GregG:
Haha! The dude's handle is "I don't like you"!
As if he had a choice whether to like you, or not, according to his doctrine....
...and it's pretty amusing how determinists like to pretend that causal explanations somehow automatically rule out choice as a functional possibility, and then try to repair responsibility by conflating it with causal explanation...
What a merry-go-round.
I never said I had a free choice, it simply states a condition. Just like saying I am white does not imply a choice.
What is choice? I have choices, as in options. i make choices, as in decisions. But do I have choice, as in free will?
When a printer puts out a document in green instead of black ink do we say, oh well? No, we fix the printer or get a new one. When an animal bites the leg of a person do we just say, oh well? No, we try to rehablitate it or put it down. When a man has a phobia do we say, oh well? No, we encourage him (act as a causal agent) to seek help. When a person kills nother person does it matter whether hehad metaphysical free will? Of course not. How can we hold someone responsible for his actions though? Easily, he is the direct causal agent and represents a threat to others or violation of the rules so he must be punished. Our modern penal system is based on rehabilitation and deterent, principles that fit comfortably into determinism.
Moral and legal responsibility do not rest solely on free-will. However the idea of uncaused and unconditional will that motivates human action is not only fantastical but also keeps us from understanding behavior and crime prevention. After all, a person is a part of the web of casue and effect, so why should the cause of crime and the effect of punishment seem so alien? To claim that we can't hold someone reponsible because he lacks free will assumes that free will exists as an actual standard by which to contrast.
Further Reading:
http://www.naturalism.org/strawson_interview.htm
http://www.naturalism.org/freewill3.htm
http://www.naturalism.org/fatalism.htm