The Problem Of Evil?

[Machinist]

Of course it does. Well materialistic determinism would.

And theistic determinism wouldn't have a point.

[seer]

And theistic determinism wouldn't have a point.

There would be a difference between a rational Creator determining our cognitive functions and non-rational forces determining our mental abilities. One intends for, or aims at, our rational capability - the other does neither.

[Stoic]

What would be true? That it would seem so as far as any one could tell?

If your actions were completely determined, it would feel as though your mind was free to make choices, as long as you were able to do what you wanted to do.

This is why there has been no widespread agreement on libertarian free will. No one has been able to come up with a test that would discriminate between having it and not having it.

[seer]

No one has been able to come up with a test that would discriminate between having it and not having it.

So why not just assume that we do? If you assume that we don't, there goes our legal system and all moral blame and praise.

[Stoic]

So why not just assume that we do?

I don't see a reason to assume that we have libertarian free will.

If you assume that we don't, there goes our legal system and all moral blame and praise.

I can assume that we don't have libertarian free will, and still justify our legal system, along with moral blame and praise. YMMV.

[Machinist]

There would be a difference between a rational Creator determining our cognitive functions and non-rational forces determining our mental abilities. One intends for, or aims at, our rational capability - the other does neither.

Of course. It just wouldn't seem to have a point IMO other than God entertaining Himself.

[seer]

I don't see a reason to assume that we have libertarian free will.

Except everyday experience.

I can assume that we don't have libertarian free will, and still justify our legal system, along with moral blame and praise. YMMV.

There is no justice left. You can jail the rapist to protect society - but it would not be just to jail a man for what he could not help but to do. And on what basis would you blame such a man?

[seer]

Of course. It just wouldn't seem to have a point IMO other than God entertaining Himself.

That may be, but as far as rationality goes, God is the better, or perhaps only, option.

[Stoic]

Except everyday experience.

Everyday experience is consistent with both having and not having LFW.

There is no justice left. You can jail the rapist to protect society - but it would not be just to jail a man for what he could not help but to do.

He could do otherwise if he wanted to. Perhaps he couldn't want to do otherwise, but maybe jail can help with that.

And on what basis would you blame such a man?

You could jail him to make it less likely that he will want to do the same thing in the future, and also to make it less likely that others would want to do the same thing.

[seer]

He could do otherwise if he wanted to. Perhaps he couldn't want to do otherwise, but maybe jail can help with that.

That still is not just - you jail the man for doing what he couldn't help.

You could jail him to make it less likely that he will want to do the same thing in the future, and also to make it less likely that others would want to do the same thing.

Or you make him more bitter and cruel.

[Stoic]

That still is not just - you jail the man for doing what he couldn't help.

That may depend on your definition of "just". If he was not coerced in some way, and is capable of knowing right from wrong, and gets the same punishment as anyone else would who committed the same crime, I would consider it just.

Or you make him more bitter and cruel.

That's one thing to consider. But even if that happened, the possibility of deterring others, along with keeping him away from potential victims, would likely be justification enough.

[seer]

That may depend on your definition of "just". If he was not coerced in some way, and is capable of knowing right from wrong, and gets the same punishment as anyone else would who committed the same crime, I would consider it just.

Capable of knowing right from wrong, while having no natural ability to act on the right is a meaningless distinction.

That's one thing to consider. But even if that happened, the possibility of deterring others, along with keeping him away from potential victims, would likely be justification enough.

Except you are still taking away a man's freedom for doing what he could help but to do. You consider that just, I do not.

[Stoic]

Capable of knowing right from wrong, while having no natural ability to act on the right is a meaningless distinction.

Since what you know influences what you do, it seems meaningful.

Except you are still taking away a man's freedom for doing what he could help but to do. You consider that just, I do not.

I'm taking away a man's freedom for doing what he wanted to do, even knowing what the consequences might be. Yes, I consider that just.

[seer]

Since what you know influences what you do, it seems meaningful.

How can what you know, concepts, influence the deterministic forces that cause you to act?

I'm taking away a man's freedom for doing what he wanted to do, even knowing what the consequences might be. Yes, I consider that just.

Except in your would both the want and the act are determined...

[Stoic]

How can what you know, concepts, influence the deterministic forces that cause you to act?

If what I know is encoded as particles and forces, the answer is pretty obvious. Forces can influence other forces.

Same as the information stored as electric and magnetic fields in a computer can influence the behavior of any machine that computer is controlling.

Except in your would both the want and the act are determined...

Right.