[quote=“Urwrongx1000”]
Yes, Peacegirl’s massive failures are her own, and none else. I would point out here, that if somebody ever wanted to do ‘Good’ by the world, then you should at least begin to understand the difference between what is ‘Good’ and what is, hypothetically, ‘Evil’. Because it’s apparent now that Peacegirl does not know the difference, or to the best of her ability, it would expose her ignorance about both.
Peacegirl: I know the difference.
Unwrong: Moral Good cannot be premised upon Subjective, personal desires, and emotional whims. Never, otherwise it is easily revealed as Evil. Because what is more Evil than disguising one’s own “Pure and Innocent” motivations as Good, when it is not, and when it is only self-serving??
Peacegirl: THERE IS NO MORAL GOOD!!! We all are self-serving even the so-called called saints. I have said all along that these terms are subjective, so what’s your beef Unwrong other than trying to show up this author when you have no idea what he is demonstrating.
I don’t like the idea of people not taking responsibility for their ‘Determination’, especially when you / they lump their motivations into this idea of what’s morally good or not. I mean, what is more Evil and corrupt than that??
This whole subject matter of Determinism, therefore, is primarily about shirking personal responsibility onto others, and when that fails, onto “God did it”. Meanwhile, the Determiner believes s/he can get away scott-free, and hide the crime perfectly.
Because s/he lied to herself first and foremost.
Maybe that’s why women obsess about these matters more than men do?
Unwrong: I don’t like the idea of people not taking responsibility for their ‘Determination’, especially when you / they lump their motivations into this idea of what’s morally good or not. I mean, what is more Evil and corrupt than that??
Peacegirl: But it doesn’t do that Unwrong. It increases responsibility.
Unwrong: This whole subject matter of Determinism, therefore, is primarily about shirking personal responsibility onto others, and when that fails, onto “God did it”. Meanwhile, the Determiner believes s/he can get away scott-free, and hide the crime perfectly.
Peacegirl: You don’t know what you’re talking about. How can someone shift his responsibility when no one is holding him responsible? You are lost!
Unwrong: Because s/he lied to herself first and foremost.
Peacegirl: How can someone lie to themselves when no one is holding them responsible?
Unwrong: Maybe that’s why women obsess about these matters more than men do?
Peacegirl: That’s a crazy assertion. Women are more expressive but men think about these things as much as women. No one can hurt someone without justification, man or woman.
You guy’s don’t even stop to think deeply what these ideas actually mean in reality, do you?
There is literally no problem or paradox with this issue of so-called determinism and free will. All that’s occurring is small-minded intellectually lazy people bickering about their own pet misunderstandings and using that as a platform for flexing their ego in front of the ILP mirror to themselves.
How can this place call itself a philosophy forum? Certainly not in good conscience.
You guy’s don’t even stop to think deeply what these ideas actually mean in reality, do you?
Peacegirl: That’s what I’m doing; trying to show what these “ideas” actually mean in reality.
HumAnize: There is literally no problem or paradox with this issue of so-called determinism and free will.
Peacegirl: There is a problem if you think we can have both determinism and free will.
HumAnize: All that’s occurring is small-minded intellectually lazy people bickering about their own pet misunderstandings and using that as a platform for flexing their ego in front of the ILP mirror to themselves.
How can this place call itself a philosophy forum? Certainly not in good conscience.
Peacegirl: Small-minded? Intellectually lazy? Flexing of egos? Far from it!!!
It’s not even about anything, it’s all over the place. There’s no focus, there’s no concrete point being made. He’s jumping from one topic to the next without ever saying anything substantial about any of them or demonstrating any point he wants to make.
If you just bombard me with a series of abstract statements without any remotely compelling arguments for those statements, it might seem surface-level deep, but it’s just the musings of a stoner
Free will in a legal sense is disconnected from the philosophical argument about libertarian free will. In the legal sense it generally just means “free from coercion”
Yes they can. In theory anyway. Since free will is a fact, but I am sure there are some examples of situations or people who one might claim don’t have free will for one reason or another. Extreme drug abuse perhaps. Loss of one’s soul maybe. Etc.
Also very very young children, before they develop language and any self-identity. They are both innocent and lacking what we would reasonably consider to be a free will.
As usual with KYS forum retardations, the truth is presented as its literal opposite. Subversive braincancerism.
How would someone NOT be innocent if they literally have no self-responsibility? Think of an infant, or the seriously mentally disabled. They are not capable of being responsible for themselves, yet they are considered among the most innocent groups of people precisely BECAUSE of this lack of responsibility.
Innocence is to an extent a manifestation of a lack of a capacity for responsibility. This has legal meaning too, because someone cannot be found guilty unless it can be proven that they have capacity for responsibility. Being a child or being seriously mentally disabled are reasons why someone would not be found guilty.
_
But even child criminals and the mentally disabled do prison time, for serious crimes… as their innocence x determination = a lack of understanding of moral behaviour.
…is why some plead insanity, rather than plead the 5th.
