Again, I'm a moral subjectivist, and more specifically I'm basically an emotivist. To emotivists, the reason that anything is right or wrong, morally ...
??? That's not my view. There is no "epistemic possibility" where there is no ontic possibility. An "epistemic possibility" with no ontic possibility ...
How in the world are you figuring that mutilation and "physical effect of them physically existing" would be at all the same thing in my view? (Not to...
But I didn't say I think it's a good thing. It's not an inherently good thing or bad thing. Whether it's a good or bad thing is up to each individual,...
Yeah, but one huge problem with that on my view is that value is always to an individual. I'm a value subjectivist (and an ethical subjectivist, etc.)...
Let's do one thing at a time for a minute (especially because the other thing is going to be long . . . although I explained part of it already above)...
Not unless you have a really unusual definition of antinatalism. Maybe you do. I can't know unless you tell me. Again, I'm not really against the idea...
And the answer is that this is only an issue when we're actually talking about a person, which entails that they have opinions about these sorts of th...
The problem on my view is when someone doesn't want you to do something but you do it anyway. (And once again, also on my view, this is only a problem...
I agree with the consensus that it's okay to do things like operations on them and then wake them up, yes. You'd have a much easier time persuading me...
Irrelevant to whom? Not to me. It can be irrelevant to you. Again, MY concern with consent is when something is done against someone's consent, and th...
It's not an issue of whether you say it. It's an issue of being a person, a sentient being, who has opinions on such things. And not everyone has the ...
I don't get the disposition of people who are so miserable that they see everything, or at least such a significant portion of experience, as sufferin...
That matters because they were a person with opinions about what they'd like done to them prior to being asleep or in a coma. With a baby born who imm...
The ethical issue, in my view, is doing something against one's consent. Being born isn't against one's consent. There is no person to grant or not gr...
My primary interest in the issue is ontological--whether we can actually make choices, and I prefer to focus on the simplest choices for that--whether...
That's kind of indicative of something I consider an all-too-common folly--the fact that we're so self-centered at times. We even have a word ("histor...
Which I'd agree with in the sense that I'm a universal/natural kind antirealist. I'm a nominalist. Your "support" of "top down" (or "high-level")/"bot...
Our understanding is irrelevant to whether possibilities or free will obtain. And our understanding of what we are intentionally doing can be part of ...
It's not the case that it's not nonsense ontologically just because a lot of people are talking about it. It's not that I'm stumping for "low level ca...
What makes it an epistemological issue is that you're talking about explanations, understanding, what our physical laws can do, etc. Aren't you the us...
"Top down" and "bottom up" are nonsensical ontologically. They might make sense re how some people think about causal relations, but they'd have no co...
What you're addressing in this passage is an epistemic issue. That's why you're conflating an epistemic and an ontological issue. Whether possibilitie...
That's obvious. That's not going to stop me from commenting on it. In my opinion it's a problem that people are so logorrheic and unfocused. Other peo...
Your exeternal observer is an external ideal observer, right?--Hence Laplacean. So how can it be the case that both there is only one possibility to t...
If you can't communicate like you're having a conversation rather than someone with some sort of logorrheic disorder there is something wrong with you...
Why must you type such long responses regardless of how short my replies are? Is it some sort of psychological inability to keep things short as if yo...
I don't at all agree with that claim though. Re your two different types of possibilities, I'd say that (2) is simply a subset of (1) . . . Unless I'm...
Are you saying that in your view they obtain somehow (or whatever word you'd use) but they don't exist? In my ontology there are no real abstracts. Ab...
The actual causal structure of anything (at least under determinism) is a deterministic processes that is causal-chains of physical events, by the way...
I haven't the faintest idea what this is saying. But that "misconstrual" is what the debate is tradtionally about. Anyway, a lot of what you're typing...
Yes. If you posit any possibility other than one, it's inconsistent with determinism. Say what? Maybe if you added more prepositional phrases to that,...
I disagree. It is not consistent with determinism. The only thing consistent with determinism in the original debate, where we're not changing the sub...
Not without doing research for it (that would collate a lot of different materials, etc.). I'm not simply reporting something I just read off the Inte...
I don't know if they would more than any other sports figure. And especially given that we're talking about McEnroe--it's not as if he doesn't have a ...
Re freedom, the debate was originally about whether given some antecedent state, A, was there more than one immediately following, incompatible conseq...
It would be silly to frame the whole thing around the "could have done otherwise" phrase. You can just state it as "there is more than one possibility...
Comments