it's called hard determinism because it is hard to maintain belief in it in face of all the concerns against it
-
-
there are plenty of compatibilists who are explicitly against retributivism. dennett is one
-
okay. it's still handwaving that reduces to emotional appeals. it doesn't contain a coherent concept of what "free will" even is that doesn't rely on the concept of a soul that's somehow interactive with the world without being causally determined by it, because it can't
-
maybe you should at least read the SEP article on compatibilism or something before going all "facts don't care about your feelings" on them
-
the SEP article on compatibilism OPENS BY TALKING ABOUT HOW IT'S MAKING PROPOSITIONS ABOUT A PROPERTY IT CAN'T COHERENTLY DEFINE and segues into how really we're trying to make moral responsibility i.e. authority to punish compatible with determinism
-
ok you read like two sentences of it and misread it even at that. 1. moral responsibility doesn't entail that punishment is justified. 2. compatibilism is sometimes expressed as the view that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism, as it states
-
even if we accept such a definition and even if we erroneously believe that entails that punishment is justified, what makes someone capable of moral responsibility reveals interesting facts about agency that go beyond the moral implications of it
-
all of that shit is a lot of song and dance around the fact that we *are going to* exert interference against collections of molecules that are inconvenient to us so we like to make up doctrines that permit us to do so
-
ok whatever makes you feel better about dismissing large hosts of philosophical work you haven't read
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.