For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Finally.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:50 pmTrue. I think it's weird how dogmatic people are that free will can only and has only ever meant libertarian free will, history just does not bear that out.
Not to mention the fact that libertarian free will isn't one definition, it's a class of definitions that includes many.
Yes the fact that you're the common denominator in exchanges ending in dreck, does allow us to draw some conclusions.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 5:11 amThat I can still reduce the Atla's here to posting dreck like this has to count for something, right?Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:52 amYou sure Mary wasn't pregnant with your child, maybe that's why you're so obsessed?iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:48 am
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.
But, 'now', back to the start.
A psychological perspective? Okay, note for us how human psychology is somehow exempt from the laws of matter.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 4:08 amAnyway, 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.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:48 amNote 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.
WHY 'centuries'?
Can you, and will you, be absolutely CLEAR of not just what those human beings meant by 'free-will', exactly, (and you do not have to inform 'us' of HOW you KNOW, without any doubt at all what 'those people' meant, exactly), as well as what so-called "compatibilists" AND "stoics" are, exactly, also?
LOL
LOL So, the "ancient Greeks", supposedly, understood 'the problems', and addressed 'the problems', but others, after them, have just IGNORED 'what addressed' 'the problems'.
But, let 'us' not forget that the ALL-POWERFUL and ALL-SUPERIOR "henry quirk" BELIEVES, absolutely, that it has 'A, (self-given), right' to TAKE 'another's life' or 'another's liberty' if "Henry quirk" just assumes another might 'take off with' what it claims is 'its property or stuff'.Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:31 pmYou keep repeating this, Henry, but I'm not sure you know what it means. All rights are (and can be) nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people. What else can they possibly be? The right to life doesn't protect one from cancer or earthquakes. Instead, it confers an obligation on other people not to kill anyone. The right to liberty confers an obligation not to enslave of imprison other people.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:24 am
...my point remains: 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.
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.
This, I do not think, could be expressed more succinctly.Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:31 pm Property is problematic. First of all, concepts of property differ from culture to culture. The Divine Right of Kings suggested that the entire country was the king's property, which he doled out to others at his whim. IN most hunting and gathering societies there are few things that can be considered "private property". An animal killed by a hunter is not his property; custom and norms demand that shall be shared among the group. In our society, custom, norms and laws mandate that some portion of one's earnings be shared among the group (taxes). Property -- it seems -- cannot thus be a "natural right". Instead, it is a fiat (legal or customary) right.
IN addition, the obligations involved in rights conflict with each other. Property rights do absolutely nothing EXCEPT limit the liberty of those who respect them. If someone owns land, he can legally (and maybe morally) prevent other people from having the liberty to walk across it. If you shoot the six-year-old who picks up your dropped penny, you are asserting your right to property while violating his right to life and liberty.
'Natural rights' as advocated by Henry Quirk are as may be justified by creation and maybe also a Creator. Let's put that discussion aside for the moment and think about Henry's frequent contention that each individual has the absolute right to their own property.Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 6:18 amBut, let 'us' not forget that the ALL-POWERFUL and ALL-SUPERIOR "henry quirk" BELIEVES, absolutely, that it has 'A, (self-given), right' to TAKE 'another's life' or 'another's liberty' if "Henry quirk" just assumes another might 'take off with' what it claims is 'its property or stuff'.Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:31 pmYou keep repeating this, Henry, but I'm not sure you know what it means. All rights are (and can be) nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people. What else can they possibly be? The right to life doesn't protect one from cancer or earthquakes. Instead, it confers an obligation on other people not to kill anyone. The right to liberty confers an obligation not to enslave of imprison other people.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:24 am
...my point remains: 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.
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.
This, I do not think, could be expressed more succinctly.Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:31 pm Property is problematic. First of all, concepts of property differ from culture to culture. The Divine Right of Kings suggested that the entire country was the king's property, which he doled out to others at his whim. IN most hunting and gathering societies there are few things that can be considered "private property". An animal killed by a hunter is not his property; custom and norms demand that shall be shared among the group. In our society, custom, norms and laws mandate that some portion of one's earnings be shared among the group (taxes). Property -- it seems -- cannot thus be a "natural right". Instead, it is a fiat (legal or customary) right.
IN addition, the obligations involved in rights conflict with each other. Property rights do absolutely nothing EXCEPT limit the liberty of those who respect them. If someone owns land, he can legally (and maybe morally) prevent other people from having the liberty to walk across it. If you shoot the six-year-old who picks up your dropped penny, you are asserting your right to property while violating his right to life and liberty.
Now, it is just 'hoping' that "henry quirk" will see past its OWN beliefs, here.
And, LOL what has this one so-called 'philosophical debate', which has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, actually resolved, and solved?
Like Catherine Morland you are using "liberty" as a vague, meaningless term freighted with emotional connotations. You don't want to admit that any limits on liberty are morally acceptable. But, of course, they are. All laws limit liberty. That's all they do and all they can do. If you freely behave in an illegal manner, your liberty will be further limited. You will be imprisoned.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:31 am
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?
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?
.
NOt only do I think it, but so does everyone else who know the meaning of the word "liberty". That doesn't mean we think liberty should never be limited. Of course it should be limited, by laws, and, sometimes, by other means. When you shoot the robber, you are limiting his life and liberty. Personally, I think that you would be a jerk for doing so, but you somehow feel justified. Nonetheless, you cannot deny you would be limiting his life and liberty.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?
Whence came these rights? Are you just making them up? Or are they part of some cultural fabric? If the latter (which is clearly the case as I see it) then you are simply mistaken about the cultural fabric. Property is as property does. Cultures can and do define it however they want, both legally and morally. Get rid of that gas guzzling pickup, and get an electric car, for goodness sake.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?
Again, of course I do, and so does everyone else who actually knows the meaning of the word "liberty": the power or scope to act as one pleases. We might hope that it would never please us to trespass, rob, murder, or rape, but most of us agree that laws limiting our liberty to do so are fair and just.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?