1. An agent is only responsible for an act if said agent could have done otherwise. — ToothyMaw
To argue that 'could have done otherwise' literally means to change the course of events from those which were determined begs the question. Indeterminism must be assumed before such a notion can be coherently spoken of. — Isaac
The purpose of this post is to encourage some sort of discussion about moral responsibility and free will, — ToothyMaw
Hmm. I had already typed out a response, but then on closer reading of your OP saw that you had that covered. By determinism you must mean that someone knows something specific ahead of time. — tim wood
Let's assume, then, a god knows. This would appear to crystalize the future in some causative sense. Perhaps, but the argument to hold must show that the knowledge is also specifically causative as to every possibility. — tim wood
Now, you might argue that a god always already knows what I will choose. But even if you do, then so what? The point being that I have free will in my own person. And having it establishes the existence of free will, and thus grounds the possibility of moral responsibility. — tim wood
Agreement (I think) until this. Predetermined subject to the parameters of predetermining - but this goes to the physics of things in time, itself a considerable problem to date.And while the knowledge might not be causative it does mean your actions would be predetermined. — ToothyMaw
Agreement (I think) until this. Predetermined subject to the parameters of predetermining - but this goes to the physics of things in time, itself a considerable problem to date. — tim wood
As to any causative effect of knowing, how? Even just the physics of knowing the future are certainly problematic. The best we can do here is say that something will happen, and after it happens, that something did happen. — tim wood
Btw, what is your argument? My side is that free will exists, and that moral responsibility finds a ground in it. — tim wood
Alright, to be honest I'm very confused by your line of argumentation. Are you saying that no ultimate knower is possible, and thus determinism is false? I still don't see why you brought up god. — ToothyMaw
And I think I have done just exactly that. As to assuming my own free will, I do not assume it. I prove it. Argument is not for contemplation in Socratic detachment, rather it is for a Socratic gnawing and chewing. Gnaw. chew.But the point I made is that determinism must be proven false to justify moral accountability. — ToothyMaw
You are assuming that the ultimate knower does not exist by assuming that people have free will. I am contending that an ultimate knower, if people don't have free will, would know every action of every being. — ToothyMaw
Except I have not assumed, but have instead proved. With your "if" you can have what you like, in "if'-land. But that's not where you are, is it? — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.