4 ms·

No. Nobody being responsible doesn't negate rehabilitation for the person that is deranged. The goal of humanity is debatable but generally having everyone func

No. Nobody being responsible doesn't negate rehabilitation for the person that is deranged. The goal of humanity is debatable but generally having everyone functioning in a way that doesn't harm others and including themselves is preferred. So I don't see how it's logical to place the blame on the victim and unless you're just trying to be silly with not really understanding determinism is just from the basis of logic like the foregoing.

naasking 6y ago
> Nobody being responsible doesn't negate rehabilitation for the person that is deranged. There is no way to justify who is deranged without moral blame. There is no victim and no perpetrator. A person who attacked you without provocation is just responding to the environment established by society. Your expectation that you should not be punched in the face is the same. Why is your expectation to not be punched justified over his desire to punch you?
- abellerose 6y ago
  The approach you’re proposing is illogical that’s why. Although everything is destined, that doesn’t negate the majority desire to treat a person who becomes ill and potentially very sick. Similar as someone that becomes mentally deranged by his/her order of events resulting in being mentally ill. I used to have a colleague that shared your rhetoric and he very much made a big leap in his assumption that people adopting determinism will all of a sudden become metaphorically motionless by thinking the majority will not try to fix people that become ill.
  - naasking 6y ago
    > Although everything is destined, that doesn’t negate the majority desire to treat a person who becomes ill and potentially very sick. So majority desires are all that matters? So you agree with mob rule and think the tyranny of the majority is perfectly ok? > I used to have a colleague that shared your rhetoric and he very much made a big leap in his assumption that people adopting determinism will all of a sudden become metaphorically motionless by thinking the majority will not try to fix people that become ill. I have no problem with determinism as I'm a Compatibilist. I think you've made a few assumptions about what I believe that aren't justified, so if you're actually interested in understanding what I'm saying, you can read my elaboration on free will here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23476919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23476919
    - abellerose 6y ago
      I'm not interested in what a compatibilist thinks. You're illogical by being one if you understand determinism. I'm not implying mob rule and that response makes me think you're a troll. The benefit of treating illnesses outweighs the negatives of not treating illnesses. You're just being illogical or a troll. So no reason for me to continue with you.
      - naasking 6y ago
        I've elaborated elsewhere in this thread on why positions like yours are inadequate and why Compatibilism makes perfect sense. None of the points you've raised so far have any bearing on this. Suffice it to say, Compatibilism is the only sensible conception of free will we currently have, which is why 60% of modern philosophers are Compatibilists. And no, this isn't an argument from authority, this is a suggestion that if the professionals who devote their lives to studying this topic disagree with you, it might be worth questioning your assumptions and reviewing the subject matter more closely.
        abellerose 6y ago
        Your other points in this thread are inadequate. Compatibilism may make perfect sense for you but that doesn't render your opinion correct against someone that disagrees with your definition of free will and the common definition of free will. I find it humorous you're attempting to use mob rule now and which is why I decided to comment. If by any chance you would like to have a discussion by maybe voice? I would very much like to discuss your views vs my own and go over why I'm a hard determinist compared to being a compatibilist such as yourself. I do like to discuss these topics once in awhile with someone over chat. I try to keep an open mind and hopefully learn something new whenever that may be in my fate. Although if you're a person that's fixated on semantics and or just assumes your 60% of philosophers must be right. There isn't much point.
        naasking 6y ago
        > Compatibilism may make perfect sense for you but that doesn't render your opinion correct against someone that disagrees with your definition of free will and the common definition of free will. There is no "common definition" of free will, there are a series of context-specific definitions used in ethics, science, law, theology, etc. and this conflation causes considerable confusion. The notion of a "common definition", often trotted out to dismiss Compatibilism, is simply false. I don't want to be dismissive myself, but I've said my piece about hard determinism here [1] and in other posts. After participating in literally hundreds of debates on this topic on the philosophy subreddit over the years, I don't think I'll hear anything particularly new, and I think I've spent enough time on this thread at this point. I only debate this extensively sometimes because while hard determinism enjoys widespread support among scientifically minded people who conflate "free will" in science with its use in ethics, Compatibilism is unfairly dismissed and misunderstood. Cheers! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482205

naasking 6y ago

> Nobody being responsible doesn't negate rehabilitation for the person that is deranged. There is no way to justify who is deranged without moral blame. There is no victim and no perpetrator. A person who attacked you without provocation is just responding to the environment established by society. Your expectation that you should not be punched in the face is the same. Why is your expectation to not be punched justified over his desire to punch you?

abellerose 6y ago
The approach you’re proposing is illogical that’s why. Although everything is destined, that doesn’t negate the majority desire to treat a person who becomes ill and potentially very sick. Similar as someone that becomes mentally deranged by his/her order of events resulting in being mentally ill. I used to have a colleague that shared your rhetoric and he very much made a big leap in his assumption that people adopting determinism will all of a sudden become metaphorically motionless by thinking the majority will not try to fix people that become ill.
- naasking 6y ago
  > Although everything is destined, that doesn’t negate the majority desire to treat a person who becomes ill and potentially very sick. So majority desires are all that matters? So you agree with mob rule and think the tyranny of the majority is perfectly ok? > I used to have a colleague that shared your rhetoric and he very much made a big leap in his assumption that people adopting determinism will all of a sudden become metaphorically motionless by thinking the majority will not try to fix people that become ill. I have no problem with determinism as I'm a Compatibilist. I think you've made a few assumptions about what I believe that aren't justified, so if you're actually interested in understanding what I'm saying, you can read my elaboration on free will here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23476919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23476919
  - abellerose 6y ago
    I'm not interested in what a compatibilist thinks. You're illogical by being one if you understand determinism. I'm not implying mob rule and that response makes me think you're a troll. The benefit of treating illnesses outweighs the negatives of not treating illnesses. You're just being illogical or a troll. So no reason for me to continue with you.
    - naasking 6y ago
      I've elaborated elsewhere in this thread on why positions like yours are inadequate and why Compatibilism makes perfect sense. None of the points you've raised so far have any bearing on this. Suffice it to say, Compatibilism is the only sensible conception of free will we currently have, which is why 60% of modern philosophers are Compatibilists. And no, this isn't an argument from authority, this is a suggestion that if the professionals who devote their lives to studying this topic disagree with you, it might be worth questioning your assumptions and reviewing the subject matter more closely.
      - abellerose 6y ago
        Your other points in this thread are inadequate. Compatibilism may make perfect sense for you but that doesn't render your opinion correct against someone that disagrees with your definition of free will and the common definition of free will. I find it humorous you're attempting to use mob rule now and which is why I decided to comment. If by any chance you would like to have a discussion by maybe voice? I would very much like to discuss your views vs my own and go over why I'm a hard determinist compared to being a compatibilist such as yourself. I do like to discuss these topics once in awhile with someone over chat. I try to keep an open mind and hopefully learn something new whenever that may be in my fate. Although if you're a person that's fixated on semantics and or just assumes your 60% of philosophers must be right. There isn't much point.
        naasking 6y ago
        > Compatibilism may make perfect sense for you but that doesn't render your opinion correct against someone that disagrees with your definition of free will and the common definition of free will. There is no "common definition" of free will, there are a series of context-specific definitions used in ethics, science, law, theology, etc. and this conflation causes considerable confusion. The notion of a "common definition", often trotted out to dismiss Compatibilism, is simply false. I don't want to be dismissive myself, but I've said my piece about hard determinism here [1] and in other posts. After participating in literally hundreds of debates on this topic on the philosophy subreddit over the years, I don't think I'll hear anything particularly new, and I think I've spent enough time on this thread at this point. I only debate this extensively sometimes because while hard determinism enjoys widespread support among scientifically minded people who conflate "free will" in science with its use in ethics, Compatibilism is unfairly dismissed and misunderstood. Cheers! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482205