A revolution in thought

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did say all his claims are true, and I have given a compelling argument. What's with you? Have you been sleeping for two years?

I was being sarcastic. I know you've asserted repeatedly that all his claims are true. But, no, neither you nor he has made a compelling argument for them anywhere that I have seen.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, chapter two has the claim that conscience works that way, but does not make a case for assuming that claim is correct. I see you chose option 2: evasion. You just say "It is there somewhere but I cannot be bothered to point it out".

Of course he makes the claim as to how conscience works, but he explains why he makes said claim

,

Actually, he does not. I challenge you to find anywhere in the book where he explains what he bases his claim on. It is simply not there.

and gives examples of what exactly takes place when someone does something considered wrong by others.

That is simply the claim. If I explain what happens when the toothfairy comes around, then I am simply elaborating my claim that the toothfairy exists and collects teeth. I am not explaining why I believe she exists.

I swear I don't know what your problem is.

This entire post is another evasive answer: we still do not know why we should believe conscience works that way. Why do you not just answer the question?

All that is is your default position when you can't back up your statements with anything better.

Au contraire: the lack of a reason to believe conscience works that way makes my statement perfectly factual.

[Adam]

I think LadyShea hit it on the head here. Peacegirl, what Vivisectus is saying is the same thing I was saying when I complained that you glossed over X (establishing Lessans' claims regarding free will) in order to talk about Y (the implications of Lessans' claims regarding free will, if they are true). You get that no one is asking you to explain how Lessans' beliefs work, right? We're asking you to provide some justification for believing they are true in the first place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I was being sarcastic. I know you've asserted repeatedly that all his claims are true. But, no, neither you nor he has made a compelling argument for them anywhere that I have seen.

So why don't you ask questions instead of assume that there is no compelling argument just because you didn't see it the first time around?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think LadyShea hit it on the head here. Peacegirl, what Vivisectus is saying is the same thing I was saying when I complained that you glossed over X (establishing Lessans' claims regarding free will) in order to talk about Y (the implications of Lessans' claims regarding free will, if they are true). You get that no one is asking you to explain how Lessans' beliefs work, right? We're asking you to provide some justification for believing they are true in the first place.

Adam, Lessans gave very explicit and accurate reasons for why man's will is not free. Do you even know what they are?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

,

Actually, he does not. I challenge you to find anywhere in the book where he explains what he bases his claim on. It is simply not there.

He describes how conscience works and gives numerous examples as to how people are able to justify their actions.

and gives examples of what exactly takes place when someone does something considered wrong by others.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is simply the claim. If I explain what happens when the toothfairy comes around, then I am simply elaborating my claim that the toothfairy exists and collects teeth. I am not explaining why I believe she exists.

He gives example after example to show the role conscience plays in any interaction that may lead to a first blow. The problem is that some people don't appear to have a conscience or a justification for what they do. But if you look deeper into their background, you can always find one.

All that is is your default position when you can't back up your statements with anything better.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Au contraire: the lack of a reason to believe conscience works that way makes my statement perfectly factual.

But there is a reason to believe conscience works this way. This is getting old.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Judging people on their words and actions and judging people on the color of their skin are very, very, very different. That you don't see this difference is very odd.

All of my judgments are based on people's behavior, not on any traits that are out of their control or ability to influence or change.

LadyShea, calling people names because they hold a certain position is really no different than calling people names who are of a different color. People don't change their position because that's what they believe in, therefore to criticize them is like criticizing them for their eye color. If you're honest with yourself, criticizing someone just because they don't agree with your opinion is ignorant and a way to put others down so you can feel superior.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And since all those other traits are not accessible on an internet forum, only their words, those other traits are not a factor in Judging another persons worth. You can't even judge their actions, only the act of posting words on a screen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Putting thoughts into words and advocating for positions etc. are actions, though

Words are expressions of what people believe. Judging their beliefs on the basis of what you know to be true is one thing; judging their worth as human beings is quite another. You're getting the two mixed up.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As long as you can justify giving your child vaccines on an ever increasing vaccine schedule, then do so. No one in the new world is going to tell you what to do. So there's no reason to be so defensive Lone Ranger.

She thinks I'm defensive!


I do have to confess that I find it somewhat appalling that you're literally arguing for your right to endanger other people's children, based upon your astonishingly ignorant "understanding" of how vaccination and immunity work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You do not understand... these are TOXINS!!1!! And they have not been tested for COMBINATION RISK!!11!!

Toxin certainly sounds bad. So does combination risk.

But then again - what about the combination risk of the hundreds of regular stuff that updates our immune system on a daily basis? What about the toxins we are exposed to on a daily basis? Has anyone measured the "exposure time" of the normal rate antibodies are introduced into our system - I reckon we are under a continuous "onslaught" already, and vaccines are the least of our problems!

But hang on - if the "onslaught" of a few hundred a day is natural (and actually, unnaturally low if you define "natural" as "what we would be exposed to in our natural state, IE as low-tech hunter gatherers", then the problem is not that the "artificial" adding to them is happening in an increased rate... it is actually that they are too low!

Also, the story of the carcinogenic adjuvants is old hat that has been debunked long ago. Not only was the substance in question not in the specific vaccine that triggered that story at all, but even if it was, there is no known study that clearly links them to cancer risks.The ones used in childhood vaccines have been used for decades now, and there is no data to suggest they result in an elevated risk of cancer.

Once again, you've gotten off tangent. I am not telling anyone not to give their children vaccines if they think this is the way to go. The only thing that will change in the new world is that doctors themselves will give the pros and cons and leave it up to parents to make the decision. Vaccines will not be mandatory. Why would a doctor take the risk of recommending a vaccine to a family if there is even the slightest possibility that a child could be injured or even die due to his recommendation? There would be no reason, especially when his income is guaranteed never to go down.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Adam, Lessans gave very explicit and accurate reasons for why man's will is not free. Do you even know what they are?

I know what his argument is, yes. I've already dissected it at least once with no real response from you, but here we go again. I don't actually have the book anywhere, so I'm going off of memory from back when it was posted as a PDF.

He begins by defining free will as a faculty to make moral choices, specifically to choose between "good" and "evil". That's not really what your average person on the street typically means when they say "free will", but it's not a completely idiosyncratic definition, so, so far, so good.

He goes on to equivocate a bit between different senses of the words "good" and "evil", and ends up settling on something like personal utility as his working definition. So, his use of the term "free will" ends up meaning, roughly, the ability to choose between one's preference and something other than one's preference.

He then talks about what he calls the Motion of Life, which ends up being an obfuscated way to restate the trivial observation that whatever a person chooses is, by definition, their preference at the time the choice was made . Oddly, he describes this as a "compulsion" to have chosen that thing, but I think he's just using "compulsion" in an unusual sense to refer to the factors that cause any given choice.

So, having defined free will such that the ability to choose something other than one's own preference is essential to it, and having trivially observed that, by definition (i.e. tautologically), it is impossible to choose something other than one's own preference, he concludes that free will is not a thing.

This is not a compelling argument. It's just an idiosyncratic definition (nobody else considers the ability to choose something other than one's own preference to be essential to free will) coupled with a trivial observation (one's preference is defined as whatever one would choose, so whatever one chooses is by definition one's preference) to produce a tautologically true conclusion.

Now, can you address my objections here? Note that I'm not asking you about the rest of Lessans' ideas. I don't want to hear about how the most important part is that, when you combine his notion of free will not existing with his notion about how conscience works, you get changed conditions and no possibility of blah blah blah. I want you to defend his argument for the non-existence of free will. If that foundational portion of his idea doesn't even stand, then the rest of it has nothing to rest on.

For the record, I don't actually believe in libertarian free will. It's just that the argument Lessans makes is hilariously bad.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you've gotten off tangent. I am not telling anyone not to give their children vaccines if they think this is the way to go. The only thing that will change in the new world is that doctors themselves will give the pros and cons and leave it up to parents to make the decision. Vaccines will not be mandatory. Why would a doctor take the risk of recommending a vaccine to a family if there is even the slightest possibility that a child could be injured or even die due to his recommendation? There would be no reason, especially when his income is guaranteed never to go down.

Do you know what a free rider is?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

She thinks I'm defensive!


I do have to confess that I find it somewhat appalling that you're literally arguing for your right to endanger other people's children, based upon your astonishingly ignorant "understanding" of how vaccination and immunity work.

You obviously did not watch this video. Vaccinated children may not be completely protected either, and unvaccinated children may have enough immunity to be protected, so to blame only the unvaccinated children for a disease outbreak is a biased view. Secondly, it is the right of every person to do what they feel is right for their families; not to have to sacrifice their well-being for the sake of the group.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...exemption.aspx

[The Lone Ranger]

Good googgly-moogly! Are you actually as ignorant as you claim? I honestly find that difficult to believe.

[Adam]

Similarly, I don't see why I shouldn't keep boxes of gasoline soaked rags all around my house. It would be costly for me to clean them up, and I might accidentally start a fire if I start messing with them. Besides, there's no guarantee that they'll ever catch fire, and it's certainly possible that my neighbor's house might catch fire on its own, despite her having chosen not to store gasoline soaked rags in it. It is very biased to blame only me for increasing the risk of a fire that devastates the entire neighborhood. It is my right to do what I believe is best, and not have to sacrifice my own well-being for the good of the neighborhood.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Do you know what a free rider is?

I don't think getting a free ride on the heels of the vaccinated is a fair analysis. Bottom line: no one knows which child will be hurt by a particular vaccine, and there have been children who have been hurt. I hope you're not denying this. No one knows which child will be the next one to have a catastrophic reaction; and who has the right to tell a parent that he must take this risk, or else? That isn't up to government. All of this coercion by government is coming to an end eventually, so this won't even be an issue.

[Adam]

It absolutely is a free ride. Yes, there is a small risk associated with vaccination. Some people have legitimate medical reasons to avoid them. But, even if you choose not to be vaccinated yourself, or not to vaccinate your child, you benefit from nearly everyone else having taken that risk and, in fact, rely on their having done so in order not to catch deadly or debilitating illnesses. So, getting a crucial benefit that was paid for by nearly everyone but you. Sounds like a free ride to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Similarly, I don't see why I shouldn't keep boxes of gasoline soaked rags all around my house. It would be costly for me to clean them up, and I might accidentally start a fire if I start messing with them. Besides, there's no guarantee that they'll ever catch fire, and it's certainly possible that my neighbor's house might catch fire on its own, despite her having chosen not to store gasoline soaked rags in it. It is very biased to blame only me for increasing the risk of a fire that devastates the entire neighborhood. It is my right to do what I believe is best, and not have to sacrifice my own well-being for the good of the neighborhood.

This is a poor analogy. If there is the possibility that you could set your neighbor's house on fire as a result of carelessly leaving boxes of gasoline soaked rags all around your house, then you would never allow yourself to do this because the potential danger would be too great to risk, and all of the reasoning in favor of keeping the rags in your home would never suffice. On the other hand, there is no direct correlation between a few unvaccinated children and the mass hysteria that has ensued. As I stated in the last post to Lone Ranger, even children who are vaccinated are not always fully protected and may therefore be responsible for an outbreak. By the same token, an unvaccinated child may have protection from a particular disease due his natural immunity so you cannot blame everything on the unvaccinated.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

It absolutely is a free ride. Yes, there is a small risk associated with vaccination. Some people have legitimate medical reasons to avoid them. But, even if you choose not to be vaccinated yourself, or not to vaccinate your child, you benefit from nearly everyone else having taken that risk and, in fact, rely on their having done so in order not to catch deadly or debilitating illnesses. So, getting a crucial benefit that was paid for by nearly everyone but you. Sounds like a free ride to me.

No matter how you slice it, children have been hurt by vaccines. Some children have been helped; I'm not denying this. If a good case is made for a particular vaccine, then a parent will see this and get their child vaccinated. But some parents will not because they are more afraid that the vaccine could cause unforeseen harm, which is a risk they don't want to take. Who can give 100% guarantees that there won't be a negative outcome without playing God? In the new world a parent will be given the pros and cons of getting their child vaccinated, but it will be up to the parent to make this decision because no doctor in his right mind would want to be responsible for making a child worse. If a doctor tells a parent what to do, and something happens to the child, he would have to live with the guilt since he would not be blamed or punished for his mistake in making the recommendation. Therefore, doctors will want to offer the most up-to-date information, and leave it up to the parents to decide. Parents are the best advocates for their children and will always do what they believe is in their children's best interest.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a poor analogy. If there is the possibility that you could set your neighbor's house on fire as a result of carelessly leaving boxes of gasoline soaked rags all around your house, then you would never allow yourself to do this because the potential danger would be too great to risk, and all of the reasoning in favor of keeping the rags in your home would never suffice. On the other hand, there is no direct correlation between a few unvaccinated children and the mass hysteria that has ensued. As I stated in the last post to Lone Ranger, even children who are vaccinated are not always fully protected and may therefore be responsible for an outbreak. By the same token, an unvaccinated child may have protection from a particular disease due his natural immunity so you cannot blame everything on the unvaccinated.

Who says I'm leaving them around carelessly? I've watched several videos on the internet about storing gasoline soaked rags, and thought quite a bit about it, and come to my own beliefs. I think you need to look at all the facts, and stop being so biased. As I stated in my last post, even houses that are not full of gasoline soaked rags may have fire hazards of their own, and therefore those homeowners may be responsible for the outbreak of a fire. By the same token, even a house full of gasoline soaked rags may never catch fire, due to the natural care the homeowner takes with open flames, so you cannot blame everything on the people who choose to store boxes of gasoline soaked rags in their homes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I know what his argument is, yes. I've already dissected it at least once with no real response from you, but here we go again. I don't actually have the book anywhere, so I'm going off of memory from back when it was posted as a PDF.

He begins by defining free will as a faculty to make moral choices, specifically to choose between "good" and "evil". That's not really what your average person on the street typically means when they say "free will", but it's not a completely idiosyncratic definition, so, so far, so good.

If you discuss this issue with anyone who has studied the free will/determinism debate in any depth, it always boils down to good and evil, for that is the issue at stake, and why this debate is important to a lot of people. This was the part of the definition.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do.

Originally Posted by Adam

He goes on to equivocate a bit between different senses of the words "good" and "evil", and ends up settling on something like personal utility as his working definition. So, his use of the term "free will" ends up meaning, roughly, the ability to choose between one's preference and something other than one's preference.

All he said is that the words good and evil have reference to oneself.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 56 The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason
someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this
against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live
under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to
take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,
by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own
life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his
problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which
means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more
satisfying.

For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes
off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up,
go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of
the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.
Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to
work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on
his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils
to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when
he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one
thing than another.

Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law
of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications.

The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.

Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will.

What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.

Originally Posted by Adam

He then talks about what he calls the Motion of Life, which ends up being an obfuscated way to restate the trivial observation that whatever a person chooses is, by definition, their preference at the time the choice was made . Oddly, he describes this as a "compulsion" to have chosen that thing, but I think he's just using "compulsion" in an unusual sense to refer to the factors that cause any given choice.

But it IS a compulsion to choose that which is most preferable. You cannot choose that which is the least preferable (according to your particular set of circumstances) in any situation where two or more alternatives are available.

Originally Posted by Adam

So, having defined free will such that the ability to choose something other than one's own preference is essential to it, and having trivially observed that, by definition (i.e. tautologically), it is impossible to choose something other than one's own preference, he concludes that free will is not a thing.

If you can only move in one direction, which is to choose that which gives you greater satisfaction, how can your will be free? Free will implies being able to choose one or the other without any compulsion toward one or the other. Any time there is a differential preference between two options, you are compelled to choose the option that is most preferred. rendering all other options an impossibility at that moment in time.

Originally Posted by Adam

This is not a compelling argument. It's just an idiosyncratic definition (nobody else considers the ability to choose something other than one's own preference to be essential to free will) coupled with a trivial observation (one's preference is defined as whatever one would choose, so whatever one chooses is by definition one's preference) to produce a tautologically true conclusion.

As I stated earlier, the fact that whatever one chooses is by definition one's preference does not explain a deeper truth. As you get into the two-sided equation, you can begin to see its significance.

Originally Posted by Adam

Now, can you address my objections here? Note that I'm not asking you about the rest of Lessans' ideas. I don't want to hear about how the most important part is that, when you combine his notion of free will not existing with his notion about how conscience works, you get changed conditions and no possibility of blah blah blah. I want you to defend his argument for the non-existence of free will. If that foundational portion of his idea doesn't even stand, then the rest of it has nothing to rest on.

You're right about that. His claim of no free will must be accurate for the rest of his book to have a leg to stand on. But it is accurate. The only difficulty is getting everyone to see that this is not a theory, but a fact.

Originally Posted by Adam

For the record, I don't actually believe in libertarian free will. It's just that the argument Lessans makes is hilariously bad.

No it's not. You just don't understand why, out of all the propositions that philosophers down through the ages have come up with, his is the most accurate and is the key that opens the door to another door which leads to his discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Who says I'm leaving them around carelessly? I've watched several videos on the internet about storing gasoline soaked rags, and thought quite a bit about it, and come to my own beliefs. I think you need to look at all the facts, and stop being so biased. As I stated in my last post, even houses that are not full of gasoline soaked rags may have fire hazards of their own, and therefore those homeowners may be responsible for the outbreak of a fire. By the same token, even a house full of gasoline soaked rags may never catch fire, due to the natural care the homeowner takes with open flames, so you cannot blame everything on the people who choose to store boxes of gasoline soaked rags in their homes.

Who is blaming you? Why do you keep talking about blame? No one is telling you what to do. In the new world, if you want to store gasoline soaked rags in your home because you see the benefits, then by all means do so. Each homeowner has to be responsible for their home. Obviously, if there is a fire it doesn't necessarily mean that your gasoline soaked rags caused it, but if someone gets hurt, and you aren't sure if your gasoline soaked rags were involved, you will have to live with this doubt because no one will be blaming you or questioning you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I know what his argument is, yes. I've already dissected it at least once with no real response from you, but here we go again. I don't actually have the book anywhere, so I'm going off of memory from back when it was posted as a PDF.

He begins by defining free will as a faculty to make moral choices, specifically to choose between "good" and "evil". That's not really what your average person on the street typically means when they say "free will", but it's not a completely idiosyncratic definition, so, so far, so good.

If you discuss this issue with anyone who has studied the free will/determinism debate in any depth, it always boils down to good and evil, for that is the issue at stake, and why this debate is important to a lot of people. This was the part of the definition.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do.

Originally Posted by Adam

He goes on to equivocate a bit between different senses of the words "good" and "evil", and ends up settling on something like personal utility as his working definition. So, his use of the term "free will" ends up meaning, roughly, the ability to choose between one's preference and something other than one's preference.

All he said is that the words good and evil have reference to oneself.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 56 The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason
someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this
against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live
under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to
take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,
by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own
life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his
problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which
means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more
satisfying. For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes
off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up,
go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of
the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.
Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to
work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on
his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils
to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when
he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one
thing than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law
of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to. Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.

Originally Posted by Adam

He then talks about what he calls the Motion of Life, which ends up being an obfuscated way to restate the trivial observation that whatever a person chooses is, by definition, their preference at the time the choice was made . Oddly, he describes this as a "compulsion" to have chosen that thing, but I think he's just using "compulsion" in an unusual sense to refer to the factors that cause any given choice.

But it IS a compulsion to choose that which is most preferable. You cannot choose that which is the least preferable (according to your particular set of circumstances) in any situation where two or more alternatives are available.

Originally Posted by Adam

So, having defined free will such that the ability to choose something other than one's own preference is essential to it, and having trivially observed that, by definition (i.e. tautologically), it is impossible to choose something other than one's own preference, he concludes that free will is not a thing.

If you can only move in one direction, which is to choose that which gives you greater satisfaction, how can your will be free? Free will implies being able to choose one or the other without any compulsion toward one or the other. Any time there is a differential preference between two options, you are compelled to choose the option that is most preferred. rendering all other options an impossibility at that moment in time.

Originally Posted by Adam

This is not a compelling argument. It's just an idiosyncratic definition (nobody else considers the ability to choose something other than one's own preference to be essential to free will) coupled with a trivial observation (one's preference is defined as whatever one would choose, so whatever one chooses is by definition one's preference) to produce a tautologically true conclusion.

As I stated earlier, the fact that whatever one chooses is by definition one's preference does not explain a deeper truth. As you get into the two-sided equation, you can begin to see its significance.

Originally Posted by Adam

Now, can you address my objections here? Note that I'm not asking you about the rest of Lessans' ideas. I don't want to hear about how the most important part is that, when you combine his notion of free will not existing with his notion about how conscience works, you get changed conditions and no possibility of blah blah blah. I want you to defend his argument for the non-existence of free will. If that foundational portion of his idea doesn't even stand, then the rest of it has nothing to rest on.

You're right about that. His claim of no free will must be accurate for the rest of his book to have a leg to stand on. But it is accurate. The only difficulty is getting you and others to see that this is not a theory, but a fact.

Originally Posted by Adam

For the record, I don't actually believe in libertarian free will. It's just that the argument Lessans makes is hilariously bad.

No it's not. It's just that you don't understand why it is the most accurate of all the definitions and propositions that philosophers down through the ages have offered. It just so happens that his is the most accurate.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a poor analogy. If there is the possibility that you could set your neighbor's house on fire as a result of carelessly leaving boxes of gasoline soaked rags all around your house, then you would never allow yourself to do this because the potential danger would be too great to risk, and all of the reasoning in favor of keeping the rags in your home would never suffice. On the other hand, there is no direct correlation between a few unvaccinated children and the mass hysteria that has ensued. As I stated in the last post to Lone Ranger, even children who are vaccinated are not always fully protected and may therefore be responsible for an outbreak. By the same token, an unvaccinated child may have protection from a particular disease due his natural immunity so you cannot blame everything on the unvaccinated.

Who is blaming you? Why do you keep talking about blame? In the new world, no one will blame or question you when their children die from easily preventable communicable diseases, they'll simply shrug, dress in their translucent best, and retire to the dinner table for the Motion of Creating New Life until some of them move in the direction of Greater Satisfaction, and the rest fake it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As long as I have breath, I will continue to defend what I know to be true because the ramifications are that important.

Half an hour later...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...I give up.

LOL. Where did your breath go?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why don't you ask questions instead of assume that there is no compelling argument just because you didn't see it the first time around?

Probably because when we do you refuse to answer them.