compatibilism

[Alexiev]

If and when I say freedom, I am not talking about so-called "Free Will", which is a religious superstition that serves instead of random guessing . When I say freedom I am talking about free relative to physical, mental, and social constraints. Freedom to think, speak, roam. assemble, believe, worship, disdain, and feel is good and is what education should be aimed at, and is absolutely apart from that version of "Free Will" which holds that there is something non- physical , and ineffable and which is not caused by anything under the sun.

Ah okay, interesting.

And so then the question from many will be, how do you imagine moral responsibility works in a world with no free will? Some people frame free will as "the ability to have done differently", and so no free will means no ability to have done differently and therefore moral responsibility kind of falls apart. If you can't have done differently, how can you be deemed immoral for what you did?

I don't see the problem. IN Christian thought, sin (and evil) is intrinsic to people. It is not based on their actions, but on their being. Hence Jimmy Carter's famous "lust in his heart" comment.

So the murderer or thief who -- because of his brain neurons or whatever else -- cannot do differently is still morally responsible for his acts. If he were a different person, he could have done differently.

"Free" means "unfettered". If Patty Hearst (I may be dating myself) is forced at gun point to rob banks, that act is not "free". If she decides to rob banks because her neurons control her decisions, in common parlance that would remain a "free" act. Therefore, she can be deemed immoral in the second case, because one is morally responsible for oneself, whether the universe is predetermined or not. Determinism is irrelevant both legally and morally.

[Flannel Jesus]

So the murderer or thief who -- because of his brain neurons or whatever else -- cannot do differently is still morally responsible for his acts. If he were a different person, he could have done differently.

Yeah, that's a common compatibilist framing absolutely. "He could have done differently, if he counterfactually wanted to" is how I often phrase it.

I just want to see if Belinda agrees with that kind of take.

[Belinda]

If and when I say freedom, I am not talking about so-called "Free Will", which is a religious superstition that serves instead of random guessing . When I say freedom I am talking about free relative to physical, mental, and social constraints. Freedom to think, speak, roam. assemble, believe, worship, disdain, and feel is good and is what education should be aimed at, and is absolutely apart from that version of "Free Will" which holds that there is something non- physical , and ineffable and which is not caused by anything under the sun.

Ah okay, interesting.

And so then the question from many will be, how do you imagine moral responsibility works in a world with no free will? Some people frame free will as "the ability to have done differently", and so no free will means no ability to have done differently and therefore moral responsibility kind of falls apart. If you can't have done differently, how can you be deemed immoral for what you did?

In a world with no absolute free will, I and Mr Netanyahu could not have done differently than we did. However neither of us is clairvoyant and our ignorance of future circumstances gives each of us the opportunity within the frame of the
open future to learn more than we know at present, and learn how we may improve our decision making.

On the other hand, if absolute free will were the case it would make the difference that I and Netanyahu are entirely to blame for all our failings whatever those be.

Despite that there is no such thing as absolute free will the administration of justice has to work as if free will exists; this is because we don't know how to bring people to justice unless blame is to be appended to criminal actions. If we knew how to make everybody good and reasonable we could get rid of
administration of justice. Regimes could then save a lot of money and be less top heavy in administration .

Would Alexiev want to continue this discussion with reference to theology ?

[iambiguous]

Okay, so you are precisely as retarded as everyone else already thinks you are. Got it.

I keep on trying to give you a chance to do better, that's obviously very silly of me.

The guy has been obsessing for decades over the issue of moral responsibility, yet he can never even comprehend what people mean by moral responsibility, due to his psychological blindness. It's hard to tell what it is that he's actually obsessing about.

No more, perhaps, than the obsession moral objectivists seem to have about me.

How about this...

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla, given their own understanding of free will and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Click or No click, God or No God.

[Atla]

Okay, so you are precisely as retarded as everyone else already thinks you are. Got it.

I keep on trying to give you a chance to do better, that's obviously very silly of me.

The guy has been obsessing for decades over the issue of moral responsibility, yet he can never even comprehend what people mean by moral responsibility, due to his psychological blindness. It's hard to tell what it is that he's actually obsessing about.

No more, perhaps, than the obsession moral objectivists seem to have about me.

How about this...

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla, given their own understanding of free will and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Click or No click, God or No God.

How about this, you fuck off until you've replied to the earlier comments. Show that you have any business commenting on a philosophy forum.

[iambiguous]

The guy has been obsessing for decades over the issue of moral responsibility, yet he can never even comprehend what people mean by moral responsibility, due to his psychological blindness. It's hard to tell what it is that he's actually obsessing about.

No more, perhaps, than the obsession moral objectivists seem to have about me.

How about this...

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla, given their own understanding of free will and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Click or No click, God or No God.

How about this, you fuck off until you've replied to the earlier comments. Show that you have any business commenting on a philosophy forum.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, it is then.

Uh, whatever that means given the only possible reality?

How about this then:

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla, given their own understanding of philosophy and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

[Atla]

No more, perhaps, than the obsession moral objectivists seem to have about me.

How about this...

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla, given their own understanding of free will and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Click or No click, God or No God.

How about this, you fuck off until you've replied to the earlier comments. Show that you have any business commenting on a philosophy forum.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, it is then.

Uh, whatever that means given the only possible reality?

How about this then:

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla, given their own understanding of philosophy and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Yes, wiggle it is on your part. First fix the 10-15 mistakes you made in those last two comments, then we can continue from there. (You can't do it, of course.)

[iambiguous]

How about this, you fuck off until you've replied to the earlier comments. Show that you have any business commenting on a philosophy forum.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, it is then.

Uh, whatever that means given the only possible reality?

How about this then:

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla, given their own understanding of philosophy and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Yes, wiggle it is on your part. First fix the 10-15 mistakes you made in those last two comments, then we can continue from there. (You can't do it, of course.)

Nature to iambiguous:

See, I told you.

[Atla]

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, it is then.

Uh, whatever that means given the only possible reality?

How about this then:

Yes, wiggle it is on your part. First fix the 10-15 mistakes you made in those last two comments, then we can continue from there. (You can't do it, of course.)

Nature to iambiguous:

See, I told you.

Are you imagining now that nature talks to you?

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, wiggle it is on your part. First fix the 10-15 mistakes you made in those last two comments, then we can continue from there. (You can't do it, of course.)

Nature to iambiguous:

See, I told you.

Are you imagining now that nature talks to you?

Another thing biggy says that he thinks means something to other people.

"Waffle iron to flannel Jesus: get a load of this guy".

Wtf does that shit even mean? Does he not know how he sounds?

[FlashDangerpants]

Nature to iambiguous:

See, I told you.

Are you imagining now that nature talks to you?

Another thing biggy says that he thinks means something to other people.

"Waffle iron to flannel Jesus: get a load of this guy".

Wtf does that shit even mean? Does he not know how he sounds?

Weather forecast to paraplegic donkey farm: cram it with walnuts!

I like this idiom, it could go paces and do things.

[Atla]

Another thing biggy says that he thinks means something to other people.

"Waffle iron to flannel Jesus: get a load of this guy".

Wtf does that shit even mean? Does he not know how he sounds?

I've been experimenting a little:

Construct a barely intelligible text using all of the following expressions: "Nature to me", "if I may say so myself", "absolutely shameless", "click", "I told you", "rooted existentially in dasein", "Dasein", "Rummy's Rule", "No God world", "revolves largely around", "here and Now", "fractured and fragmented", "unless, perhaps, it's not", "Mary's abortion", "conflicting goods".

Nature to me, if I may say so myself, is absolutely shameless in the click of the moment, the Here and Now, where Dasein, rooted existentially in dasein—yes, with a lowercase d, mind you—revolves largely around conflicting goods, fractured and fragmented as it is in this No God world, which, unless, perhaps, it's not, still abides by Rummy’s Rule. I told you—didn’t I?—Mary's abortion isn't just Mary’s abortion, it’s the entire schema of what ought against what is, which, if I may again say so mayself, is a kind of non-ontology that’s absolutely shameless, like the metaphysical click of a switchblade just before the thought arrives.

What do you think?

[Flannel Jesus]

Are you imagining now that nature talks to you?

Another thing biggy says that he thinks means something to other people.

"Waffle iron to flannel Jesus: get a load of this guy".

Wtf does that shit even mean? Does he not know how he sounds?

Weather forecast to paraplegic donkey farm: cram it with walnuts!

I like this idiom, it could go paces and do things.

Bonk

[iambiguous]

Are you imagining now that nature talks to you?

Another thing biggy says that he thinks means something to other people.

"Waffle iron to flannel Jesus: get a load of this guy".

Wtf does that shit even mean? Does he not know how he sounds?

Weather forecast to paraplegic donkey farm: cram it with walnuts!

I like this idiom, it could go paces and do things.

Here, of course, I can only come back to this...

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of philosophy and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Given a context in which conflicts often occur regarding right and wrong, good and evil, let Flannel Jesus and Atla and flashdangerpants, given their own understanding of free will and the human brain, note what moral responsibility means to them.

Otherwise, if it doesn't embarrass them to post Stooge Stuff like the above, it doesn't embarrass me to suggest that they ought to be.

Unless, of course, in regard to the human brain, one of them is able to link their own philosophical assessment of compatibilism to that which brain scientists are in fact able to confirm.

[Atla]

Let it be known that here, before the thousands of imagined followers of iambig, he was incapable of fixing the 10-15 mistakes he made, he proved again that he has no business commenting on a philosophy forum. He tried to go ahead and asked us things instead, hoping to bury this little problem and tried and failed to make us look bad, but he has already shown that he has no idea what he's actually asking us and would have no ability to make sense of our responses. How thoroughly embarrassing. But some people are just shameless, well, what can we do?