To Asaris: We've admittedly strayed from the initial question, which was essentially a theoretical one, and which, it appears, can only be answered by expressing an opinion, as there seems to be no way to put known or established "facts" together with a known or established logical system that will convincingly resolve the issue one way or the other. So on to addressing your latest contention, by expressing oponion only.
Quote:
|
You've noticed, I'm sure, that there's a difference between how we treat free will as a matter of law and how we treat it as a matter of morality.
|
I'm not sure there's a difference that bears on the initial question. Both "matters" serve the same purpose, often come from the same source, apply to the same behaviors, often have the same penalties. The enforcers involved may be different and there has never been any agreement as to a universally just or equitable set of these laws, civil, criminal or moral. But all, as far as I'm aware, rest on the assumption that there is some degree of free will, and that we all have some degree of control over our actions, and therefor bear responsibilty, even if in varying degrees, for the consequences of our actions, which all of these laws in some way attempt to quantify and codify in the name of justice, fairness, just plain good versus evil, or in the name of your preferred diety.
So I'm not sure what you're getting at, except that if the difference is that morality comes from a diety and "laws" come from society, there is no clear distinction there either. Or is there?
To the idiot: Bite me.