Rex Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Brent Meeker<meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>> Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>>> In this case, I am not responsible (common usage) for the fortune or
>>> misfortune that has befallen those who I have stumbled into as a
>>> result of the universe's constant pushiness.
>>>
>>> I AM responsible if we use Dennett's non-standard definition of
>>> "responsible", however.
>>>
>> No you are not, because none of the above hypothetical events were
>> caused by who you are, your brains and experience and values. There
>> would be no point in rewarding or punishing you for those actions
>> because they are not instances of *your* behavior - unless you try to
>> make yourself very big.
>>
>
> So if you want to redefine responsibility in terms of the utilitarian
> applicability of positive and negative reinforcement with the goal of
> producing socially optimal behavior, that's fine with me.
"Redefine"? You haven't defined it at all - you just assert examples
and assert that they are common usage. I think my definition
corresponds very well with common usage.
> But that's
> not the common usage. And I think it would be better to abandon the
> term "responsibility" and go with something less entangled with
> antediluvian notions of libertarian free will...which is basically
> consistent with the common usage.
>
> And again, my question stands with respect to why you introduced that
> quote into this thread.
It seemed apropos of your view that determinism eliminates the self.
Brent
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Aug 31 2009 - 23:17:42 PDT