[MD] Moral Responsibility without free will

[david buchanan]

Steve said:
...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 objected:
... 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. ... 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 replied:
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.

dmb says:

My particular definition? I'm scratching my head over here. I'm saying that you are not using the word as it's used by speakers of english. I'm saying that the capacity to choose MEANS you are not determined. It is not a separate question at all but part of the definition of the word "choice". It's not MY definition. If you consult any dictionary, you'll see that choice is always defined as the the freedom, the right, the capacity, the ability to select, pick, decide and the like. There are lots of terms with which we can talk about this agency put in all cases it means you can choose as opposed to being determined. Talking about the range of "options" simply doesn't make any sense unless we can choose from among them. Otherwise you're just talking about paths taken randomly or courses of action that unfold in some law-like mechanical way. Several outcomes were possible, there's isn't a range of options or choices or selection unless there is some kind of agency or capacity or freedom. That simply what "choice" means to any english speaker and so you are simply misusing one of simplest and most central terms.

It's interesting to look at what a thesaurus reveals about the term "choice". As a noun it means the freedom or capacity to pick and choose, but as an adjective it means top-quality and excellece.


choicenoun1 it's your choice | freedom of choice: selection, election, choosing, picking; decision, say, vote.2 you have no other choice: option, alternative, possible course of action.3 an extensive choice of wines: range, variety, selection, assortment.4 the critics' choice: preference, selection, pick, favorite.adjectivechoice plums: superior, first-class, first-rate, prime, premier, grade A, best, finest, excellent, select, quality, high-quality, top, top-quality, high-grade, prize, fine, special; hand-picked, carefully chosen; informal tip-top, A1, top-notch, blue-ribbon, blue-chip. ANTONYMS inferior.


Steve said:
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?


dmb says:

So you're saying that following DQ is freedom but that freedom does not involve choice. And the other half of Pirsig's reformulation says that to the extent that we are controlled by static patterns we have no choice. When you add them together, there is no place for choice in the MOQ whatsoever. There is no choice anywhere in this reality and yet DQ is the quality of freedom. I think this conclusion should force you to ask yourself where you went wrong. Does it not strike you as absurd? In what world does freedom NOT involve choice? Again, it seems you are defying the english. That's how very probably HOW you've come to such a ghastly conclusion. That's how you end up construing the MOQ as some kind of determinism wherein we are determined to be free and we have no choice but to choose. That kind of talk is pure nonsense and as a result your questions are absurd and confused.