Free will and determinism

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Fledgist:

Part of the problem is this: when are choices real, and when are they apparent rather than real.

They are NEVER real, imo. Everyone does, in the now, exactly as they must do. Is some child who grows up in an English speaking household EVER going to start speaking Greek?

Originally posted by Fledgist:


If, as a matter of stern reality, we are constrained in the nature of what we can choose to do, to what extent can we, as choosing individuals, be said to be responsible?

Even though the perp could not have done differently, that does not make him or her not guilty.

by britisha:
While some of these philosophers deliver some good arguments, I don't limit myself to totally accept what they purport, I don't see myself as being in mental bondage for the simple reason that I am FREE to think...

One refutation was that you could make gold by stirring molten lead, and not thinking of the word rhinocerous.

[Guest]

Re: Free will and determinism

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb
{Fledgist: Women don't make choices? A choice is real when the chooser is autonomous and capable of deciding among a range of options available at the time of choosing. A choice is apparent, rather, than real when the person appearing to choose can only make certain kinds of decisions and not others, and thus the decision (if it be that) is constrained.}

Here is my argument:

If a man has limitations on his being however small which he did not place there regardless of what (environmental, physical, psychological, spiritual), if a man is incapable of creating any of these himself at all, then there is another force responsible for his being.


{Fledgist: Er, this doesn't quite make sense (leaving aside the sexist language). The fact that there is, say, a limitation on my actions caused by the law of gravity does not imply a force *responsible* for my existence.}

Jedi: Sure you don't want to rethink this position? What does the force of gravity do? And how did [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] know that without it you would be bouncing around in space.

Now let us assume that the above is true please explain the following to me as it pertains to your view of the man not having any real responsibility for his choices.

The man is given $10,000.00 to spend whichever way he likes. He can choose to pay off his debts or purchase pleasurable things. If he pays off his debts he will be debt free. On the other hand if he spends the money on his pleasures, he would have gratified himself but at the end of the day remained in debt. Now tell me how is the man not responsible for his choice should he choose to do the latter? Granted he knows that he has debts that should be payed off and they are giving him stress. He also knows that the things which give him pleasure are only temporary and soon grow old and have to be replaced again. [/qb]

You're assuming that intellectual knowledge determines choice.

Okay, but I thought we were here speaking of individuals of average or higher intelligence. IMO folks with below average intelligence and lower are not too concerned with limitation to the choices that they can make, or the moral meter on those choices. In fact from my observation they would do what ever they wanted to do if left unrestrained.

That may sometimes be so, but is by no means always so. A drug addict, for example, cannot exercise a true choice.

I disagree with this to the extent that people first of all choose to become drug users/addicts. Although the addiction influences their choices, and determines their lifestyle, as has been demonstrated over and over, they can and have further chosen to overcome their addictions, by seeking therapy, thus changing the circumstances of their lives. This alone says that the person has the ability to exert his/her will over the addiction and thereby overcome it.

You're also assuming, a priori, that free will exists. That's assuming the consequent.

I am not assuming anything notice that I asked you a question which btw. you have dodged. I gave you a simple situation where a person (assuming a person of average intelligence, not under the influece of drugs) is given a choice of how to spend $10,000.00 and I asked you to show me how this person is not responsible for the choice he/she makes, knowing fully in advance the consequences whichever way he/she should decide to choose.