Accordingly, from the view point of philosophy, rather than asking, ‘Is a concept of Free Will valid’ would it not be more productive to ask, ‘Is a concept of Moral Autonomy valid’? — Robert Lockhart
given then that it can indeed be accepted that the sole object of a philosophical enquiry concerning free will would be to consider the question of moral autonomy — Robert Lockhart
Not yet having read ‘Bergson’, could you indicate for me what he considers should properly be the purpose, from the perspective of philosophy, of an enquiry regarding the possibility of free will given that, from what you say of his position — Robert Lockhart
HOW must something and its opposite be related? What is the "frequently made assumption" you speak of, Robert Lockhart? Okay, amoral and moral decisions are related, but HOW? These concepts the author ought not to have neglected to describe if not to define.i.e. whether a concept of moral autonomy could be valid. In the absence of a rigorous logical argument to demonstrate otherwise, the frequently made assumption that the capacity of amoral autonomy and capacity of moral autonomy must necessarily be related is just that – an assumption which may in reality be invalid, and it is logically indefensible to include an unspoken assumption within the framework of a question — Robert Lockhart
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.