..you may say, if you like, that the bold determinist speculator is free to disbelieve in the reality of the will. But it is a much more massive and important fact that he is not free to raise, to curse, to thank, to justify, to urge, to punish, to resist temptations, to incite mobs, to make New Year resolutions, to pardon sinners, to rebuke tyrants, or even to say "thank you" for the mustard.
Orthodoxy CW1:228
Determinism, like love, means never having to say you're sorry.
ReplyDeleteUnless you go soft with your determinism.
ReplyDeleteInconceivable!
ReplyDeleteDoes having no choice equate to having no responsibility?
ReplyDelete"Does having no choice equate to having no responsibility?"
ReplyDeleteIf by having no choice, you mean never having had choice, from the very beginning of the chain of causation, then YES, it would equate to having no responsibility.
As a practical matter, however, I may find myself in a situation where there is no choice due to prior choices that I made which have landed me in such an unfortunate dilemma. In that case, I do bear responsibility for having no choice.
So you are responsible. You voluntarily joined the Dem party where you have no option but to oppose the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteBoth major parties are opposed to the Catholic Church on major points of policy.
ReplyDeleteI found chapters 2 and 3 from Orthodoxy here. Chesterton's target appears to be certain turn of the century radical freethinking types like Wells, Shaw, and Joseph McCabe. Can anyone explain the logic of his rhetoric in the quoted passage? It's an important fact that he [the bold determinist speculator] is not free to...? Chapter 2 seems very much stuck in its time. Chapter 3 on the other hand seems remarkably prescient: ...so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought.
ReplyDeleteBiographical note: I was born and brought up within ten miles of the Hanwell Insane Asylum, quite close to Heathrow Airport in West London. No jokes please.
Both major parties are opposed to the Catholic Church on major points of policy.
ReplyDeleteBut only 1 supports legalized abortion for any reason at any time and demands the taxpayers fund it. Catholics are explicitly forbidden to support any politicians that aren't opposed to those policies.
David,
ReplyDeleteWhich quoted passage? The OP, or the quote you selected?
I see. It's all part of implying that determinists are delusional.
ReplyDeleteA man may think he's a poached egg, but if he really was a poached egg, he couldn't eat, drink, sleep, walk, or smoke a cigarette. He obviously can, so he's deluded.
Similarly a man may think he's a determinist, but a true determinist would not be grateful to anyone, blame anyone for anything etc., or in other words, carry on like a normal person.
I think that's what he's getting at.
No jokes please.
ReplyDeleteIt would be crazy to joke about a thing like that ;-)
Ah yes. Thank you. Nice illustration of the difficulty of thinking oneself into a radically different mindset.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see partisans in favor of all sorts of laws to prohibit all sorts of behaviors they disapprove of others taking part in, suddenly turn 180 degrees when it comes to passing laws prohibiting the intentional killing of what they acknowledge as innocent human beings. The greater good is served by not passing laws in this case they argue disregarding the commandment "Thou shalt not murder". Understandably that commandment cuts no ice with atheists, but it's surprising that so many "Christians" have become consequentialists. It's resulted in the death of 57 million in the US alone and 1 billion worldwide....3X more that all the wars and government internal purges put together from WW1 to the present day. But the consequentialists conclude that murder on an industrial scale is better than outlawing it because.....something.
ReplyDeleteBut wait. I'm sure there's also a consequentialist defense of government beaurocrats feeding the market for it. You see because people will sell body parts anyway so why not keep it legal. The Chinese Communist Party has shown us the way by harvesting body parts of "criminals" that no one loves or cares about. Or have we shown them the way?
It's interesting to see partisans in favor of all sorts of laws to prohibit all sorts of behaviors they disapprove of others taking part in, suddenly turn 180 degrees
ReplyDeleteIt's even better than that. That 180 will occur on the exact same behavior when the correct party is in power. Somehow I feel we won't be hearing about presidents lying anymore, despite Biden being unable to avoid lying any time he makes a statement. "Not Trump" is not an excuse, any more than Ted Bundy's murders can be excused because hey, at least he wasn't Hitler!
But then, perhaps mankind is indeed not free to be fair-minded and avoid hypocrisy. Perhaps we just inevitably circle the wagons around our tribe and defend at all costs while nitpicking everything others do.
Not a problem for the consequentialist. For those who believe in free will, shame on you if you do this.
“You see because people will sell body parts anyway so why not keep it legal”
ReplyDeletePeople need jobs because they have families to feed. It’s best to keep it legal. Think of the (unaborted) children.
I guess also, like love, being a consequentialist means never having to say you're sorry.
ReplyDeleteYou can always claim that the current consequences of your actions, no matter how bad, would always have been worse if you had opposed legal abortion. Unlike our current utopia.
That 180 will occur on the exact same behavior when the correct party is in power.
ReplyDeleteIt's apparent you aren't aware of the subtle nuances of the various situations. Those aren't "kids in cages" now.