Not Convinced Determinism Makes Sense of Moral Responsibility. Convince Me It Does

[genkaus]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. So you would consider your position under the umbrella of compatibilism?

Maybe, but I'm not certain of that. Most of the compatibilist positions I'm familiar with accept the premise of determinism/free-will debate (the observer regarded as separate from causal chain) and go from there. My position is that the classical concept of free-will has become nonsensical and should be reformulated to better reflect our current knowledge.

As to my brother's argument, I want to get away from the fine-tuning argument he imbeds in his premises and get to the issue Darwin himself seemed unsure about in one his letters often quote-mined by creationists: "Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" So basically, if our claim is that naturalism is true, does it necessitate a skepticism about the reliability of our thought processes to the extent that it undermines our claim? (I think this phrasing might be misguided but this is essentially the argument I have encountered).

Skepticism regarding reliability of our thought processes is the mainstay of any scientific endeavor. But your brother seems to have a misguided notion regarding what it means. Skepticism doesn't automatically undermine a position, it simply asks for justification. And the claims regarding naturalism have been vindicated through both logic and evidence.

Also, how the hell do I hide this obnoxiously long quote so that you don't have to scroll through everything we already stated multiple times?

Use "[hide] [/hi de]" tags.