Re: The Road with no Branches argument
From: X's Lover (together_at_hell.com)
Date: 10/22/04
- Next message: Robert Low: "Re: CH Question"
- Previous message: X's Lover: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- In reply to: Immortalist: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:46:05 -0400
In article <K8KdnQkn3NNYP-XcRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Now why would anyone's intuitions suggest that if I am right, then if and
> when I
> ever have occasion to refuse such an offer, my refusal would not count as a
> responsible act? Perhaps this is what some people think: they think that if I
> were right when I claimed I could not do otherwise in such cases, I would be
> some
> sort of zombie, "programmed" always to refuse thousand-dollar bribes. A
> genuinely
> free agent, they think, must be more volatile somehow. If I am to be able to
> listen to reason, ... they think, ... I must be able to pause, and weigh up
> the
> pros and cons of this suggested bit of lucrative torture [so that there would
> be
> some chance I might change my mind]....
I think it's useful to clarify would and could. I believe that you would
not torture another for money. That you could not do this is another
matter entirely. Allowing for your argument of responsibility, it is a
choice that you don't or won't torture others for money, rather than a
can't.
Why must money be involved anyway? There is enough sadism and masochism
in the world that infliction of pain and suffering is its own pleasure
and reward.
- Next message: Robert Low: "Re: CH Question"
- Previous message: X's Lover: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- In reply to: Immortalist: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|