RJG wrote:If free-will does not exist, then we have no choice in the actions we take. Our actions therefore are just auto-reactions that are then consciously realized. Although we may be "physically" responsible, we certainly are not "morally" responsible for these actions.
If there is no free-will, then there is no "morality" or "moral responsibility".
Burning ghost wrote:My position is simple enough. I am not saying that we do have free will for sure only that we act as if we do and that to take on the role of someone not living with free will at all (as a dogmatic and unsubstantiated belief) is immoral.
...To take on the belief that there is no morality is a type of nihilism.
RJG wrote:...are mechanical clocks "morally responsible"?
If their movements/actions are purely deterministic, then can they (the clocks) be held "morally responsible" for their actions?
If human movements/actions are purely deterministic, then can we humans be held "morally responsible" for our actions?
What's the difference? If both sets of actions are purely deterministic, then why is one held "morally responsible", and not the other?
Burning ghost wrote:...evasion and refusal to accept that people use different terminology.
That's funny, I see it the other way around. It seems to me that YOU are "evading/refusing" to answer a direct question(s) that could help clarify the confusion. There is no "evasion and refusal" on my part. I just want to understand your absolute adherence of claiming "moral responsibility" with entities that do not possess free-will. It seems to me, that your insistence of "moral responsibility" is somehow connected to your dislike of "nihilism" (...and not to any sound logic!).
Burning ghost wrote:RJG - Do you think your response has substance relating to what I wrote?
Yes, absolutely! My response was an attempt to get to the root of (and understand) what you wrote. In this case (in my response) I was asking a simple question -- Are non free-will entities (such as clocks) "morally responsible" for their actions? ...better yet, if you could just directly answer the 4 simple questions in my response, that would help a bunch with clarity.
Burning ghost wrote:I’m not the one making absolute claims here and saying this or that is “irrefutable”.
Aren't you? Aren't you making the "absolute claim" that moral responsibility exists even if there is no free will? ...but of course, I have no problem with you making this claim, and even calling it "irrefutable" so long as you can back it up with sound logic, ...which of course there is none, yet?, ...I'm still waiting for you to present your logic which shows how clocks and other non-free-will objects can be held morally responsible for their actions.
Again, it seems that your insistence of "moral responsibility" is somehow connected to your dislike of "nihilism". ...is this true?
Belindi wrote:Likewise with humans, our freedom to do morally responsible actions is limited by our knowledge and power to do so. For instance a baby has no morally responsibility as it has no power. A slave has less moral responsibility as a slave is probably not empowered by social status and probably not by knowledge either.
Belindi, here it sounds like you are agreeing with me, that without free-will there can be no moral responsibility
. Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that if we are slaves, then we do not have the "power" to choose our actions, and therefore have no moral responsibility. -- or, to have moral responsibility, we must first have the "power" to choose our actions, so as to then be held "morally responsible" for them.
In other words, we can't be blamed/praised (held responsible) for those choices that we DIDN'T make