Jesus and free will

Jesus and free will Sept 14, 2017 14:48:26 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on Sept 14, 2017 14:48:26 GMT

Sept 14, 2017 14:06:15 GMT @miccee said:

Sept 13, 2017 1:31:51 GMT cupcakes said:

^tpfkar

Sure it's 'free" in that we choose according to our traits and preferences, and we (attempt to) do. At that point "we" are the cause. All that normal people have ever meant by "free will". Certainly not your partisan amorphous fantasy vapidities.

Free will is fundamentally the ability to have done otherwise at a specific juncture, and it's impossible to imagine how that would be possible. Nobody disputes the idea that our brains make choices, but if that was all you were referring to, then you'd have no qualms with the "brain research" cited by Dogbert in one of the cartoons above, and previously cited by myself. Even if the studies were flawed in their methodology, the conclusions would still seem obvious if all you really meant was choosing according to our desires, preferences, etc. And no lesser form of free will than this is required for forms of theology which are subscribed to by the majority of the population.

Your "imagination", or rather actual honest appraisal is circumscribed by your partisan motivations. Peeps make choices based off their traits and preferences. And I have no problem with Dogbert or any other comic characters who distort and exaggerate for comedic purposes, as that's what they do and it's fun and funny. Those who are unintentionally comedic are fun too.

Your "solution" brings about orders of magnitude more suicides then it would prevent. But once they're dead, they can't care, so, eh, we're ahead in the no sentient game.

You're interested in all people having access, so "treatment resistant" is bs, and regardless, any such cases should spur more research and more aggressive palliation treatments, not morbid extermination goals. In any case the government cannot sanction the highly immoral act of purposeful harm to the mentally incompetent.

Not necessarily, because it would draw in those who may otherwise have rashly committed suicide but could have benefitted from psychiatric help. Once you know that you're not going to be confined to a psychiatric ward indefinitely and forfeit your freedom, and that ultimately the people who help you are bound to respect your final choice; you are no longer afraid to seek out help. Even if my assertion would not turn out to be true, at least it can be known that the people who are assisted to die are people who have given it very serious and deliberate thought, and have reached a firm conclusion.

Of course, everyone should ultimately have the right to suicide, whether they have severely treatment resistant depression, or they're just bored with life. But my proposal helps to catch the ones who can be helped and support them back to a lifestyle that they find worthwhile, whilst refusing to place limitations on the autonomy of those who don't think that life is worth living at any cost.

And again, to assist someone in peaceful death is not to commit harm, it is to enable that person to avoid harm. A dead person cannot be harmed any more than a stone can be harmed.

Nope, necessarily, by orders of magnitude, as they are responding to their crushing guilt or loss or whatever with great urgency, and not concentrating on making themselves not care about it. As for the mentally incompetent, it's just horrifically immoral to send them to their doom when they are in the grips of a mental illness. To assist a mental illness to bring about the death of a person is categorically immoral and in fact reprehensible. If you're too bored, stop being so narcissistic and trying to vitiate the whole system based on your personal fecklessness and narcissism.

Sure, booby hatch stuff. Don't make the world better, snuff it out like any good psychopath. I'm pretty sure you'd make a fine "medievalist" burning all of the witches in the asylums.

Nobody should be forced to contend with the risk of non-trivial suffering just because other people think that the world is "good enough" or can be made "good enough". "First, do no harm" is not the psychopath's creed.

Booby hatch stuff. Both "Nobody should be forced to contend with the risk of non-trivial suffering" and what you think is and is not harm.

You hold pure bonkers views on the subject. Of course you don't know what will happen - irrelevant to the derangement; of course you supposedly believe you can't behave differently - irrelevant to the derangement. The relevant insanity is "knowing" this and believing that you acting one way or the other could possibly have any effect on any direction of anything.

You might as well argue with your toaster as with people. You believe the (unknown) outcome is preordained and people have no ability to really choose anything. If I came to believe such a thing I'd just chuckle and marvel at the rest of the talking toasters. Not that different than how this conversation's been, I suppose.

One cannot be resigned to a certain outcome if one has no way of knowing what that outcome is.

One can be sane to the fact that no matter what they do or not do will make no difference against their God Fate.

Therefore whatever I do is part of the chain of causality which helps to determine the final outcome. Fatalism is not consistent with determinism, or with reasoned thought. And determinism doesn't mean that nothing can ever change, it means that things are always changing. Therefore just as dropping a plate onto a hard surface will cause that plate to shatter into many fragments, having a discussion can be and is productive in helping to change ideas. When I drop the plate, I don't know how many fragments are going to be produced by the drop of the plate, and I don't know what the outcome of having a discussion is going to be. But cause and effect prevails in both cases. I'm not doing anything to try to prevent a cause from effecting, or frantically swimming upstream against the tide of causality; I am part of that causal chain.

More booby hatch stuff. Whatever you "know" (harderharharr) or don't know, no action or inaction can change the course that was set up at the outset. The "ideas" molecules are already on their irreversible path. Your urgency and actions are patently deranged in the face of such "knowledge".

Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.