|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 29, 2017 20:01:45 GMT
tpfkar Sure, but how extenuating may depend on testimony as to how radically the personality was deranged as a result. A brain tumor is considered a disease and its effects at least in some measure separate from the personality of a sufferer. We're easily able to make a distinction between that, or someone dosing somebody, etc., and the actual nature of someone's character. And that is still not perfect resolution nor perfect absolution. But some ambiguity doesn't erase the underlying fact that people are who they are and are generally assessed accordingly. Everything is preceded by factors. Whether we view them as springing innately from what we consider the individual or what we deem at least partially external is where the varying degrees of extenuation and mitigation come into play. @miccee
Reach for the bright side |
|
|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Jun 29, 2017 20:06:27 GMT
What about Satan? Does he have the free will to just sit on his hands and not fulfill all that end times stuff about him in the bible?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 29, 2017 22:19:37 GMT
What about Satan? Does he have the free will to just sit on his hands and not fulfill all that end times stuff about him in the bible? Another fair point. Satan's free will is sometimes used as a solution (or excuse?) for the problem of evil. But what if Satan chose to turn good? |
|
|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Jun 29, 2017 22:22:13 GMT
What about Satan? Does he have the free will to just sit on his hands and not fulfill all that end times stuff about him in the bible? Another fair point. Satan's free will is sometimes used as a solution (or excuse?) for the problem of evil. But what if Satan chose to turn good? If Christianity is true (as well as that particular interpretation of the bible) then the best way for Satan to thwart God's plans and make him look like a fool would be to just do nothing. Then none of those prophesies come to pass. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 23:13:10 GMT
tpfkar Sure, but how extenuating may depend on testimony as to how radically the personality was deranged as a result. A brain tumor is considered a disease and its effects at least in some measure separate from the personality of a sufferer. We're easily able to make a distinction between that, or someone dosing somebody, etc., and the actual nature of someone's character. And that is still not perfect resolution nor perfect absolution. But some ambiguity doesn't erase the underlying fact that people are who they are and are generally assessed accordingly. Everything is preceded by factors. Whether we view them as springing innately from what we consider the individual or what we deem at least partially external is where the varying degrees of extenuation and mitigation come into play. @miccee
Reach for the bright sideIn our legal system, they would consider those extenuating circumstances, and most likely, the killer without the brain tumour would be found to be fully morally culpable for the act. But the jurisprudence of all societies on Earth are still predicated on the discredited and absurd idea that our thoughts and desires are magic willed into existence out of the ether, and are not preceded by determinants that are outside of our control. In reality, the hypothetical scenario posed by Kiera (of the man whose actions are being controlled by another agent) is a fairly good metaphor for what is happening with 100% of our decisions and actions. The only difference is that the levers are being pulled automatically and not by a malign agent. Unfortunately, that means that there is never a culprit who is truly deserving of being punished. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 29, 2017 23:37:33 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 23:55:04 GMT
Deserving in the sense that they are responsible for choosing to have the wishes that led to their actions, and responsible for choosing not to have sufficient impulse control or conditioning to refrain from acting on those wishes? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 0:01:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 30, 2017 0:27:34 GMT
What about Satan? Does he have the free will to just sit on his hands and not fulfill all that end times stuff about him in the bible? He has free will of course. He is doing what he wants. Of course, he will always be limited because he could never be more powerful than God or Jesus. However, he had the easier job. All he had to do is prove that people only worship God for selfish reasons rather than wanting to and he's been largely successful at that. However, all it takes is one person to prove him wrong and that's already been done even before Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 30, 2017 7:04:51 GMT
Why is "tendentious" a bad thing here? If Mic believes moral desert is unjust, surely he's right to argue against it? Plus within philosophy at any rate, it's a pretty mainstream view. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 11:14:31 GMT
I understand the need for punishment as a deterrent; but if they truly couldn't have prevented themselves from doing what they did (which appears to be the case with 100% of our actions), then I don't know how that is 'deserving' of punishment. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 30, 2017 11:18:08 GMT
I suppose the thing is that one cannot choose to be intelligent (at least in the latent sense) or 'beautiful' but one can choose to be 'good', and blame can only be apportioned to those able to determine things for themselves. But wouldn't you have to be at least somewhat good to choose to be more good? I think one would only need the potential for good. A vicious dictator may torture and kill his opponents all day, but may still have the potential to help an old lady across the road or pet his dog. The Bible, to give an obvious example, allows even the worst of us the potential to repent and reform. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 12:23:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 12:31:09 GMT
tpfkar The Lost One said:He's stated religion is a bane that needs to be wiped out and that and "free will" is an obstacle in doing that. If you're pretending that all he's done is state a view then you've either not been paying any attention or are being disingenuous yourself. There are multiple "mainstream" views in philosophy. Some pulled right out of the backside. That humanity needs to die out or that it is reasonable to perpetually overstate and misrepresent in order to kill religion are not two of them. As far as taking the fact that some events led to us being what we are to mean that we have no control and further to mean that "deserving" doesn't exist is the height of philosophical orifice meditating. The fact is we are creatures at this point in time that make decisions and take actions based on who we are and what we want. It is patently obvious that we take in inputs and make decisions and do what we choose, regardless of handwaves of "just an illusion". The fact that events led to everything does not yield that we're remote controlled by the deity of fate.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 13:15:32 GMT
OK, but following that line of reason, why was there such an outcry when that dentist killed the lion? Shouldn't we have the policy of punishing lions for their brutal and savage killing of other animals? After all, they are the creatures that choose to kill animals in that fashion, and therefore are deserving of punishment. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 13:19:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 13:23:39 GMT
tpfkar There are multiple "mainstream" views in philosophy. Some pulled right out of the backside. That humanity needs to die out or that it is reasonable to perpetually overstate and misrepresent in order to kill religion are not two of them. As far as taking the fact that some events led to us being what we are to mean that we have no control and further to mean that "deserving" doesn't exist is the height of philosophical orifice meditating. The fact is we are creatures at this point in time that make decisions and take actions based on who we are and what we want. It is patently obvious that we take in inputs and make decisions and do what we choose, regardless of handwaves of "just an illusion". The fact that events led to everything does not yield that we're remote controlled by the deity of fate.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.My view on free will is not related to antinatalism. Although the issue does further illustrate the unfairness of the conditions that people bring new life into. You cannot cite one of my views that you disagree with on another topic to discredit me on this one. And determinism is a very widespread mainstream view. You would struggle to find any non-religious philosopher who believes in libertarian free will, and if there are any then their view would be based on a miscomprehension of the implications of quantum physics. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 13:25:40 GMT
So what about torturing rats who carry diseases? If we need to add supplementary 'punishment' rather than merely doing what is necessary to ensure the safety of the maximum number of lives, then does this not justify cruelty to animals who spread diseases and cause suffering to other animals? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 13:28:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 30, 2017 13:28:39 GMT
He's stated religion is a bane that needs to be wiped out and that and "free will" is an obstacle in doing that. If you're pretending that all he's done is state a view then you've either not been paying any attention or are being disingenuous yourself. There are multiple "mainstream" views in philosophy. Some pulled right out of the backside. That humanity needs to die out or that it is reasonable to perpetually overstate and misrepresent in order to kill religion are not two of them. I agree those two views are not mainstream (nor do I agree with either one and I've debated Mic on both in the past), I just didn't think that's what he was getting at in this topic so much as a condemnation of desert being accommodated within the justice system (which I agree with him on and is a mainstream view). I know he's an anti-natalist but I don't really know how the moral desert argument justifies anti-natalism. Or killing religion for that matter. I have seen him say you are too wedded to a Catholic viewpoint regarding free will in other topics I suppose. If that is what he was getting at, then I withdraw my complaint. But what do you think justifies moral desert? Saying it's navel-gazing to question certain things is all well and good but if something is so unquestionable, shouldn't it be easy to defend? And if it's not so certain, isn't questioning it legitimate? |
|
