/lit/ - Literature

>>13654801
Hi anon. My rough definition of free will is

>the ability, right up until the point I did X, to have done non-X instead

My argument for it is:
>(1) If there are any true moral claims, then at least some people have free will some of the time
>(2) But there are true moral claims (e.g. You shouldn't throw a baby into boiling water just for the fun of it)
>Therefore...

I defend (1) by saying that claims such as
>You shouldn't throw a baby into boiling water just for the fun of it
aren't false so much as meaningless if we don't have a choice in the matter. It would be like telling stones they shouldn't fall.

I defend (2) by appealing to the intuition that there is no possible world in which
>You shouldn't throw a baby into boiling water just for the fun of it
comes out false. I say it's straightforwardly true, and isn't a disguised preference or whatever. This is a pretty weak defence, I admit, but there you go.

>>13210336
Good question. I can't. I can only say that some choose one thing, and some choose another.