Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, it's the proximate cause. Why am I not going? Because it's raining. Period.
I think pointing out the circularity of your reasoning is contributive to the thread. Your argument(s) is(are) nothing but petitio principii.I've nothing to add because you're not adding anything.
Well...yeah. If I say I'm not going to the beach because it's raining then I obviously don't like going to the beach in the rain.Sorry, but that simply isn't correct. The proximate cause of your not going to the beach, is that you don't like going to the beach in the rain.
I mean, so what?
Well...OK. And if I prefer to go to the gym is it really about losing weight? Or maybe is it me wanting to look good? Or am I encouraging my wife to go? Or is it the cute receptionist? Or do I just want to get value for my subscription?There has to be a reason for why you don't like going to the beach in the rain. Every other cause is secondary to that one.
Who cares? What does it matter?
I don't think that if I like Pina Coladas and walking in the rain and maybe you don't will help us with any great philosophical questions. It's just a matter of personal preferences.To me it matters because if I follow one causal series backwards all that it explains is why it's raining. That's it. But if I follow the other causal series backwards it explains why I might not like the rain, or why I might like coffee instead of Earl Grey, or why I might not feel empathy the way that other people do. In other words it explains everything about why I am who I am.
That's a much more compelling question because if I can understand why I am who I am, then maybe there's a chance that I can understand why you are who you are. Or at least give me a perspective from which to judge the world less harshly.
So you tell me, when it comes to understanding free will, what's the more important question to ask... why is it raining, or why do I care so much about answering that question?
I missed this post for some reason. Nicely written...but yeah. Kind of. Right from the first episodes when I'd hide behind the sofa when I was nine cos the Daleks were kind of scary. Until I realised that all you had to do to escape was run upstairs.I don't know if you're a fan of Doctor Who...
I don't think that if I like Pina Coladas and walking in the rain and maybe you don't will help us with any great philosophical questions.
The perspective that you need to judge the world less harshly is one with which I'm still struggling.
I agree with you there.No, Romans and Galatians do not deny free will.
If the debate was against church doctrine, I would not be arguing against it.Though many interpreting them anachronistically believe as much. The debate is entirely philosophical in nature, though there is an included hermeneutic angle but ultimately it comes down to philosophical differences that some read into the texts of the Bible.
Irrational arguments never have a rational dialogue, that coherently follows... or can be followed, because there is no logic to them.Seems you're going back on some of the things you said earlier about preferences and reasons. What causes the choice is that I prefer that option, so I choose it. So why did you bring up preferences and reasons if you didn't mean to imply that they were antecedent conditions to the choice being made? What was your bringing them up supposed to add to the discussion?
Something that comes from the mind, needs to be thought through rationally, if it is to fit reality.Seems to me you're just playing silly little word games and using a broad meaning to "cause" and conflating that with a narrow meaning.
You summarized the situation precisely!Nope, the onus is on you to prove your assertion not on me to disprove it. Since free will is so heavily engrained in us that it is impossible to live consistently with the notion that it is an illusion, we can safely assume that it is true. Determinism, on the other hand, requires absolute proof of unbroken causal chains to be accepted as true. If all you can do is assert it and then play semantic games about preferences and likes and wants and yadayadayada then your assertion can be discarded.
You don't seem to understand the question of warrant and argue like a lawyer arguing from a conclusion rather than an investigator trying to find the best fit no matter what uncomfortable truths it requires. If your only recourse is assertion, then all I need to do is offer a counter assertion.
Is it the will of someone to be forced into doing something? No.But isn't a coerced choice still a choice? So it would seem to me that to have a will, is simply to have the ability to consciously choose one thing over another... whether that choice is coerced or not. We can then differentiate a 'free will' choice from a coerced one by the constraints that go into making it.
Or do you see things differently?
Exactly right. Some people have asked why this thread was in the ethics and morality section. You just answered that question.But accept your neighbor's life for what it is as well, for they were given a different yoke to bear... that's life... kinda cruel... kinda not. But be careful about judging a life that you didn't have to live. That's never really fair.
There's no need to pretend that free will is an illusion to hold out compassion for people and recognize that we shouldn't judge people who's lives and struggles are different from our own. In fact, the ethical implications of a lack of free will ends up ramping that up so much that it becomes unethical, since we wouldn't be able to fault the worst criminals in history because they only acted as they were pre-determined to act. Hitler, Polpot, Jack the Ripper, Dahmer, etc would all be guiltless if we took seriously the idea that free will is an illusion. If we took determinism seriously we'd just say, "They couldn't help themselvves, that's just the script they were given."Exactly right. Some people have asked why this thread was in the ethics and morality section. You just answered that question.
I've said that we are all still responsible for what we do. Many times. And punishment for wrong doing is still valid. Maybe you skipped the posts that discussed that. Who knows.There's no need to pretend that free will is an illusion to hold out compassion for people and recognize that we shouldn't judge people who's lives and struggles are different from our own. In fact, the ethical implications of a lack of free will ends up ramping that up so much that it becomes unethical, since we wouldn't be able to fault the worst criminals in history because they only acted as they were pre-determined to act. Hitler, Polpot, Jack the Ripper, Dahmer, etc would all be guiltless if we took seriously the idea that free will is an illusion. If we took determinism seriously we'd just say, "They couldn't help themselvves, that's just the script they were given."
I'm aware of your habit of trying to have the cake you've eaten, but how can we be responsible for out choices if we have no choice but to choose what we've been determined to choose? You may assert that a lack of free will is compatible with personal responsibility, but we don't hold seismic plates responsible for the mass casualties that result from their actions so why should we hold human beings who are just operating in accordance with whatever antecedents determined their choices dictate? Why do we not jail trees that fall on people, or bookcases that crush toddlers, or cars that plow down pedestrians? What makes the human being responsible for their actions, but all of these objects free of such responsibility?I've said that we are all still responsible for what we do. Many times. And punishment for wrong doing is still valid. Maybe you skipped the posts that discussed that. Who knows.
It's because you chose it. Nobody else did. And you had options. It's the options that have been determined. You simply chose the one that you prefered. Was that stealing my wallet? If it was then you're the type of guy who would do that. We need that to change because you might do it again. So you'll be punished to an extent that convinces you not to do it again. Hopefully you'll realise the harm caused and empathise with me and therefore decide not repeat the act. Either way,...how can we be responsible for out choices if we have no choice but to choose what we've been determined to choose?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?