RE: If free will was not real
August 20, 2016 at 2:33 pm
(This post was last modified: August 20, 2016 at 3:04 pm by Gemini.)
(August 20, 2016 at 1:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Now we're just talking about law....but I had hoped that we were actually trying to describe a property of human beings...an ability that we had...and not just a useful legal framework for prosecuting undesirables.
-sadface-
Oh we are talking about a property of human beings. Mah frontal lobes. And so on and so forth. That's why we can prosecute people. Because they have fully functioning frontal lobes. Lots of people with frontal lobe damage are incarcerated, and don't deserve to be.
Quote:That's not, btw, compatibilism...........it's legal pragmatism.
My argument for legal pragmatism doesn't exclude compatibilism qua compatibilism. See everything I've said about the will being free so long as it is free from duress/coercion. That's generic compatibilism.
Quote:(when the machines take over...just know that you're going to be on a short list of early executions....poor thermostat. BTW, "according to me" a nest thermostat is not a moral agent...according to me..it meets your criteria for having a free will - as you describe it. It's not my fault that your ridiculous semantic game forces -you- to that conclusion, if your metrics are consistently and objectively applied.)
It meets all of the criteria I suggested for freedom, but none of the criteria I suggested for will.
A Gemma is forever.