3 ms·
No, read the link I gave. (Note also that I'm explaining the dominant arguments, not endorsing them.) If it's still not clear why I put the implication that wa
by Veedrac 8y ago
No, read the link I gave. (Note also that I'm explaining the dominant arguments, not endorsing them.)
If it's still not clear why I put the implication that way around, note that not everyone thinks that you have a moral responsibility in the way Peter Singer argues, but basically every philosopher thinks it's wrong to kick a dog.
- naasking 8y agoI've been studying and debating this issue for years, I know what it means. From your own link, "As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility". In other words, making a choice of your own free will entails moral responsibility, not the other way around like you said. I don't know what Singer has to do with any of this.
- Veedrac 8y ago> "As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility" Exactly... "necessary", not "sufficient". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]