Search results

What about cases of logical impossibility, e.g. a cyclops which has only one leg and which has only two legs. I reckon any conception of god which requires god to be both 'X' and 'not-X' (where X is some precise description) can be logically excluded without much trouble. I do, however, agree...

Thanks josie, I'm glad you could gain something from our back and forth ramblings.

Consider two different cases: (1) Our actions are determined (by laws put in place by god): in this case we are quite clearly under god's control (2) Our actions aren't determined by laws (being random): in this case god, in making us random, must set the limits of randomness (e.g...

Hmm, that's sad to hear. I guess if religion ever has a place it's as an emotional support during difficult periods of one's life.

One other argument I would make is this: Negative outcomes are a matter of value, and the argument I am making appeals primarily to those who see the punishment of those who are not responsible as wrong. According to such a belief we are regularly commiting immoral acts - in light of the our...

I agree with you on the last point, bringing us to the question: which point should we reject? The problem I have with rejecting point three is that its truth doesn't depend upon our acceptence (in the way many moral 'truths' may) because it rests on objective foundations. The general solution...

Sure, no problem. Another way of saying the same thing is to start by considering the following set of moral principles (with 'x' for a subject and 'A' for an action, arbitrary in each case): If x is not repsonsible for act A, then x should not be punished on account of A's occurence There...

A lot of our moral framework consists of conditionals - 'If X happens then Y should be done'. What I am proposing is the idea that some people support the moral rule 'If x is not repsonsible for act A, then x should not be punished on account of A's occurence'. If we introduce the fact that 'no...

Agnostic (one version): "Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists." If by your question you mean 'Is god's existence beyond (dis)proof?' then yes, this might be the case. For example, you could try to argue for the following propositions: a) God's...

I don't see why it should become irrelevant. You say 'needs' as though it is an insatiable bloodlust. Are humans not capable of change? The fact is, if we insert into our system of beliefs the idea that we cannot properly attribute responsibility for actions then certain moral beliefs, if held...

For the evolution of things like emotions/morality check out books like this. As far as I can tell it seems possible to explain such phenomena in evolutionary terms. The other thing worth keeping in mind is that not everything that evolves has to have an evolutionary purpose... the analogy which...

But if our will truly free then, by nature, doesn't that mean that our future actions are unknowable? If our actions are predictable, e.g. if they are based on our genetic make up, values and beliefs, then couldn't god be held responsible for our actions? Think of it this way - either we have...

Did they choose to be ambitious/selfish any more than someone chooses to contract tuberculosis? Are behavioral tendencies (e.g. towards greed or violence) really just matters of personal choice? As far as I can tell illness, especially in the realms of mental health, depends a great deal on...

Keep in mind the difference between possibility and practical possibility. If it is possible to do so we can still argue that, in an ideal world, we should aim at criminal reform. Undoubtedly there are many difficult cases but, for example, a clinical psychologist described to us a case of a...

Certainly, they constitute difficult groups, but it has been done. Also, I would ask you, does punishment make sense if free will doesn't make sense?

Do you meant that it's hard to determine in an absolute sense or in an individual sense? On the individual level I'm inclined to agree - which is why I would support the idea of integrating counselling into any system of euthanasia.

Yes, I agree - someone with a 'net' negative stretch of experience can have positive moments of experience. My basic position is that: It is not the case that the pleasure is always worth the pain. Are you trying to argue against this position or are you simply trying to establish the fact...

Haha, howdy - I noticed that as well :). As to cruelty and ruthlessness: while I take note of your serial killer example I should point out that serial killers aren't exactly the best representative of reciprocity (or human nature for that matter --> imagine a society in which we all behaved...

Not so - altruistic behavior has evolutionary benefits (see this book for a good review of this argument). Care for one's kin and recipricocity are strongly ingrained propensities. In any case, even if we do manage to identify ourselves as "cruel and ruthless" then why not attempt a change...

Are you unbothered if a rat experiences pain (granting that it can do so)? Given the structural similarity between a rat and a human (we do, after all, exploit this fact when we test drugs), does it really seem that big a leap to suppose that a rat can feel pain?