|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 12, 2011 14:13:31 GMT -5
Funny thing about that, my philosophy textbook is unable to refute the argument against free will, even without assuming an omniscient being. The author is pretty clearly not happy about it, but he's unable to provide a reason to say it's wrong. ETA: Here's the argument presented 1) Either our choices are necessitated or they are not. 2) If they are necessitated, then they are out of our control, and so we lack free will. 3) If they are not necessitated, then they are out of our control, and so we lack free will. 4) Therefore, we lack free will (Fundamentals of Ethics, 2nd edition, Russ Shafer-Landau, pg 180) Sometimes also found as an argument against Autonomy. Did you text book discuss Immanuel Kant's response that even if difficult or impossible to experience Autonomy we experience it every time we act.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 12, 2011 14:34:28 GMT -5
Funny thing about that, my philosophy textbook is unable to refute the argument against free will, even without assuming an omniscient being. The author is pretty clearly not happy about it, but he's unable to provide a reason to say it's wrong. ETA: Here's the argument presented 1) Either our choices are necessitated or they are not. 2) If they are necessitated, then they are out of our control, and so we lack free will. 3) If they are not necessitated, then they are out of our control, and so we lack free will. 4) Therefore, we lack free will (Fundamentals of Ethics, 2nd edition, Russ Shafer-Landau, pg 180) Sometimes also found as an argument against Autonomy. Did you text book discuss Immanuel Kant's response that even if difficult or impossible to experience Autonomy we experience it every time we act. That's not very logically sound, contradictions are sort of a bad thing. You're saying (or Kant's saying) that you can experience something even if that something is impossible to experience, but these statements cannot be reconciled. If you have a link to Kant's full argument, I would love to read it, though. ETA: The book doesn't say Kant's argument specifically, but it does mention that there are philosophers trying to refute part 2 or 3 of the argument. Unfortunately, no refutations were presented, which I find interesting as in every other section of the book when an argument is refuted he says why it is false (for example, the idea that what God desires being the definition of "good.")
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 12, 2011 16:51:02 GMT -5
Sometimes also found as an argument against Autonomy. Did you text book discuss Immanuel Kant's response that even if difficult or impossible to experience Autonomy we experience it every time we act. That's not very logically sound, contradictions are sort of a bad thing. You're saying (or Kant's saying) that you can experience something even if that something is impossible to experience, but these statements cannot be reconciled. If you have a link to Kant's full argument, I would love to read it, though. ETA: The book doesn't say Kant's argument specifically, but it does mention that there are philosophers trying to refute part 2 or 3 of the argument. Unfortunately, no refutations were presented, which I find interesting as in every other section of the book when an argument is refuted he says why it is false (for example, the idea that what God desires being the definition of "good.") Sorry, it should have been difficult or impossible to explain, not experience. Kant's seems to attack part 3 due to the fact that he believes that everyone act according to self imposed rules or maxims. Unfortunately I can find his precise response. I did find on this site... quizlet.com/5503220/theories-of-well-being-flash-cards/...under Autonomy it states it as a Kantian Response, so it might have been a response derived from his writings. I also have this... plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#AutUnfortunately I did not keep my philosophy texts books from college.
|
|