Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jamesj t1_j98b5pb wrote

This all makes sense. I suppose that I think that the compatibilist redefinition of the terms make everything less literal and more metaphorical, and it is less in line with what I believe most people mean by the terms, "free will", "morally responsible", and "choose". Also, there's often a real difference in belief between us: I really don't think anyone is in any important sense "morally responsible". This means I support preventative justice but I don't support retributive justice.

7

Nameless1995 t1_j98cadp wrote

> I suppose that I think that the compatibilist redefinition of the terms make everything less literal and more metaphorical

I think that again brings the same question what is supposed to be the original "literal" sense in the first place and what would be the criteria to find it.

> it is less in line with what I believe most people mean by the terms, "free will", "morally responsible", and "choose".

Could be. But I see that as an empirical claim that would require experiments, interventions, survey to determine. I am neutral to how that will turn out.

> Also, there's often a real difference in belief between us: I really don't think anyone is in any important sense "morally responsible". This means I support preventative justice but I don't support retributive justice.

Same.

7