[MD] Moral Responsibility and Free Will

[Steven Peterson]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:19 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve said to dmb:
> I recall thinking that you conceded something or other about a month ago, but just one week ago you complained, "Or what if I said that the notion of moral responsibility is in no way predicated on free will?" as though I just said the craziest thing you ever heard. That didn't sound to me like you were conceding the point that moral responsibility does not depend on free will, but if that is what you are now saying, fine.
>
> dmb says:
> To deny that there is a logical necessity is very different from saying morality is in no way predicated on free will.

Steve:
I thought that pretty much means the same thing. Isn't saying that
responsibility is predicated on free will the same as saying that it
is based on free will? That we logically can't have responsibility
without it? Please explain if you mean something "very different."

dmb:
And yes, the latter comment does strike me as pretty crazy or at least
very mixed-up. We've been talking about this for weeks and weeks and
you still haven't answered the most basic question. How can anyone be
held morally responsible if they are not free to act? The answer is
that they can't, obviously. Your man Parfit begins by stating that
obvious point. "For some act of ours to be wrong, because we ought to
have acted differently, it must be true that we could have acted
differently." But, like I said, then he then goes on to say, "It is
irrelevant whether ..it was causally inevitable that you did not
choose to act in this way." That's a bogus move and I'm not buying it
for a second.

Steve:
This isn't "my man." This is Derek Parfit we are talking about. You
don't have to agree with him. That's not even the main point of me
bringing it up. The point is that it just ain't such a crazy thing to
say that moral responsibility is not predicated on free will if such a
mainstream thinker as Parfit is saying it. Your accusations of me
defying basic rules of logic or being radical in my use of language or
being "wildly incoherent" are off base unless you'd have me believe
that Parfit is just as wildly incoherent.

I would take a look at yourself here. Just maybe when something
doesn't make sense to you it isn't because it is "wildly incoherent."
It could be that you are the one who is missing out on something.


dmb:
> Steve quoted Einstein and Schopenhauer:
>
> Einstein: "What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing?"
>
> Schopenhauer: "Man can do what he will but he cannot will what he wills."
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Yea, that reminds me. You still haven't answered the question about your "something else". Why does free will have to be free will "plus something else" for it to count as free will.


Steve:
I did answer your question. Free will is not free will plus something
else. that would make no sense and I never said that. I've been saying
that free will is not merely will. Choice is not the same thing as
free choice. Will is not the same thing as free will.


dmb:
> By the way, tobacco is addictive and Schopenhauer believed the entire world was composed of Will.

Steve:
Oh, my God. I didn't know that. Did you know that there is some nut
job out there who thinks the entire world is composed of Quality? I
wonder if they have something in common.

(to be continued if I have time later...)