[MD] Moral Responsibility without free will

[Steven Peterson]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:39 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It took you 25 minutes to read, digest, and write a response. You're obviously not taking my request seriously. You did exactly what I thought you'd do.
>
> We can't even get to the question what SORT of capacity free will actually is because you can't seem to grasp the fact that it has to be SOME kind of freedom or agency to even be called free will. You're disagreeing with the most basic part of the concept that no source fails to mention. You are defying every encyclopedia and dictionary on this point.
> So I'm all done talking to you. Besides, I've got friends to kiss, frisbees to throw and steaks to grill.


Did you also notice that it took you about the same time to read,
digest, and write a response to my post? Should I be as offended as
you seem to be by that fact? (Plus, you didn't even respond to my
previous post let alone the last one.)

Anyway, I DO understand that free will is a particular sort of
capacity to choose. Since when has _that_ been the issue? What I have
been saying all along is that _all_ choosing need not be regarded as
that _particular_ sort while you have been maintaining that choice
necessarily presupposes free will in opposition to determinism. I
don't see choice as a necessarily metaphysical concept (or I wouldn't
use the word). All I mean by it is that we do one thing and not
another. All that is required for moral responsibility is that someone
else in a similar situation could have acted differently.