free will

[chomsky53]

let us take these 4 assumptions as true
1.) determinism is true
2.) determinism shows that people do not have free will
3.) in order for us to have morality we must be able to say people have free will
4.) i want to vidicate morality in my answer to the questions below

what form must the answer to this dilemma take? if this is too easy explain the answer that emerges given these formal constrains.

david, if you can do either i will stop harassing you.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

1.) determinism is true
2.) determinism shows that people do not have free will
3.) in order for us to have morality we must be able to say people have free will


[/ QUOTE ]

clearly 1,2,3 lead us logically to conclude that "we don't have morality"

Thus someone holding to 1,2,3 would be inconsistant in holding also to "having morality" whatever that means.

Though you'd probably be better off defining your terms and what you mean by "determinism" and "free will." I also don't see what "having morality" means or has to do with "free will" (whatever that means as well).

[xniNja]

This flies logically under his assumptions, but I think you need more premises, better analysis, or at least an explanation of how "determinism is true," it's specific relationship to free will and how we define an action, and finally, any connection between the same and morality must be spelled out; it's not obvious.

To debunk this "proof" one really wouldn't have to go past 1.

[chomsky53]

you are right i am missing a premise
let us take these 5 assumptions as true
1.) determinism is true
2.) determinism shows that people do not have free will
3.) in order for us to have morality we must be able to say people have free will
4.) i want to vindicate morality in my answer to the questions below
5.) because i believe determinism is true and because of my belief in premise 2-4 i now need to have sufficient reason in order to vindicate morality.

alright as to the second poster. to say the argument can end if you show why premise 1 is incorrect is to miss the point. the point is to solve the problem given 1-5 are correct. as to what determinism is its probably not worth my time to explain if you dont know as you probably cant figure the problem out. but ill say this you can solve the problem if you know determinism gets its reasons from science. also this isnt a logic problem it is an ethics question. though i understand the premises may seem as though the a conclusion that vindicates morality is logically inconsistent that is only because you havent thought clearly about the premises. so there is a hint too.

what form must the answer to this dilemma take? if this is too easy explain the answer that emerges given these formal constrains.

also david, challenge is still on.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

you are right i am missing a premise
let us take these 5 assumptions as true
1.) determinism is true
2.) determinism shows that people do not have free will
3.) in order for us to have morality we must be able to say people have free will
4.) i want to vindicate morality in my answer to the questions below
5.) because i believe determinism is true and because of my belief in premise 2-4 i now need to have sufficient reason in order to vindicate morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a proper restatement of your premises? Your language is very ambiguous.

1. Determinism is true.
2. if determinism is true then free will does not exist
3. if absolute morality exists, then free will must exist

But now it doesn't matter what 4 and 5 are. Even if you want absolute morality, your beliefs in 1-3 preclude you logically from claiming that both determinism and absolute morality are true/exist. Of course, you could always live an inconsistant life like everyone else (humans are by nature inconsistant, as David has pointed out over and over again).

OR

You could demonstrate one of those statements are false.

Since determinism is contradictory to free will, you can establish the existance of free will to prove determinism false. Though as to what free will means, I don't think I've heard anyone define it yet.

You can also show that the existence of absolute morality does not necessarily imply free will (which seems so obvious to me I am confused as to why this is a premise to begin with)

Or you can call it a "paradox" or a "mystery" and throw your hands up in confusion.

[chomsky53]

yall are correct. i should have taken your charges that the conclusion would have to be inconsistent more seriously. this is my fault. i think im my ambition not to give up the game i made the game hopelessly vague. premises 235 can be revised everything else i said stands.
1.) determinism is true
2.) if determinism is true it shows that people are not free.
3.) in order for us to have morality we must be able to think of each other as free
4.) i want to vindicate morality in my answer to the questions below
5.) because i believe determinism is true and because of my belief in premise 2-4 i now need to have sufficient reason think of individuals as free in order to vindicate morality.

again im sorry. these revisions offer sufficient clarification in order to say what form the answer must take. again denying the premises is not the point.

Here's a good one for it:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

[chomsky53]

i didnt read this but the response to the dilemma i pose exists in the literature. i answer it in a neo-Kantian way following Christine Korsgaard and others. though Kant's original thoughts are sufficient for answering the dilemma as presented. though i was curious to see if people could figure out the problem on their own. or at least read up on it. as this form is nothing more than uneducated douche bags boldly providing opinions on things thus far. regardless im interested to see if someone can figure it out.

[slickpoppa]

I would just like to point out that modern physics says that determinism is not true.

[chomsky53]

nothing yall have said is relevent conclude anyway you would like on the things you have said. there is still a problem. you just keep saying it is inconsistent.people think it would be inconsistent to think we can still think of individuals as having free will but it is not. figure it [censored] out or shut the [censored] up. dont keep repeating the fact that you cant figure it out. if its really that puzzling to you i gave u speciffic refrences you can consult about it if you know you cant figure it out. im just curious to know if any of yall can. again you can read the neo-Kantian literature on free will speciffically Christine Korsgaard. Kant himself can answer the question in a slightly different and more contreversial way. as the the physics thing ill assume your right i dont care really the discussion is a very interesting one. ill post a clue or two tomorrow. but please stop saying it cant be solved. it can you just cant see why. i can tell you this the full solution has its critics but the form the answer can take is widely agreed on.