[MD] Moral Responsibility without free will

[David Thomas]

On 8/8/11 5:01 PM, "David Buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> dmb says:
> Yes, there is a big difference. I think that was Sam's point. We build tornado
> shelters because tornados do damage, not because we hold them morally
> responsible for their actions. Same with brain-diseased psychopaths. We lock
> them up because they do damage, not because we hold them morally responsible.
> We can identify them as the cause of the damage, so they were responsible as
> an efficient cause, like a bullet, but they cannot be held responsible as
> moral agents, Sam says.

Dave asks:
Ah, but what would Bob say? Or better yet what would that ever mouthy MoQ
say about that bullet? As Tuukka suggests bullets are part of the moral
order too. They have preferences. They evolve. They seek Dynamic Quality.

So what do bullets prefer? Why freedom, of course. Freedom from the
restraints of cartridge, powder, and gun. Freedom to fly, to defy, if only
for an instant, the shackles of gravity. Free for the chance to be part of a
series of dynamic events that change the world for better. Or worse.
Or if not, just to briefly fly before dropping back to earth whence they
came. Ah it's a good life.