Cite evidence.
Or could she have been 13? 14? 16? 19?
Wow. Pretty big claim. Can you back it up?
I have read a lot of post in here, but not all.
Wouldn’t the lack of free will mean that we are bound by an unseen rule regarding our decision?
If there was no such thing as free will, wouldn’t that indicate without any dispute that there is a higher power?
If this thought process of no free will is based at an atomic level, wouldn’t that suggest that the universe would only be made up of only a few compounds. Hydrogen must bond with oxygen would be an example. We know that hydrogen can bond with other elements. We also know that hydrogen can be forced apart. (Which is relevant somehow, I just haven’t had time to figure out how)
Legally, maybe not. But yes, 12 year old can consent to lots of things. We discourage it, but that has nothing to do with anything. You’re trying to twist it into me saying that I approve of 12 yr old marriage, which I do not. I was explaining why the question isn’t relevant to freewill and morality, as it pertains to it’s existence. Clearly there was a time when marriage at a young age was not so uncommon, or such a law would not have existed. Lest a bunch of sadists who want to rape 12 year old girls passed this law.
Nevertheless, it’s not a question of morality if 12 year old’s decide to marry. It may be stupid and ill advised, but doing something stupid isn’t immoral on it’s face. If it were half this country would deserve the death penalty.
That is a morally inert question.
You are avoiding the real question. You admitted that raping a baby is always wrong. Why is it always wrong?
Don’t avoid the question by bring up bizarre scenarios that can be morally inert in a given circumstance. Raping a baby not only is morally repugnant, it’s something that happens all to frequently in our civilized world.
2 Likes
There are two types of determinism, one is what you described. The other is causal determinism where by the preceding events guide the resulting ones, and the resulting ones become causes for the next. That is the type of determinism most godless adhere to. Where by the initial conditions were mere accident and the current state is the result of that accident, through a long succession of cause and effect.
Save for when you bring up the cosmological argument and then cause and effect does not much matter anymore.
2 Likes
Actually, that song is very important to this topic. It’s all about choice.
I guess one thing your “philosophy” lacks is a sense of humor.
@T3hPwnisher
You suffered your acl injury. Then went through the process of having surgery to repair the damage. After surgery you ignored doctor’s orders and started training very quickly. In your philosophy what is that drove you to do that, or allowed you to do that, that isn’t connected to free will?
I am not well studied in this area, but I do find it interesting.
I actually followed my doctor’s orders. He never said I couldn’t train, only that I couldn’t train hard enough to break a sweat until the incision healed, and then that I couldn’t directly train the leg until I was cleared by physical therapy.
To clarify though, are you asking me this question because you think I do not believe in free will?
Yeah, I thought I remembered you saying you didn’t believe in it in the past. Might be a memory fail on my part?
I understand the arguments against it, and I think they’re pretty good ones, but I wouldn’t say I have a firm belief one way or the other about the matter. Like I said, I think this is a really fascinating topic.
It is a great topic because you have to think. Personally I believe that the people behind the theory that there is no free will, are very intelligent and have smart ideas. I just feel that their theory is wrong and can be proven wrong by examples of free will.
There can be countless barriers placed on a person to make something hard to accomplish. But, “if there is a will, there is a way.” So wouldn’t the opposite be true? “If there is no will, there is no way”
What is this “will” we are talking about? Desire? Urge? Motivation?
An addict who is physically addicted to a drug. They’re always an addict. What is it that makes them no longer take the drug?
What makes this complicated is proving that the acts of will ARE acts of will, and not simply the results of causes previously set into motion.
Ayn Rand’s objectivism ran into this issue (yes yes, I know, bringing up Ayn Rand in a philosophy discussion, hear me out). Pretty much any act that could be attribute to altruism could equally be attributed to self interest if one thought it through hard enough. You can do the same thing with acts of will.
Well done!
Stream of consciousness may be the only way to not only understand the idea, but feel it.
I think in the end, those who ascribe to causal determinism have ulterior motives psychologically. I found this believe to correlate highly with atheism and a strong desire to shed personal responsibility. After all, if you couldn’t help it, it’s not your fault. If it’s not your fault, then there is no repercussion. It’s an appealing idea to those who never want to face the shame of looking in a mirror and not liking the image thrown back. (Obviously, I am not talking about an actual mirror, but something tells me I had to spell that out)
I like the Ayn Rand ‘save’ in the parenthesis 
…
From the outside, one could look at another’s action no matter how good and selfless the intent, and find someway in which that person benefits, making it essentially a selfish, not a selfless act. And one can even expound on that external view and put forth the theory that all acts are inherently selfish, that by nature we are selfish creatures and even if we do good to others, we are really out to benefit ourselves. (I just summarized Dawkins whole book in 2 sentences!)
But that’s not the whole story. Intent plays a huge role in whether an action is ‘good’ or not. And some people have gone to extremes, to prove an act is a purely unselfish one, but there is no way to actually do that. There’s always a way to accuse one of benefiting.
In the end, the only person who knows the true intent of an action is the person who did it. Then, any benefit one receives from it is incidental, not the core intent. But the individual could never prove it and observers never believe the intent was pure.
For instance, I know for a fact that I have done things before, not looking out for myself in anyway. But the skeptic would say, by the very nature of saying that, I have just proven the opposite.
There is no save for the good, to prove themselves not evil. The best thing, I suppose, is not to try an prove anything at all. Do the good and walk away.
1 Like
Another one of my personal challenges is going to be to read through “Atlas Shrugged”. I’m not looking forward to it, haha. But I remember this exact issue when I was an undergrad and our professor was explaining the issues with attempting to debate objectivism. Total “No True Scotsman” sorta moment.
1 Like
I’ve been trying to get through Atlas Shrugged for like 10 years … It’s not a terribly difficult read but my attention seems to get diverted after a while.
1 Like
Good luck with that read. I know enough about Rand’s philosophy to know I have no interest in reading that book. I started to read it and really just hated it, so I quit. If it’s a must read I’ll gut through it, but it was slow and unpleasant and I have a stack of books I want to read before that one.
The problem with objectivism is that it makes good points, that makes if hard to argue against. But again, she really didn’t break any new ground she just gave it a name and combined thoughts of dead philosophers into her own. The way I see it, is that it’s a tool worth of note but as a moral ethic it’s inherently circular. Perhaps that’s it’s weakness?
It is a good tool for self examination. Why are you doing ______? Are you really serving others or yourself. But after that examination of conscience, it’s probably best to put it aside unless you are finding yourself in a state of constant failure.
For instance, women tend to do this a lot more than men; interfering with relationships. A friend who is trying to talk another into breaking up or divorce. Are they really serving their friend or themselves? It’s a valid question because often times, interfering in a relationship is self-serving, even though said friend thinks she is helping, she is really doing enormous, possibly irreparable damage. That person should take an objectivist ontology for self examination.
But for one to argue, that no matter what you do, you are in it for yourself is not really fair. You can always make some exterior case for it, but you do not know what’s truly in another’s heart. Actions have reactions and there is nothing you can do about it. Be your action morally bad or good, there is always a reaction. You cannot stop the reaction even if you had no intention to benefit. Only the possessor of intent, knows what that is, and nobody has the right to tell you your intent.
1 Like