Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Please address this point
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
YOU are making false accusations that he excluded compatibilism arbitrarily.
|
Is compatibilism included in Lessans explanations or "proof" or argument regarding the provability of determinism? I don't see it in the passage I quoted above. If not, then it was excluded, right? If it was excluded, it was done so at Lessans discretion and without a supporting statement as to why it was excluded, which is arbitrary.
So how is my charge of the false dilemma fallacy, or accusing him of excluding compatibilism arbitrarily, incorrect or "false" as you say? |
If you understand his reasoning, it is clear why compatibilism is not valid. Any definition can be made up to justify what you want it to. In this case, compabilists want to believe in both positions because each offers something. Determinism is getting more and more attention because we know that everything else in the universe is related to every other event, but the problem is that this belief would allow people to become morally irresponsible. So guess what? Compatibilism was borne. This way we can keep determinism, but we can also justify holding people morally accountable. We kill two birds with one stone. The only problem is we don't have free will.  |
The validity of compatibilism is irrelevant to my point