There's nothing absurd with my conditional. If you do not will the actions, then they are not yours, since they occur without your will. If mind control was real, and someone could mind control you and get you to do a nefarious deed, would you say that it is you who did the nefarious did, or rather the person who mind controlled you? — Agustino
Here's the other premise: actions performed with the body and/or mind of another are not that person's actions if they do not will them. No contradiction. — Agustino
Based on whether the person wills the actions or not when they occur. — Agustino
We were talking just about humans. If you want to generalise to other animals, then obviously moral responsibility is not required. But one of the two components of moral responsibility (which are will and reason) is still required. Animals lack reason, but they do not lack will. — Agustino
No, the action is not mine in the sense I've specified above. I do not will the action, and hence I cannot be morally responsible for it. From a moral point of view, the action is not mine. From a biological point of view, or a physical one if you want it, the action belongs to my body as the immediate initiator. — Agustino
No, the immediate cause of the act may be your body, but your body is not you. I identify you with the will and the intellect. If your body remains, but the will and intellect are gone, then I would say that you are gone. But if will and intellect somehow remain without body, then you are most certainly not gone.Yes, if someone controls you to make you do a nefarious deed (the devil made you do it), the act is still yours. The rock breaks the window despite the fact that someone throws it. — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree with that.But the act is carried out by your body. Despite the fact that someone controlled you, there is no argument here to prove that the act was not carried out by your body. — Metaphysician Undercover
Both humans and animals have will.So why would you argue that a human act without moral responsibility is not an act of the human being which performs it? — Metaphysician Undercover
No, the immediate cause of the act may be your body, but your body is not you. I identify you with the will and the intellect. If your body remains, but the will and intellect are gone, then I would say that you are gone. But if will and intellect somehow remain without body, then you are most certainly not gone. — Agustino
Do you believe in God? God is a person that has no body.It doesn't make sense to say that a person is a will and intellect, but not a body. If you could show me a will and intellect without a body, and demonstrate that this is a person, then I might believe you. Until then, I think you're talking nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you believe in God? God is a person that has no body.
Do you believe in angels? Angels are persons that have no body. — Agustino
Sure, but we were discussing:But we're not gods, and we do have involuntary acts. — Metaphysician Undercover
So apparently, it can make sense for someone to be a person (formed of will & intellect) and without a body.It doesn't make sense to say that a person is a will and intellect, but not a body. — Metaphysician Undercover
So apparently, it can make sense for someone to be a person (formed of will & intellect) and without a body. — Agustino
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.