Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Stephen, Tim

Expand Messages
  • stephnlawrnce@aol.com
    Ken, No one disagrees about married bachelors, or that robbing banks and not robbing banks are both logical possibilities; that s a discussion for the first
    Message 1 of 277 , Mar 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Ken,
      No one disagrees about married
      bachelors, or that robbing banks and not robbing banks are both logical possibilities;
      that's a discussion for the first day of philosophy 101.


      Then we agree that you could be not robbing a bank when you are robbing a bank.
      And we agree that could means could *if* you were not robbing the bank in this case.
        
      Could always goes with an and or an if or a but even if it is not written.

      When someone says you could have not robbed a bank as I said there are two if's, the second being if you hadn't chosen to or if it hadn't been your will to do so or put another way there is a but that goes along with the if: You could have not robbed the bank but you chose to.

      I'm sure any one who believes in free will, will confirm this is what they mean, although I agree they believe in something more too. 

      The something more is a leaping to a wrong conclusion, heavily reinforced by society. This is the mythological beast that we both realise does so much harm.

      We have evolved to feel people are blameworthy or praiseworthy as I suspect other social animals do. Certainly we can see them acting as if they do.

      When looking at the appropriatness of apportioning praise and blame we naturally consider what else a person could have done if they'd had a will to do so, as praise and blame function to influence will.


      Stephen

      AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today.
    • stephnlawrnce@aol.com
      Ken, ... I think these two points cover the compatibilist position quite well. I think they just cover what anybody means when they say something like this.?
      Message 277 of 277 , Mar 23, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Ken,
        > In your running race example you could have won the race if you hadn't lost the race but won it instead.

        >you could have won the race if you hadn't run at that speed but had run faster instead.

        I think these two points cover the compatibilist position quite well.



        I think they just cover what anybody means when they say something like this

        But, of course, they believe in something more too and that something is not compatible with determinism. 

        Stephen
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.