[MD] Moral Responsibility without free will

[MarshaV]

Hello Dave,  

Let's not forget that bullets as patterns are ever-changing, inter-dependent and 
impermanent processes.   imho   

Marsha






On Aug 9, 2011, at 6:56 AM, David Thomas wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___