possibly reality in the only possible world can't be said to be compelling us to think, feel, intuit, say and do only those things we were never able not to.

This is definitely dualist thinking. The wording makes no sense until 'brain' and 'us' are two separate things in contention.

Right, like any of us here can establish what that actually means given our day to day interactions with others. Dualism is always one possible explanation, of course, but how is that established? Oh, and doesn't this quandary stretch all the way back to the pre-Socratics? Or whenever or however those in the East first grappled with it.

Stop using 'brain' and 'us' in the same sentence as if they're different things. It's all just 'us', and a brain is an organ just like a kidney, all part of the whole, not two competing things. You do this in a great number of your sentences.

How about, once again, we bring your own assumptions here back to Mary's abortion. Or to any other moral conflagration which seems of particular impotance to you. In other words, demonstrating to us how your own views on dualism -- on the human brain itself -- are the only correct ones.

Compatibilism in a world of words.

Now you lump me with the compatibilists despite my explicit statement otherwise.

I'm just curious to explore the views of those who are convinced that 1] Mary was never able not to abort jane but 2] she is still morally responsible for doing so.

Either our lives have meaning and purpose rooted essentially in one or another God

Ah, there it is. I'm not claiming that sort of purpose, no. Meaning and purpose, yes, but rooted elsewhere.

Okay, if not God and if not dasein, what then? Where are your views on abortion rooted, say, existentially?

I've also wondered what this 'Click' is that appears randomly in your posts. Have not figured that out.

Well, since I am no less embedded in The Gap, Rummy's Rule, and 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.

...I use "click" to convey the assumption that "somehow" free will is the real deal "here and now" in our exchanges. Knowing of course that, like most everyone else here, I am unable to take my own set of assumptions much beyond a "world of words."

Again, she wants only that which her brain compels her to want.

Yet another example of the dualist wording. You don't seem to realize that you're doing it. You can't argue against a non-dualist stance by presuming dualist concepts.

I cannot respond to every comment where you do this, since it is the majority of them.

The way to argue against a particular view is to presume it to be the case, and then, using only its own premises, drive it to some sort of contradiction, or in contradiction with anything empirical. Instead you beg presumptions from a completely different view. realize that you're doing it. You can't argue against a non-dualist stance by presuming dualist concepts.

I cannot respond to every comment where you do this, since it is the majority of them.

Note to others:

Hell, this reminds me of something that Alan Sokal might have written. You know, in order to expose just how irrelevant academic philosophy can be in regard to the lives that we actually live.

[Age]

This post has actually a minimum of mouth foaming.

The subsequent post did not meet this criteria. It displayed no actual interest in that to which it was responding.
It displayed automatic 'knee jerk' responses to almost every comment so lacking in displayed comprehension that multiple replies requested clarification on his own quotes.

Since you don't care, you don't need more reply than that.

Obviously this one can NOT back up and support its own claims and beliefs here, NOR can it refute NOR counter what I have presented and shown, here.

[Age]

The subsequent post did not meet this criteria. It displayed no actual interest in that to which it was responding.
It displayed automatic 'knee jerk' responses to almost every comment so lacking in displayed comprehension that multiple replies requested clarification on his own quotes.

Since you don't care, you don't need more reply than that.

His readers from the future aren't going to be very happy with you about this. Fair warning.

LOL Some readers, here, can SEE, EXACTLY, WHERE and WHY "noax" can NOT back up and support its claims, and can NOT counter NOR refute my claims, here.

"noax", like you, has PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, to be COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of even just 'trying to' CLARIFY and/or ELABORATE on its CLAIMS.

And, THE REASON for this is BECAUSE "noax", like you, just can NOT CLARIFY, NOR ELABORATE, AT ALL, SUFFICIENTLY, and LOGICALLY.

[Noax]

This is almost gibberish to me.

Yea, I kind of realize the futility of trying to get you to see (not to accept) a different point of view.

How about, once again, we bring your own assumptions here back to Mary's abortion.

Fine. Mary chooses to abort. It's a choice, but under determinism, it's not a free choice, not compelled by an outside supernatural agent, but rather a choice actually made by Mary herself.

In other words, demonstrating to us how your own views on dualism -- on the human brain itself -- are the only correct ones.

My views are not of dualism. I mostly don't tell them (the dualists) what their belief must be except for the obvious problem of there needing to be a physical effect without a physical cause, a sore spot with them that they're reluctant to address. The external agent needs an interface with which to compel Mary to do its will.

she is still morally responsible for doing so.

What do you mean by being morally responsible. There are many forms that responsibility can take, and not all of them apply to a naturalistic view.

I choose to run with scissors. I am responsible for the bleeding that results. It isn't anybody else's fault. That's one form of being responsible, but morals don't much come into play with that one. Mary is likewise responsible for the subsequent state of not being pregnant. The decision to be in that state was hers, not somebody else's.

Where are your views on abortion rooted, say, existentially?

My views don't matter. I am not likely to ever be pregnant.

I use "click" to convey the assumption that "somehow" free will is the real deal "here and now" in our exchanges.

Well I don't assume that. I try hard not to assume anything, or when I inevitably do, to at least be aware of it.

[Flannel Jesus]

I use "click" to convey the assumption that "somehow" free will is the real deal "here and now" in our exchanges.

Well I don't assume that. I try hard not to assume anything, or when I inevitably do, to at least be aware of it.

He doesn't care if his words are understood. That's why he still says "click" despite being fully aware that nobody is interpreting it to mean what he says it means. He doesn't communicate to be understood or to understand. Nobody has quite figured out what reason he has to use words at all.

[Noax]

He doesn't communicate to be understood or to understand. Nobody has quite figured out what reason he has to use words at all.

I'm coming to notice that. Why is it that those that have the least to say are the most prolific posters?

[Atla]

He seems to be talking to himself forever. The existence of other people seems to have lost its meaning to him. What a strange way to live.

[iambiguous]

Why is Freedom So Important To Us?
John Shand explains why free will is basic to humanity.

But no moral blame attaches to your watch: it cannot be said to have made a mistake, or done something wrong in the sense of selecting poorly from various options. A watch simply does what a watch does (or in this case, does not do). Of the watchsmith, by contrast, we might say that he has done something incorrectly.

Seemingly the same for all other aspects of creation. The universe is bursting at the seams with "things" and "things" interacting with other "things" that no one holds responsible...even though the consequences of their interactions can be devastating.

Devastation however is something only human beings seem capable of appreciating. In other words, such that others are held responsible for causing it. But what if Nature is to the watchmaker what the watchmaker is to the watch.

There's [still] no getting around the profound mystery embedded in matter somehow becoming biological -- living matter. Then the human brain itself. Make of it what you will. But do you actually imagine your understanding of it here and now comes closest to explaining it...ontologically.

And then for extra credit...teleologically?

Having got that out of the way, in what follows the term ‘normative’ will be used to imply that it makes sense to say that doing something a certain way is correct or incorrect, and that the rule giving the correct way of doing it is not descriptive but rather prescriptive: it sets down how something should be done, regardless of what is actually done.

Fine. Now all we need is an actual context...one, however, in which things that make sense to you make no sense to me or to others. And how some make sense of them may or may not make sense to others.

And then the part where we just assume the existence of some measure of free will permitting all of this to unfold in the first place.