Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 4:39 pmI think my "higher education" is somewhat higher than yours.

But oh great Wizard please let us all now what great heights of knoweldge you have reached?

Tell us how your discomfort and lack of security have given you such great insights!
Please oh great one what have you learned from your insecurity?
What has being uncomfortable told you about life, oh wizzy wizard?

You are still wrong about the Greeks.

For starters, it's taught me to use leather gloves when handling humans.

It makes it harder to type, but definitely worth the protection.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 1:50 am if the will behind the action is not free, there is no moral responsibility...

-Imp

Exactly right. Any number of posters -- the absent Big Mike comes to mind -- make a lotta noise about how a belief in free will leads to atrocity (interesting how holding one's self and others as responsible for acts committed and the consequences of those acts is viewed as a bad thing). And yet every last one of these anti-free willists lives as though free will were true and moral responsibility applicable. Hell, in this very forum we have a poster -- a anti-moral realist, anti-free willist -- who admits to feeling anger toward the raper of his friend. But, how can this be, I asked? The raper, according to folks like the poster, simply did what was necessary he do (he had no choice in the matter) so he is not, cannot possibly be, responsible. And still the poster does hold the raper responsble (he is, however, uncharacteristically silent about why he does so).

These anti-free willists and anti-moral realists (determinists and materialists, all) talk the talk but cannot walk the walk.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:05 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 4:55 pm Do you just write down whatever drifts into your head?

Are you sure he wasn't quoting Henry?

The only thing I'm sure of is that he's an idiot.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:20 pmExactly right. Any number of posters -- the absent Big Mike comes to mind -- make a lotta noise about how a belief in free will leads to atrocity (interesting how holding one's self and others as responsible for acts committed and the consequences of those acts is viewed as a bad thing). And yet every last one of these anti-free willists lives as though free will were true and moral responsibility applicable. Hell, in this very forum we have a poster -- a anti-moral realist, anti-free willist -- who admits to feeling anger toward the raper of his friend. But, how can this be, I asked? The raper, according to folks like the poster, simply did what was necessary he do (he had no choice in the matter) so he is not, cannot possibly be, responsible. And still the poster does hold the raper responsble (he is, however, uncharacteristically silent about why he does so).

These anti-free willists and anti-moral realists (determinists and materialists, all) talk the talk but cannot walk the walk.

I'm caught between two likely analyses:

1. They don't realize their logical fallacy and error.
2. Some of them do realize it, but won't admit to it openly. ("Compatibilists")

The result is plausible deniability. Morally Good when they can take credit for something. Morally Evil when they need to blame somebody else.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:20 pm
Exactly right. Any number of posters -- the absent Big Mike comes to mind -- make a lotta noise about how a belief in free will leads to atrocity

I've only seen about two people saying something like this. Who do you think is agreeing with this?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:31 pm

Me, I just think they've been hoodwinked: sometimes by others, sometimes by themselves.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:34 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:20 pm
Exactly right. Any number of posters -- the absent Big Mike comes to mind -- make a lotta noise about how a belief in free will leads to atrocity

I've only seen about two people saying something like this. Who do you think is agreeing with this?

Not my job to out them. I tell you this, though: right off the top of my head I can name six posters, including BM and the poster I mentioned.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:47 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:34 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:20 pm
Exactly right. Any number of posters -- the absent Big Mike comes to mind -- make a lotta noise about how a belief in free will leads to atrocity

I've only seen about two people saying something like this. Who do you think is agreeing with this?

Not my job to out them. I tell you this, though: right off the top of my head I can name six posters, including BM and the poster I mentioned.

Isn't BM the one you mentioned? Or does BM stand for Belinda mama?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:42 pmMe, I just think they've been hoodwinked: sometimes by others, sometimes by themselves.

That's definitely part of it.

The smarter kids figure it out early in life though. It takes a type of mental discipline to maintain logical rigor. There is a strong compulsion in people to be selective when it comes to blame, fault, and consequences. The car accident with two parties blaming each other, is one of the better examples where the Determinists and Compatibilists can't weasel their way out to blaming 'Nature'. They know, full well, that humans need to blame someone, or something. And, from personal experience, they likely know this feeling of pressure somewhere in life, when real-world consequences are on the line.

Free-Will means somebody needs to own up to the blame, whether accusing others, or being accused.

Big_Mike started the previous thread, from which I clipped and started this thread (since he disappeared):

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=35802

You should read the full thing, from page 1, FJ...

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 6:06 pm Big_Mike started the previous thread, from which I clipped and started this thread (since he disappeared):

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=35802

You should read the full thing, from page 1, FJ...

There isn't a single person in the world that would benefit from doing that

Suit yourself, you could have learned a thing or two or twelve.

I'm beginning to more fully understand how Compatibilists have free-will when it benefits me but are Determined when it doesn't.

Interesting how moral Confirmation Bias acts this way, isn't it?


Shouldn't Morality include a 'rigor' clause? Like, you should at least pretend to live by the principles you profess? Look at Western politicians and governments...they don't even pretend anymore. It gives society a bad look.

If you can't have it both ways, then you can't be Compatible anymore. Free-Will, or Hard Determinism.

Choose wisely.

Enact your free-will.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 6:34 pm Suit yourself, you could have learned a thing or two or twelve.

I'm sure if you had something to teach me, you could do it more efficiently than making me wade through 55 pages of mostly tripe

The royal you, not necessarily you in particular

Basically the thread demonstrates that people believe in free-will, when it subjectively benefits them, but determinism when it does not.

This is because there's a default code of 'morality' in people as individuals, favoring logic that benefits them, disfavoring logic that does not.

The implication of this, is that people follow moral and ethical rules selectively. And this is the most Realistic interpretation of morality.



This means that neither free-will, nor determinism, alone, can account for moral behaviors.

Furthermore, it means when you add Deceit and Lies into the equation, that people don't really have any incentive to claim free-will at all.

They can hide it...and leave it hidden until they become Proud of a set of actions that they wish to take responsibility for, to lord that over others.



Anyway...my tooth infection has subsided for today, time for sleep...

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 6:47 pm Basically the thread demonstrates that people believe in free-will, when it subjectively benefits them, but determinism when it does not.

This is because there's a default code of 'morality' in people as individuals, favoring logic that benefits them, disfavoring logic that does not.

You really think that if I read 55 pages of that tripe, I would just happen to come out the other side with this take away in particular?

Dude...