[MD] Moral Responsibility without free will

[Steven Peterson]

Hi dmb,


> Steve replied:
> But "agent" is not the same thing as a "free agent."   The fact that humans are agents--that we make choices--does not do anything to link free will and morality. Choices are necessary for morality, but whether our choices are free in some meaningful sense can be held as a separate question.
>
>
> dmb says:
> Yes, choices are necessary for morality. That's the point I've been trying to make. If you have no choice in what you say or do, it makes no sense to blame or praise those acts. That's all I mean by the logical necessity. But as soon as you concede this point, you take it back in a way that simply doesn't make any sense. If our choices are not free then how can we even call them choices? If your actions are determined, it means you have no choice but to act that way. I think it's very weird to argue against such an obvious point. Like I said, "If you are willing to admit we make choices, then that's all we need to say we make choices. If you saying we had no choice but to make that "choice", then you are simply defying the meaning of the word "choice". And that's nonsense..."

Steve:
It seems that you are going to insist on your particular definition of
the word "choice" as equating to "freely willed choice" while I do not
see any such necessary equation. But if you don't like the way I use
"choose" them just substitute "opt" or whatever. All I mean is that we
do one thing and don't do another thing. Having multiple available
options is all that is necessary to talk about agency.

Note also that Pirsig's formulation of freedom does not involve
choice, so you are hammering on the wrong nail in any case. Pirsig
says to the extent that we follow DQ we are free. He does not say that
when we _choose_ to follow DQ we are free. That would be absurd. In a
choice between A and B, our choice between the two is free if we
choose A but not free if we choose B?




> Steve said to dmb:
> Perhaps you can't make sense of it because I am pointing out that the position of free will is somewhat nonsensical or redundant when you look at it deeply. And it isn't just me who is saying so. I've quoted Harris quoting Einstein quoting Schopenhauer saying so. None of them are disposed to spout nonsense.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Right. You're way too deep for me. That's gotta be it. The fact that you're defying logic and using terms in such a way as to defy their definitions by 180 degrees couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Steve:
My point is that if I am doing that then so are Harris, Einstein, and
Schopenhauer since I am just saying what they are saying. If you think
my argument defies logic and uses words to mean the opposite of what
they mean, then you are saying that they are as well.

Regards,
Steve