jerk
|
free willI had a discussion of this elsewhere. I'm curious as to what you guys think of the concept.
Here's what I said elsewhere (it also dipped into ethics a bit) so you know what my opinion of it is.
I'm just curious as to how many people here believe in free will. I don't see how it could possibly exist.
| Quote: | BrokenJohnny wrote:
Whether or not it exists in a philosophical sense can always be debated. But in a personal sense, we are responsible for our own actions. |
A person can't be held responsible for what they do if they have no control over it.
| Quote: | ramlac wrote:
They can perfectly held responsible. You kill people - you are a danger for everybody - you get into prison or killed. It does not matter if you're just like that or if you just choosed so out of your mood.
You do evil stuff - you (as a whole) have to get stopped. Easy. |
Except they can't and don't have to be stopped. The common person commits evil acts on a daily basis and that's considered the norm. This has nothing to do with morality, it's simply not caring for something and disposing of it.
| Quote: | BrokenJohnny wrote:
That only occurs when a person either has a mental disability, or is overtaken by the control of drugs. The majority of humankind shows a control over self action.
While one could argue that a serial killer was terribly abused by a child, and that this caused him to be delusional and insane, one could also argue that there are many productive survivors or terrible abuse.
If one is not responsible for one's actions, it means that someone else is responsible for them.
|
No one is responsible for anything. Everything a human being does is connected to their body- that's why you can see such obvious change in a person's behavior in some cases due to severe brain damage. Obviously, nobody creates themselves out of thin air- they can only do with what they've genetically been given and how the environment has changed those genetics (I hope that's the right word Razz ) This is why some people kill and others don't even if they've been raised in a similar environment- it's simply not in them to do it. The person didn't choose not to kill, they were simply chemically inclined not to do it.
| Quote: | ramlac wrote:
When a robot is going to kill people, he is responsible for killing people. Hm.
|
In this case the person "responsible" for it is whoever created the killer robot to begin with.The robot is the reason for it, that's all.
| Quote: | ramlac wrote:
You still have to destroy the robot first of all. When you can find the source why the robot is like he is (a killer), go on, there might be more responsibilities.
|
You may or may not need to destroy the robot. And we already know why the robot is like this- it was programmed to be this way (even if it is a malfunction, that's part of its design, whether the creator intended it or not.) There may be more reasons but not more responsibilities.
| Quote: | ramlac wrote:
Ok, let's assume you're never responsible for anything, because there are always reasons why you're like this - ergo the reasons are the responsible part.
It will still be correct however, put put (not responsible) dangerous people away (or kill...), as long they are dangerous for the sake of protecting innocent people? |
No. Because every person is ultimately innocent, you'd be killing the innocent (and as a result, not protecting the innocent, just certain innocent people.)
There's only reaction, not control.
|
lacrossegirlie
|
so i suposse you have no chice but to post obnoxious psuedo philospical questions on this board?  you know because you have no free will.
|
jerk
|
| lacrossegirlie wrote: | | so i suposse you have no chice but to post obnoxious psuedo philospical questions on this board? you know because you have no free will. |
Yes, just like you have no chice (sic) but to be a retard. I guess I should pick easier concepts for you? Like what happens when a lesbian comes into contact with a truck?
|
veggiespork
|
Sounds like both sides are begging the question here.
Me? I'm a bit of a technocrat. I find these debates unnecessary for anything productive. Let me elaborate.
The reasoning is circular. Free will can't be proven or unproven, because every time someone says that you are responsible for your choices, you contradict them just by explaining what free will does. And that person explains how you can make your own decisions, and you reword the explanation of free will, etc., etc., etc.
|
Thefremen
|
OK that last post should be MORE than enough for the banhammer. (jerk's that is)
As far as the trolling topic goes, I agree with Neitzsche: "God is dead".
|
veggiespork
|
WOAH. I didn't read that last one. That's going way too far.
*Holds up pitchfork, lights a torch*
|
jerk
|
It only went too far if you're oversensitive. lacrossegirlie insulted me so I insulted her.
|
veggiespork
|
*Smirk* Oversensitive?
I think it should be obvious that LacrosseGirl was totally joking.
Nietzsche was one kickass dude.
|
jerk
|
| veggiespork wrote: | *Smirk* Oversensitive?
I think it should be obvious that LacrosseGirl was totally joking.
|
Yes, this is SO obvios-
| Quote: | | so i suposse you have no chice but to post obnoxious psuedo philospical questions on this board? Rolling Eyes you know because you have no free will. |
|
lacrossegirlie
|
maybe its not obvious that i was joking. im not going to get into an insult war with anyone its pointless. anyway in terms of this free will thing i agree with veggiespork. but i disagree with the implication ok we're not responsible for our actions so its ok to rape murder and tourture? although maybe if that was case you could get away with running me over with a truck eh jerk? 
|
|
|
