compatibilism

[Age]

Who says that your version of free-will is some sort of official, final, ultimate, absolute, approved free-will?

I'm a determinist genius

Yeah, you're a legend in your own mind.

So, for ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, 'the answer' to 'the question', 'Who am 'I'?', is, once and for all, "A determinist".

Well, according to the one human being known as "atla" here, anyway.

[Age]

I was trying to return to the topic

Okay. Here's where I stand on the topic...

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.

Unless, OF COURSE, "henry quirk" BELIEVES, or even just THINKS, one 'might be' doing some thing, then "henry quirk" also BELIEVES, absolutely, that its so-claimed 'own property' has FAR MORE 'rights' than you, and your 'claimed' 'natural rights', and WILL shoot you DEAD, if it so chooses and WANTS TO.

And 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.

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

And, how, exactly, is one ACTUALLY 'respecting' another's claim to 'their own life', when 'the one' ALSO BELIEVES that it has 'some right' to SHOOT 'others' DEAD?

EXPLAIN 'this', fully, WITHOUT CONTRADICTING "yourself", and WITHOUT BEING A HYPOCRITE.

If you do not, and just keep 'trying to' DEFLECT, and/or DECEIVE here, then what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth is, exactly, become MORE CLEARER for others, here.

[henry quirk]

Except all property rights conflict with liberty.

No, it just limits us -- all of us -- to doin' what we like with our own lives, liberties, and properties.

Take you and me. Your life, your liberty, your property: you can do whatever you choose with all of that. My life, my liberty, my property: I can do whatever I choose with with all of that. What neither of us can morally do: what we choose with the other's life, liberty, and property. The only conflict is when I decide yours is mine, ought to be mine, will be mine, and, whether you like it or not, I take it. I take your life, I take your liberty, I take your property. Is it truly a violation of my liberty to be prohbited, morally, from murdering you, raping you, slaving you, stealing from you, or defrauding you? Really?

What else can property rights mean except the obligation of one person to limit his freedom vis a vis another person's property?

Do you really think it's a moral expression of your liberty to take my life without just cause or to leash me and put me to work in your fields or to take my sister and force sex on her or to hoodwink my ma into buying sumthin' she'd never drop a dime on if she knew it was a lemon? This is not liberty: it's license. It's murder, slavery, rape, and fraud. You really think liberty encompasses these? You really think it's a bad thing you don't get to use other people as you choose?

So the "natural rights" to property ALWAYS trump someone else's natural right to liberty (or vice versa).

No, it trumps murder, rape, slavery, theft, and fraud. Of course it seems you feel your liberty isn't complete without being able to violate someone else's. You don't really think that, do you?

It simply means that the natural rights you worship are more complicated and nuanced than you suggest.

For someone willing to actually think about what this...

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.

...means, it's not complicated at all.

Except that how property is defined differs wildly from culture to culture.

No, that's not true. Different legislative schemes are used to blunt and violate person's natural rights. There's where your differing definitions come into play. Joe buys a building. He's met Stan's asking price and he owns the building. The gov wants its cut: taxes, licensing fees, business or residential fees, various mandatory insurances. On top of that he has to ask permission, and pay for the privilege, to use his property. If the space isn't zoned for the bookstore he wants to open, well, there won't be a bookstore. So, on top of fairly and voluntarily transacting with Stan, Joe is also robbed and and defrauded by people supposedly working for him, people he may have never consented to be ruled by. Those folks work hard, under the cover of democracy, to steal from and slave Joe. You condone this, yeah? Your liberty is somehow not complete unless Joe is kept under thumb?

As for those cultural differences: if a culture frowns on, say, owning pick up trucks, but never prohibits them, they (those in and supporting the culture) have done nuthin' wrong. I can still own my truck and they can go to hell.

You see the difference, yeah?

Can someone "own" land (i.e. control other people vis a vis that land)? Not in many societies

Now hold up. I own a nice little plot upon which sits a nice little house. It's ours, me and my family. How am I controlling anyone? Again, are you really gonna argue your liberty is flummoxed becuz you don't have the right to enter my house at three in the morning, raid my fridge, take my kid's xbox, and then force yourself on my 82 year old ma? Is your liberty incomplete becuz I object to paying for the privilege of living on land and in a home I already paid for and becuz I decide who enters and stays? Is your liberty limited becuz I object to funding gov programs you want but I didn't ask for?

Does someone "own" the food he kills or gathers? Not in many societies.

In many cultures kills were communal. It wasn't one guy alone who brought home the meat, it was many. Over the long haul all the hunters and their families owned the meat. There's no natural rights violation there, just a sharing of labor and the fruits of labor. Now I bird and small game hunt with my coach gun. I'm on property owned by friends or family or where I've gotten permission to be. I think, as I'm the one trudgin' thru the woods or fields, since I'm the one who invested in the weapon and trained to use it, since it was my aim that was true, the meat (minus whatever meat I've agree to fork over for hunting on somebody else's land) is mine alone. Seems to me I'm morally in the clear.

Ain't no violation of anyone's liberty goin' on there. You don't really think I was violated by having to get permission from, or pay a cut of meat to, the land owner?, do you? Or that your liberty was trodden upon?

Our definitions of and protections for property vary wildly, which seems to indicate that they are culturally (not "naturally") constituted.

Sure, we create all manner of stricture on land use and most are grade-a violations of natural rights. And every one knows this. One of the evidences for the realness of natural rights is the universal understanding, the intuition common to everyone, that my life is mine, my liberty is mine, my property is mine. Despite all the, racial, political, philosophical, social, and -- yes -- cultural differences, between and among us this little intuition cuts thru them all. Even the slaver, the murderer, the rapist, the thief, and the con man, as they go about their awful businesses, know their own lives, liberties, and properties are theirs alone, and each would be as outraged as you or I at being violated. So, when a property owner is royally screwed, like Joe, up-post, he has good reason to be miffed. He knows he's being wronged. What's worse: he knows the wrong is sanctioned, it's legal.

We can determine how we want to define property and what "rights" (i.e. obligations on others) it entails. That includes easements, zoning laws, taxes, etc., etc.

We can and do, as I say, create all manner of natural right violatin', immoral, strictures. We could simply abide by...

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.

...and save ourselves a whole whack of trouble, but then: most of government would cease to be and all those little sons of bitches who fatten themselves thru legislated theft and graft and violence would have to go get real jobs.

There's no use complaining that these limits violate natural rights

Too late! I already have.

because all property rights are fiat rights, and inevitably conflict with liberty.

Again, you don't really believe your not being able to do as you like with what is mine truly is a violation of your liberty, do you?

[iambiguous]

But you keep dodging my point.

You know, it just dawned on me. What if -- click -- henry quirk is competing in this same Olympic event?!

This was about the 6th or 7th time in a row you dodged my single point. Now believe it or not, if you understood my point, I could then actually answer how it pertains to any possible everyday life situation.

Note to others:

For those here who think they do understand Atla's point, please note what that is.

And, sure, perhaps I just don't understand it given his description of it.

Then note how in your own opinion I do keep missing it.

But, please, only insofar as that might be illustrated by you given a particular set of circumstances, like Mary's abortion.

[Atla]

You know, it just dawned on me. What if -- click -- henry quirk is competing in this same Olympic event?!

This was about the 6th or 7th time in a row you dodged my single point. Now believe it or not, if you understood my point, I could then actually answer how it pertains to any possible everyday life situation.

Note to others:

For those here who think they do understand Atla's point, please note what that is.

And, sure, perhaps I just don't understand it given his description of it.

Then note how in your own opinion I do keep missing it.

But, please, only insofar as that might be illustrated by you given a particular set of circumstances, like Mary's abortion.

You sure Mary wasn't pregnant with your child, maybe that's why you're so obsessed?

[Atla]

You know, it just dawned on me. What if -- click -- henry quirk is competing in this same Olympic event?!

This was about the 6th or 7th time in a row you dodged my single point. Now believe it or not, if you understood my point, I could then actually answer how it pertains to any possible everyday life situation.

Note to others:

For those here who think they do understand Atla's point, please note what that is.

And, sure, perhaps I just don't understand it given his description of it.

Then note how in your own opinion I do keep missing it.

But, please, only insofar as that might be illustrated by you given a particular set of circumstances, like Mary's abortion.

Anyway, even though we live in an ultimately deterministic world, this is basically irrelevant at the everyday human world level. Where we look at choices from the psychological perspective, and look at life circumstances etc. I assume Mary was like the average person so psychologically she could make choices just fine, in that everyday sense she had enough free will when she chose to abort the baby, duh.

[Age]

Compatibilism is, there is free will, and determinism doesn't have to be false.

Easy to say. Far too easy. And Compatiblists say it.

What do you even think the word 'compatatilism' is even referring to, exactly, "immanuel can"?

Not that you have the ability to just clarify when I just ask you a very simple and easy clarifying question, here.

But do they have any justification in saying it?

1. There is no such thing as "compatibilists".

2. If BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinsim" exist together, in this One and only Life, then there 'co-existence' means that 'compatiblism' is JUSTIFIED.

Exactly how is it possible to make sense of that claim? It doesn't become true just because they say it, obviously.

Does it become true that God is a "he" just because some of you human beings say it is?

If no, then it is true that God is a "he" because there is some actual proof, existing somewhere?

If yes, then where, exactly?

And, if all you have got is; 'The proof that exists is that 'it is written in the bible', then you, SERIOUSLY, really do NEED to 'grow up', and 'mature'.

The proof that God is a "he" is just like the proof that "santa claus" comes down the chimney, if the only 'thing' one has is; The ones I 'look up to' told me so'.

So maybe you can make sense of it for us: show us that free will can exist while Determinism isn't thereby made false.

What a Truly VERY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY 'task' you have set forth here "immanuel can".

'Free will' being the ability to choose, and, 'determinism' being what 'will happen' is determined by what is happening 'now', and what is happening 'now' was pre-determined from what 'was happening', then, and OBVIOUSLY, you human beings have the ability to choose, while, just as OBVIOUS, is that 'that ability' came from 'pre-existing conditions', which 'determined' that you human beings will have the ability to choose.

Therefore, obviously 'free will' does exist, while 'determinism' is thus not made false.

And, since both ARE C0-EXISTING, and WORKING TOGETHER, as One, 'compatibilism' ALSO EXISTS, AS WELL, and just as simple and easy, ALSO.

For any ordinary usage would imply that's impossible.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Once again, here 'we' can CLEARLY SEE another attempt AT DECEPTION.

This one BELIEVE, absolutely, that what it BELIEVES is true, does exist, and therefore absolutely anything else is just, laughably, a so-called 'non-ordinary use of language'.

Talk about the Truly BLIND and DEAF proving, absolutely, that it could not be MORE STUPID.

And, to show and PROVE how these people, in these days when this was being written, was a PRIME TIME for the BLIND leading the BLIND, watch ANY one of them attempt to just SHOW what was 'ordinary language', exactly.

But, to tell the Truth not a one of them will even ATTEMPT this, because they all know, deep down, that, OBVIOUSLY, another EVOLVING thing like 'language' is could never ever be so-called 'ordinary'.

These people, REALLY, just did not get 'it'. Even though I could INFORM them a million times, here.

[Age]

Compatibilist Reinterpretation?

Compatibilists argue that free will can exist even if determinism is true. Their conception of free will is often defined in terms of the ability to act according to one's own desires and rational deliberations, without external coercion or compulsion. In this sense, compatibilists focus on freedom as voluntariness and authentic self-expression, rather than absolute metaphysical freedom to have acted otherwise in an identical situation.

This has led some critics, especially incompatibilists (both libertarians and hard determinists), to argue that compatibilists have shifted or "watered down" the original concept of free will. They claim that the original or traditional notion of free will involves a robust form of freedom, which includes the genuine ability to do otherwise—often called the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP). According to this view, if an agent could not have chosen differently in an identical situation, then they do not have "free will" in the full sense.

It's okay if you water down a concept, but then don't present it as an option in the original debate, because it isn't.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What is the so-claimed 'original debate' here, and, what was involved in it, exactly?

Not that you will ever CLARIFY "atla".

[Immanuel Can]

Of course compatibilism can be justified. Suppose someone said, "Of my own free will, I went to the store yesterday." The sentence is coherent and meaningful. It means nobody forced the man to go to the store, but he decided to go and he went.

That accounts for free will. It doesn't account for Determinism. So it doesn't account for Compatiblism. It doesn't show the two are in any way "compatible."

Now let's posit an omniscient God who can see the future as well as we can see the past. He would know whether we will make a trip to the store tomorrow. But he won't force us to do so, any more than the man who went yesterday was forced to make the trip.

That won't do. To "know" is not the same verb as to "make." Determinism would require that this God had to "make" one go to the store, not merely "know" he would choose to go.

If I "know" (and it turns out, rightly) that you will respond to this message, that doesn't even remotely suggest I'm "making" you respond.

The 'freedom" of the act is not constrained by the knowledges.

This is precisely the problem with your example. "Knowledge" does not "make" things happen. So it's not Deterministic.

When was the last time you "made" a cake simply by "knowing" how to make one?

[Atla]

Btw, to those who only mean everyday decision-making by free will: it's obvious that humans make everyday decisions, what do you need a philosophical debate for here?

[iambiguous]

This was about the 6th or 7th time in a row you dodged my single point. Now believe it or not, if you understood my point, I could then actually answer how it pertains to any possible everyday life situation.

Note to others:

For those here who think they do understand Atla's point, please note what that is.

And, sure, perhaps I just don't understand it given his description of it.

Then note how in your own opinion I do keep missing it.

But, please, only insofar as that might be illustrated by you given a particular set of circumstances, like Mary's abortion.

You sure Mary wasn't pregnant with your child, maybe that's why you're so obsessed?

That I can still reduce the Atla's here to posting dreck like this has to count for something, right?

[Age]

They claim that the original or traditional notion of free will involves a robust form of freedom, which includes the genuine ability to do otherwise—often called the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP). According to this view, if an agent could not have chosen differently in an identical situation, then they do not have "free will" in the full sense.

Nobody has this sort of free-will. Not even the free-willers.

In the same situation, they are going to make the same choice. They are not going to choose differently because they have no reason to choose differently.

Let's say that exactly the same situation exists twice and the free-willer selects a different option each time.

Which choice represented the will of the person? How can they have two different wills in the same situation? One of the choices must be the preferred option.

I think the wording is kind of weird - do you include the full state of the "will" or agent in question when you say "situation"? I assume you would, but the wording leaves that ambiguous.

Well, OBVIOUSLY, Correct 'the wording' so that 'the wording' IS IRREFUTABLE.

Life, and living, is SO, SO SIMPLE and EASY. But, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, these people, in the 'olden days' when this was being written made Life, and living, seem like they were complex, and/or hard, things.

These ones here, still, had not yet come-to-realize instead of talking about what might, or what might not, be, and just spoke of what ACTUAL IS, then there would not be a single one of these countless DISPUTES, which are CLEARLY going on here.

If you don't include the full state of the agent, then even if determinism is true, as long as a slightly changed agent is in that identical situation, a different decision could happen.

But if the state of the agent is included then yeah, I agree with what you're saying here.

[Age]

They claim that the original or traditional notion of free will involves a robust form of freedom, which includes the genuine ability to do otherwise—often called the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP). According to this view, if an agent could not have chosen differently in an identical situation, then they do not have "free will" in the full sense.

Nobody has this sort of free-will. Not even the free-willers.

In the same situation, they are going to make the same choice. They are not going to choose differently because they have no reason to choose differently.

Let's say that exactly the same situation exists twice and the free-willer selects a different option each time.

Which choice represented the will of the person? How can they have two different wills in the same situation? One of the choices must be the preferred option.

Doesn't matter what our take is, point is this is what "the" free will debate is about.

And, when any of you decide what the 'actual debate' is about, exactly, let 'us' know.

And then I will inform you posters here, once more, of the UTTER uselessness of 'debating', itself, in relation to 'philosophy', itself.

Until then 'we' can WATCH and OBSERVE these posters here continue to fight and bicker with each other.

[Age]

Doesn't matter what our take is, point is this is what "the" free will debate is about.

I guess that only your take matters.

We can use your take too. Well since now words can mean anyth fshlfj asdfjsd fgsdlkfj sdjklfjsdlkf sdljflsdjf.

you are absolutely FREE to claim words 'have meanings', but you are absolutely CLOSED, and thus absolutely STUPID as well, if you BELIEVE that 'words' mean exactly, and only, what you the definitions you have CHOSEN them to mean.

ONCE MORE for the SLOW of LEARNING, only until you human beings have sought out, and obtained actual CLARIFICATION, and thus actual CLARITY, could you then move along and forward, here.

Which, ONCE AGAIN, the reason WHY these ones here, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written were so VERY, VERY SLOW to 'catch up', HERE.

[Age]

We can use your take too. Well since now words can mean anyth fshlfj asdfjsd fgsdlkfj sdjklfjsdlkf sdljflsdjf.

Nobody has the free-will that you wrote about.

Moving on.

Maybe, maybe not. Point is this is the traditional meaning of 'free will'.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Once again, this one, still, does not even know what it is 'talking about'. LOL it, still, does not yet even know if what it writes about is even possible, nor impossible, and also, still, does not even know if 'it' exists, or happens, or not.

Talk about DRAGGING some thing on for seemingly eternity, and when all is 'looked back on' 'this one' did not even know what it has been, as some say, 'babbling on about', anyway.

Look "atla" if you do not even IF any one even has the 'free will' that you want to claim is the ONLY one to be discussed here, or not, then WHY even talk 'about it'?

If you do not even know 'this', then, REALLY, WHY even talk here?