/lit/ - Literature

>>13654801
>>13655812
Here's another pro-free will argument before I go to bed:
>(1) If no one ever has free will with respect to any of their actions, then it is not appropriate to blame people for their actions.
>(2) But sometimes it is appropriate to blame people for their actions
>Therefore...

(Again) I define free will:
>I have free will with respect to my action X iff I was able, right up until the time I did X, to have done non-X instead
I defend (1):
>If no one has free will with respect to any of their actions, then their actions are not up to them
>If their actions are not up to them, then it is not appropriate to blame people for their actions
>Therefore (1)
I defend (2) with examples: murder, cheating on your wife, torturing puppies. I say intuitively we *should* blame people who do this kind of thing.

By 'blame' I mean specifically the attitude of judgement we have with regard to some action or other. I don't mean punishment, which your determinist can justify on the ground of deterrence.

This argument isn't going to convince many people (who don't already accept the conclusion), because it appeals to intuition and takes some kind of straightforward moral truth (rather than emotivism or something like that) for granted. But it's good enough for me.

Also, no appeal to divinity, so I'll take my bonus points.