|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 10, 2014 22:49:15 GMT
Libertarians assert that while they, as agents, freely cause their decisions, there is no cause to their doing so. In other words, on the one hand, they are saying that causality is part of the decision making process, but they fail to understand that once they've ceded the causal nature of decisions, this causality must also apply to the agent that causes a decision (because according to causality, everything, without exception, must have a cause).
|
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 11, 2014 2:36:51 GMT
Causality and uncaused choices are mutually exclusive. For a person to say that they are the cause while at the same time denying that there are causes for their choice is impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 13, 2014 9:27:25 GMT
That's the problem with libertarian free will. Free will has the correlate of fundamental moral responsibility, and so an agent must rely on some moral reasoning that serves as the cause of the agent's moral decision. Otherwise, a libertarian agent's decisions would all necessarily be amoral, and such decisions would not allow for the accountability free will requires.
|
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 13, 2014 18:22:04 GMT
That's the problem with libertarian free will. Free will has the correlate of fundamental moral responsibility, and so an agent must rely on some moral reasoning that serves as the cause of the agent's moral decision. Otherwise, a libertarian agent's decisions would all necessarily be amoral, and such decisions would not allow for the accountability free will requires. If we believe our decisions are based on a moral code, then we are caused to choose what we do based on it. Free will means that our choices could not be caused by any existing laws whether man made or the laws of the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 14, 2014 7:28:49 GMT
That's what libertarians don't understand. If, as they mistakenly conclude, the chain of causation regarding moral decisions begins with them, such decisions could in no way be based on our shared moral laws and principles, or our past memories, or any of the other factors that in actuality take part in determining the nature of our moral decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 15, 2014 11:08:19 GMT
That's what libertarians don't understand. If, as they mistakenly conclude, the chain of causation regarding moral decisions begins with them, such decisions could in no way be based on our shared moral laws and principles, or our past memories, or any of the other factors that in actuality take part in determining the nature of our moral decisions. I think that this is related to moral relativism where each person thinks they ARE the standard of morality. This will prevent them from working with anyone who disagrees with them. |
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 16, 2014 9:19:40 GMT
That's a good point. People are very often completely unaware of how they came to their morals, and this causes them to assume authorship over, and defend, an attribute they actually inherited from their culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 16, 2014 18:02:22 GMT
That's a good point. People are very often completely unaware of how they came to their morals, and this causes them to assume authorship over, and defend, an attribute they actually inherited from their culture. A common question that some people ask me is: "Where do you get your morals from?". The very question assumes that there is a cause and that we instinctively know this. |
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 19, 2014 4:00:10 GMT
Yes, it is impossible to "freely" make a moral decision; the decision MUST be based on a moral principle that was very likely learned within circumstances outside of our control or say. Even if we were to consider our morals genetic, or instinctive, this still does not allow any room for freely willing moral decisions, as our heredity influences us without our say.
|
|
