Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 39 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
Arguments: | 19 |
Debates: | 4 |
A lame film I know, but it's one of the few rom-coms that has a philosophical bent and relates to what you're saying: https://www.youtube.com/
Yes, perhaps our normal understanding of free will is nonsensical (the notion that we can freely select between two or more actions at a given time). How could an action be uncaused? How could I select between more than one action at a given moment? If the laws of nature play their role and a web of causes also play their role, surely my action is determined. The idea that I could 'freely' choose what to do independent of or despite these determining factors seems absurd.
Yes, so are you suggesting a kind of compatibilism, where causal determinism (including the chemistry of your brain being constrained by the laws of nature) is compatible with free will? Causes in our past and in our bodies determine our actions, but provided 'we' choose to perform the action, it was a free one? Chemical reactions in my body as well as external stimuli might lead me to go and make a sandwich, but provided no one forced me to do it, the action was 'free' and of my own choosing.
Singer supports his view with the case of the drowning child; surely you have an obligation to jump into a shallow pond you are passing by if you see a small child fall into it (even if it meant ruining your expensive shoes). To simply walk on would be abhorrent. Equally, we have an obligation to jump online and give money using our credit cards to relieve death and suffering from poverty - you could save a life for the same cost as a pair of shoes. It doesn't matter that the dying child in Bangladesh is further away.
There is some merit to this. Perhaps by giving to relieve death and suffering from famine, we postpone the inevitable. Population growth is actually quite high in the third world. Our planet surely cannot sustain population growth at present rates. Maybe our giving ought to be directed at means to control population (education girls for example)?
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |