Philosophy Now Forum

Perhaps it's also worth clarifying for you, since you keep trying to ask how it can be applied to Mary and Jane - compatibilism philosophically doesn't have any explicit or implicit stance on abortion. Some people think abortion is immoral, others don't - that's true in general, and true of compatibilists.

Perhaps you're unsatisfied with what has been going on with this thread because the questions you want answered aren't contextually relevant here. "What does compatibilism have to say to Mary?" is as sensible a question as "What does Confucianism have to say about the speed of light?" If you want to know about the speed of light, you wouldn't look for it in a book about Confucianism.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:41 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:36 pm Sure, I may well have misunderstood the author's point in a free will world. I would never deny that. But if someone says that I did, well, would or would not they be inclined to interpret it correctly for me?

I thought what I said would have made the interpretation obvious.

"Whereas the compatibilist agent is a still a determinist but "somehow" the laws of matter encompassing his or her brain resulted in the agent being the source or originator of an action in a way that precludes determinism?

The part that still makes no sense to me."

You're talking about compatibilist beliefs like they preclude determinism, and yet the text clearly says that compatibilists deny the part that precludes determinism.

I mean, of course compatibilists deny that free will precludes determinism. That's literally what compatibilism means.

So no, compatibilists don't believe the stuff you said in a way that precludes determinism, literally by definition. Compatibilists deny that Determinism is precluded, as indicated in the text you quoted.

Is that clear enough?

Back to this:

As we shall see, what libertarians insist on, and what compatibilists deny, is that moral responsibility for an action requires that the agent be the source or originator of the action in a way that precludes determinism.

But that's the part I'm most confused about. The fact that the compatibilist not only doesn't preclude determinism, he or she insists that Mary is morally responsible for aborting Jane even though she was "for all practical purposes" never able to actually give birth to her. Mary was never a free agent as the libertarians insist. Whether in regard to the world outside her brain or the world her brain compels her to construe inside her mind, everything -- internal and external -- unfolds in the only possible reality.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:50 pm Perhaps it's also worth clarifying for you, since you keep trying to ask how it can be applied to Mary and Jane - compatibilism philosophically doesn't have any explicit or implicit stance on abortion. Some people think abortion is immoral, others don't - that's true in general, and true of compatibilists.

Click.

Well, for some determinists [as I understand them], compatibilists are compelled by their brains to argue what they do because they were never able to freely opt to argue otherwise. Nothing that human beings think, feel, say and do is excluded from the laws of matter...unless, of course, theologians or scientists or philosophers are able to establish that human brain matter did in fact acquire autonomy when lifeless matter became biological matter became conscious matter became us.

Sure, that may well be the case. But then back to the Flatland analogy. How do human brains go about explaining the human brain itself...given the gap between what we think we know about the "human condition" and all that would need to be known about where -- why and how -- the human condition fits into the existence of existence itself.

Perhaps you're unsatisfied with what has been going on with this thread because the questions you want answered aren't contextually relevant here. "What does compatibilism have to say to Mary?" is as sensible a question as "What does Confucianism have to say about the speed of light?" If you want to know about the speed of light, you wouldn't look for it in a book about Confucianism.

Maybe, but from my frame of mind, nothing is more important regarding this age-old conundrum than the question of whether we are morally responsible for the behaviors we choose.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:30 pm Maybe, but from my frame of mind, nothing is more important regarding this age-old conundrum than the question of whether we are morally responsible for the behaviors we choose.

Then focus on that, and not about abortion specifically or Mary specifically. Determinism, indeterminism, libertarianism, compatibilism, none of these positions has any necessary position on abortion.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:38 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:30 pm Maybe, but from my frame of mind, nothing is more important regarding this age-old conundrum than the question of whether we are morally responsible for the behaviors we choose.

Then focus on that, and not about abortion specifically or Mary specifically. Determinism, indeterminism, libertarianism, compatibilism, none of these positions has any necessary position on abortion.

Given a free will world, it doesn't take long for most people here to recognize that by far the most important philosophical question to me is this one:

"How ought one to behave morally in a world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?"

Given my take on dasein and on the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

Then, pertaining to a particular context, why their own take is different.

This thread just muddles it all the more by taking someone asking the question and someone answering it back to whether they ever had the option to ask or to answer it of their own volition.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:38 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:30 pm Maybe, but from my frame of mind, nothing is more important regarding this age-old conundrum than the question of whether we are morally responsible for the behaviors we choose.

Then focus on that, and not about abortion specifically or Mary specifically. Determinism, indeterminism, libertarianism, compatibilism, none of these positions has any necessary position on abortion.

I think a concrete example is not a bad idea, but it would likely be better to choose one that is closer to consensus. That way it's clear that the discussion is not on whether abortion is good or bad.

Murder of a stranger's child in chance encounter on the street because the child was making noise.

Most people will think that is bad or immoral. We can black box whether it is objectively immoral or not, since that is not the issue here.

Then for each category list whether the person is responsible and define responsible. Also what being responsible entails.

If there is free will, is he - make it a guy, why not - responsible?
If there is determinism, is he responsible?
If there is compatiblism, is he responsible?

So an answer might be
Yes, he is responsible. Here are the types of responses: incarceration, psychotherapy, whatever.

I suggest defining 'reponsibility' and saying responses, if any, because we might find things like:
We do not consider the murderer responsible in determinism, but have precisely the same responses: incarcerate, say.

We can spend a lot of time arguing if that's a good word, when in fact all our actions will be the same. Or there may be nuances in how we react but strong similarities in behavioral response.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:53 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:38 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:30 pm Maybe, but from my frame of mind, nothing is more important regarding this age-old conundrum than the question of whether we are morally responsible for the behaviors we choose.

Then focus on that, and not about abortion specifically or Mary specifically. Determinism, indeterminism, libertarianism, compatibilism, none of these positions has any necessary position on abortion.

I think a concrete example is not a bad idea, but it would likely be better to choose one that is closer to consensus. That way it's clear that the discussion is not on whether abortion is good or bad.

Murder of a stranger's child in chance encounter on the street because the child was making noise.

Again, for some determinists, if you kill the child only because your brain compelled you to, how can someone claim that you are morally responsible for doing so other than because their own brain compelled them to make the claim.

Either scientists, philosophers or theologians can definitively explain how mindless matter from the Big Bang was able to evolve into autonomous matter in human brains or they can't. In the interim, some come into philosophy forums like this one and, compelled or not, speculate on what "in their heads" "here and now" they think is true.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:53 pmMost people will think that is bad or immoral. We can black box whether it is objectively immoral or not, since that is not the issue here.

Right. The issue is still the same. Whether in choosing to "black box" something we were free to opt not to.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:53 pmThen for each category list whether the person is responsible and define responsible. Also what being responsible entails.

Same thing. Make a list of categories. Define a word. But: if you were never able not to make the list or to define the word other than as your brain compelled you to, where does the part about being responsible come into play? How is that too not embedded in the only possible reality?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:53 pmWe can spend a lot of time arguing if that's a good word, when in fact all our actions will be the same. Or there may be nuances in how we react but strong similarities in behavioral response.

Click.

From my frame of mind, the behaviors that we choose in a free will world must be in sync with the laws of matter in the either/or world. If Mary is wildly promiscuous and engages in unprotected sex, it shouldn't surprise anyone if she ends up pregnant. But how, in a wholly determined universe, where her brain compels her to "choose" these behaviors -- behaviors she was never able not to do -- can she be held responsible for it?

Other than because in a determined universe, some are in turn compelled to hold her responsible.

What does "the either/or world" mean?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:31 pm What does "the either/or world" mean?

As I understand it -- click -- it's the world that revolves around mathematics and physics and chemistry and biology and all of the other laws of nature. The material, empirical, phenomenological world all around us. Or, in philosophy, the rules of logic pertaining to the language we choose.

On the other hand, for those like Ayn "A is A" Rand, the is/ought world of moral and political value judgments is included in the either/or world. There is an objective/metaphysical morality about everything. And, if you wish to be thought of as an Individualist, you must think exactly as she does about everything.

Ironically, as it were.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:28 pm I think a concrete example is not a bad idea, but it would likely be better to choose one that is closer to consensus. That way it's clear that Again, for some determinists, if you kill the child only because your brain compelled you to, how can someone claim that you are morally responsible for doing so other than because their own brain compelled them to make the claim.

Sure, I get that. There was no need to say 'again.' What do you think? if determinism is the case, would you hold such a person responsible or not? And what would you suggest we do with such a person?

If free will is the case, would you hold him responsible? How do you think we should treat such a person in such a case? IOW how would you want that person to be treated differently than you would in a deterministic world?

Please don't answer that in a deterministic world your opinion on their responsibility were be utterly determined. I understand that.

Either scientists, philosophers or theologians can definitively explain how mindless matter from the Big Bang was able to evolve into autonomous matter in human brains or they can't. In the interim, some come into philosophy forums like this one and, compelled or not, speculate on what "in their heads" "here and now" they think is true.

I have read that so many times. Please don't be rude. You responded to my post and used it as an opportunity to repeat yourself.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:53 pmMost people will think that is bad or immoral. We can black box whether it is objectively immoral or not, since that is not the issue here.

Right. The issue is still the same. Whether in choosing to "black box" something we were free to opt not to.

That's not THE issue. That's you repeating yourself.

Did you not understand why I suggested shifting the issue from abortion which has significant portions of the population on both sides of the issue??????

Yes, I understand that both abortion and murder in a deterministic world are....determined. And I understand that our reactions to these things are determined....in a deterministic universe.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:53 pmThen for each category list whether the person is responsible and define responsible. Also what being responsible entails.

Same thing. Make a list of categories. Define a word.

No, it's not the same thing. I suggested something. You posted the same things you've posted dozens of times here. Either actually respond or ignore the post please.

What could possibly be gained by you repeating things I have read and have read in some cases dozens of times in this thread?

But: if you were never able not to make the list or to define the word other than as your brain compelled you to, where does the part about being responsible come into play? How is that too not embedded in the only possible reality?

Of course it would be in determinism.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:53 pmWe can spend a lot of time arguing if that's a good word, when in fact all our actions will be the same. Or there may be nuances in how we react but strong similarities in behavioral response.

Click.

From my frame of mind, the behaviors that we choose in a free will world must be in sync with the laws of matter in the either/or world. If Mary is wildly promiscuous and engages in unprotected sex, it shouldn't surprise anyone if she ends up pregnant. But how, in a wholly determined universe, where her brain compels her to "choose" these behaviors -- behaviors she was never able not to do -- can she be held responsible for it?

So, you are saying she is not responsible in a deterministic world. At least you imply that this is your position but put it in question form. In this form you express incredulity that it could be anything else. But you don't manage to take an actual stand. Or?

Remember. One can have a belief and not be 100% sure of it. Anyone, objectivist or non-objectivist, can say I believe X, but I can't be 100% sure.

So, can you manage to actually state something?

Is it your position that someone in a deterministic universe should not be held responsible for their behavior?

If it could somehow be demonstrated to you that we were in a deterministic universe, we had scientific and philosophical consensus on this, how would this affect, for example, how you thought we should treat criminals?

Would it change the way you personally reacted to other people's behavior that you did not like? If so, how?

I understand that your answer will not be intended as an infallible truth. But you could take a stand.

I also understand that in such a universe your opinions would be determined. There is no need to ever say this to me again.

Or perhaps you don't want to take a stand or answer the suggestions I made in the post you quote from. But if you read a post of mine and respond, please try in some way to not simply say things you have said time and again. Because as far as I can see you simply used my post to say things you have said dozens of times. I made some suggestions. If you are not interested at all, they don't waste either of our times.

I assure you, anyone reading this thread has read all of the things you expressed here, not just once before but many times.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:48 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:31 pm What does "the either/or world" mean?

As I understand it -- click -- it's the world that revolves around mathematics and physics and chemistry and biology and all of the other laws of nature. The material, empirical, phenomenological world all around us. Or, in philosophy, the rules of logic pertaining to the language we choose.

On the other hand, for those like Ayn "A is A" Rand, the is/ought world of moral and political value judgments is included in the either/or world. There is an objective/metaphysical morality about everything. And, if you wish to be thought of as an Individualist, you must think exactly as she does about everything.

Ironically, as it were.

As you understand it? Is this a common term? I tried googling it but it seems inherently very ungooglable.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:28 pm I think a concrete example is not a bad idea, but it would likely be better to choose one that is closer to consensus. That way it's clear that Again, for some determinists, if you kill the child only because your brain compelled you to, how can someone claim that you are morally responsible for doing so other than because their own brain compelled them to make the claim.

You wrote the above, not me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmSure, I get that. There was no need to say 'again.' What do you think? if determinism is the case, would you hold such a person responsible or not? And what would you suggest we do with such a person?

But: Determinism as who understands it? As I understand it here and now, how any of us understand it is only as our brains compel us to understand it. If I hold someone responsible [for anything] it was only because I was never able to freely opt not to hold them responsible.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmIf free will is the case, would you hold him responsible? How do you think we should treat such a person in such a case? IOW how would you want that person to be treated differently than you would in a deterministic world?

Click.

In a free will world, there are either facts that can be established or not. Doctor Smith did in fact abort Mary's fetus. Was he in fact responsible for aborting the fetus. Yes, in fact, he was.

But: In a free world is, in fact, abortion immoral? In fact, yes? Then, in fact, Dr. Smith behaved immorally.

Or, instead, in a free will world, is morality here rooted existentially in dasein as I construe it?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmPlease don't answer that in a deterministic world your opinion on their responsibility were be utterly determined. I understand that.

But in a determined universe how is the answer I give not in turn an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

Either scientists, philosophers or theologians can definitively explain how mindless matter from the Big Bang was able to evolve into autonomous matter in human brains or they can't. In the interim, some come into philosophy forums like this one and, compelled or not, speculate on what "in their heads" "here and now" they think is true.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmI have read that so many times. Please don't be rude. You responded to my post and used it as an opportunity to repeat yourself.

Right, like in a determined universe as I understand it, I can opt not to repeat myself. Like you were not yourself wholly compelled to call me rude.

We clearly understand all of this differently. But are we now free to rethink it and, of our own volition, change our minds...me agreeing with you or you agreeing with me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:53 pmMost people will think that is bad or immoral. We can black box whether it is objectively immoral or not, since that is not the issue here.

Right. The issue is still the same. Whether in choosing to "black box" something we were free to opt not to.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmThat's not THE issue. That's you repeating yourself.

And [compelled by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter or not] around and around we go.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmDid you not understand why I suggested shifting the issue from abortion which has significant portions of the population on both sides of the issue??????

Click:

Of course I did. That's why I posted the what I did over on the torturing babies thread:

[Torturing babies] comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?

Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Sure, in a world in which an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, one ought not to. And that is because 1] God will know you did it and 2] with regard to most Gods, you will be punished for doing so. Either your death will end in oblivion or you will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

But, in a No God world, how on earth would mere mortals establish that objectively, universally and/or deontologically torturing a human baby [or sending six million Jews to the gas chamber] is inherently/necessarily wrong?

You might do so [for whatever personal reason] and never get caught, never get punished. It's "universally immoral" but for all practical purposes what does that mean then?

Or next month the Big One might come hurtling down to Earth and extinguish all human life. What of "universal morality" then?

Nope, it seems reasonable to me that, in the absence of God, all things can be rationalized. And, really, hasn't almost everything already been rationalized?

For example, you might not see abortion as the torture of a human baby, but others do. And it certainly results in the baby's death. But that's rationalized, right? And not only was the Holocaust rationalized it was embraced by many Nazis as nothing short of a moral crusade to rid the nation of those who were deemed unfit to live.

That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power...enabling them to act out their own moral dogmas. Maybe it's the color of your skin, or your ethnicity, or your sexual orientation, or your religion or your politics.

Just ask the moral and political objectivists among us what they themselves believe that human beings ought not to do. Who knows, it might be something that you do.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmYes, I understand that both abortion and murder in a deterministic world are....determined. And I understand that our reactions to these things are determined....in a deterministic universe.

Then you understand that this exchange that we are having is also as it only ever could have been.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:53 pmThen for each category list whether the person is responsible and define responsible. Also what being responsible entails.

Same thing. Make a list of categories. Define a word.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmNo, it's not the same thing. I suggested something. You posted the same things you've posted dozens of times here. Either actually respond or ignore the post please.

Around and around and around. My brain compels me to type these words. Your brain compels you to read them. But "somehow" in this wholly determined universe I must now choose not to repeat myself.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:53 pmWe can spend a lot of time arguing if that's a good word, when in fact all our actions will be the same. Or there may be nuances in how we react but strong similarities in behavioral response.

Click.

From my frame of mind, the behaviors that we choose in a free will world must be in sync with the laws of matter in the either/or world. If Mary is wildly promiscuous and engages in unprotected sex, it shouldn't surprise anyone if she ends up pregnant. But how, in a wholly determined universe, where her brain compels her to "choose" these behaviors -- behaviors she was never able not to do -- can she be held responsible for it?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmIs it your position that someone in a deterministic universe should not be held responsible for their behavior?

It's my position that in a wholly determined universe I am compelled by my brain to either hold or not hold someone responsible for anything and everything that they do.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmIf it could somehow be demonstrated to you that we were in a deterministic universe, we had scientific and philosophical consensus on this, how would this affect, for example, how you thought we should treat criminals?

They would be criminals only because they were never able not to be criminals. And we would react to them as we do only because we were never able not to react to them as we do any other way.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmWould it change the way you personally reacted to other people's behavior that you did not like? If so, how?

If the scientists and philosophers were able to establish that we do have some measure of free will, then criminals choose to break the law and a particular society chooses what to do about that.

But that's where [for me] dasein and the Ben Button Syndrome kick in.

And, besides, if they do establish that we have free will how do we determine that this in and of itself is not just another manifestation of a wholly determined universe?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:52 pmI understand that your answer will not be intended as an infallible truth. But you could take a stand.

I also understand that in such a universe your opinions would be determined. There is no need to ever say this to me again.

But you don't seem to understand [as I do] that what either one of us understands about anything we were never able to understand other than as our brains compel us to.

It's not about "taking a stand", it's about pinning down whether or not any stand that we take we took of our own volition.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:28 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:48 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:31 pm What does "the either/or world" mean?

As I understand it -- click -- it's the world that revolves around mathematics and physics and chemistry and biology and all of the other laws of nature. The material, empirical, phenomenological world all around us. Or, in philosophy, the rules of logic pertaining to the language we choose.

On the other hand, for those like Ayn "A is A" Rand, the is/ought world of moral and political value judgments is included in the either/or world. There is an objective/metaphysical morality about everything. And, if you wish to be thought of as an Individualist, you must think exactly as she does about everything.

Ironically, as it were.

As you understand it? Is this a common term? I tried googling it but it seems inherently very ungooglable.

That we live in a world where there are clearly any number of things that are either true or false seems more like common sense to me.

Only what does true or false really mean in a world where everything that there is, is wholly determined by the laws of matter?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:00 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:28 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:48 pm

As I understand it -- click -- it's the world that revolves around mathematics and physics and chemistry and biology and all of the other laws of nature. The material, empirical, phenomenological world all around us. Or, in philosophy, the rules of logic pertaining to the language we choose.

On the other hand, for those like Ayn "A is A" Rand, the is/ought world of moral and political value judgments is included in the either/or world. There is an objective/metaphysical morality about everything. And, if you wish to be thought of as an Individualist, you must think exactly as she does about everything.

Ironically, as it were.

As you understand it? Is this a common term? I tried googling it but it seems inherently very ungooglable.

That we live in a world where there are clearly any number of things that are either true or false seems more like common sense to me.

Only what does true or false really mean in a world where everything that there is, is wholly determined by the laws of matter?

Is that what you mean by the either/or world? That doesn't seem to me like what you said before.

If that's what it means, and it is common sense, I don't understand the need for an obscure term to describe it. Why call it the either/or world, when you could just as easily call it "the world"? We live in a world where some things are true and some things are false, the need to specify that implies there's some alternate world view in the debate where that's not the case. I don't see what the alternative could be.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:47 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:00 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:28 pm
As you understand it? Is this a common term? I tried googling it but it seems inherently very ungooglable.

That we live in a world where there are clearly any number of things that are either true or false seems more like common sense to me.

Only what does true or false really mean in a world where everything that there is, is wholly determined by the laws of matter?

Is that what you mean by the either/or world? That doesn't seem to me like what you said before.

If that's what it means, and it is common sense, I don't understand the need for an obscure term to describe it. Why call it the either/or world, when you could just as easily call it "the world"?

Click.

To differentiate it from the is/ought world. There are things that are true about the world we live in and they are true for everyone. Thus, one of the possibilities of engaging in sexual intercourse is a pregnancy. And, in fact, someone either wants to be pregnant or they don't. And, in fact, if someone does not want to be, but is, they can choose to abort the pregnancy. Of their own volition in a free will world.

But shift gears to the is/ought world given free will. If, in fact, one chooses to abort a pregnancy is, in fact, one behaving immorally?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:47 pmWe live in a world where some things are true and some things are false, the need to specify that implies there's some alternate world view in the debate where that's not the case. I don't see what the alternative could be.

Well, in the either/or world some things are true and some things are false. There is no alternative world where it's the other way around. Or none that I'm aware of. One can't both get pregnant and not get pregnant. And, if pregnant, one can't both abort it and not abort it.

But, given free will, one can choose to have sex or choose not to. And if pregnant, one can choose to abort it or give birth.

Depending on how, existentially, one comes to think and to feel about things like that.