Does "ought" imply "can" - Free Will

[ughaibu]

I hope you're not suggesting that you play any part in deciding the form of the ultimate draft.

[Kriminal99]

What?

[Chacmool]

Sorry I just edited that again for clarity - maybe you could tell what I mean now. To use this example, you say I ought to not edit posts after replies. It makes no sense to label that statement true or false objectively. If you convince me that you are correct, then I will stop doing it. If you do not convince me, I would not and should not stop doing it.

Kriminal99, please don't go back and edit your posts if you are going to make fundamental changes to it. It makes your arguments harder to follow. If you want to clarify something, quote the relevant section and provide your explanation.

[Kriminal99]

It isn't really an issue of making fundamental changes, but it might be the case that I edit a sentence for clarity and then afterwards uga may be able to understand what I meant whereas he couldn't before. More often than not the issue is after I hit post I look at it and immediately hit edit to clear things up, only to find 6 responses by the time I submit the final draft. I will try to use the preview function instead.

[ughaibu]

Chacmool: Quite. Do I want to have to go back and read through all Kriminal99's posts, every time, in case there's a relevant change, of course not.

[Kriminal99]

Are you implying that you actually read my posts before responding to them anyways? I mean for the most part it seems like you just gloss over everything I say anyways so it is hard to see the signfigance of the fact that uga is currently posting as to whether or not I should finish editing my posts...

 

 

Anyways lets not stay off topic here you are obviously trying to drown my thread and get it closed and I do not appreciate it.

 

It is very simple, either

 

ought is always false, or if you define ought such that it can sometimes not be false, then ought implies can is false.

[ughaibu]

Post 52, sure, it's on topic. You are merely a pawn in the deterministic process, why should you care if your post communicates or not? Anyway, it wasn't you who edited it, so my apologies for getting upset, but that's how it goes for non-determinists, we can feel things ourselves rather than just riding on the tide of inevitability. And we suffer the illusion that you exist.

[Kriminal99]

Post 52, sure, it's on topic. You are merely a pawn in the deterministic process, why should you care if your post communicates or not? Anyway, it wasn't you who edited it, so my apologies for getting upset, but that's how it goes for non-determinists, we can feel things ourselves rather than just riding on the tide of inevitability. And we suffer the illusion that you exist.

 

Huh? Lol People who do not believe in free will do not believe they are not in control or not "responsible" for their actions. They just define control and responsability differenlty. I think the major problem for lack of free will is that it is difficult to understand. If I tell you, "You have no free will", and you say "Yes I do see watch HABOOGALAH WOOGALAH" and dance up and down, you have not disproven my statement. Your actions were deterministically motivated by my statement that you had free will. I can never say, "I cannot stop stealing because I had a bad childhood". This makes no sense because if I am talking about it than I am considering an argument that I should stop stealing which is deterministically capable of altering my behavior.

 

In an earlier thread I made an analogy to the economic principle of ownership of land. A person is not responsible for creating the land. But if he takes ownership of the land, then he will do things to make the land better so that it will be more useful to him in the future. A person is not at fault for the things that have happened to him or his personality or previous behavior. But since he is stuck with himself, he will do things to make his situation better.

[ughaibu]

Why would you tell me anything, if neither of us had free will? Our views would be determined. Your position is undignified, as a slave to chemistry, what's it's appeal?

Getting back on topic, please answer my various objections to your posts. "Ought" as applied to future events implies potential, how were your analogies impossible to realise?

I dont want to kill myself, but I can do so, how does unwillingness remove potential?

[Kriminal99]

Our views are determined by our ever growing experiences, which include any discussions you have with someone regarding free will.

 

One might say that it remains to be seen whether or not you can be convinced to believe in determinism... I take it this is what you are referring to when you say "potential".

 

However the statement "UGA ought to believe in determinism" is false because you do not understand determinism so why would you be expected to believe it? If you are convinced to believe it, then you will. If you are not convinced, you will not.

 

Depending on the situation, it seems more sensible sometimes to define "ought" such that it can have a truth value. For example you ought not to have murdered someone. Here you might want to say the statement is true. Well this does not mean that you could have refrained from murdering the person. Thus if you define ought in such a way, OIC is false.

[ughaibu]

You didn't reply to either of my questions concerning your objection to Owl's proof.

 

It has been proved, by human thought, that human thought is inadequate when it comes to encompassing encountered reality. We can live with this, so, we can never know anything for sure, who cares?

[Kriminal99]

I replied to everyhting you ever said and it is clear you are using deception to try and alter the course of this debate. Otherwise you would not machine gun post "Oh you didn't reply to what I said" you would be posting what it is you thought I did not reply to. If you have nothing more useful to say then leave do not bog down the thread with such tactics.

 

No such thing has been proven. See how easy it is to make unsupported claims? Doesn't do much to advance the debate does it? If you think human thought is inadequate to model reality or whatever it is you are getting at make an argument for such and perhaps I will show you where you are wrong. Or maybe that is what you are afraid of and why you continually bog down threads by making declarations by fiat instead of making actual arguments?

[ughaibu]

Well, I admit that I'm not so good at expressing myself, so if you failed to follow my posts, blame me.

[ughaibu]

In post 61 you are no longer talking about future events, ie events which have the potential to occur or to not occur, and thus "can" occur unless they are impossible, you are, instead, talking about completed events. That, according to you, a determinist, a person could only have done that which they actually did, does not conflict with OIC, this has been pointed out, see post 2 in which Owl dealt with similar examples and post 39 et alia in which the compatibility of determinism with OIC is covered.

[Kriminal99]

A) Post 61 says that you "Should not believe in determinism" because you don't understand it. That is not the past, that is the present. Right now, you don't understand determinism so of course you don't believe it. How ought or OIC is false in all tenses (past present and future) is covered multiple times in multiple posts by me througout this thread, but to sum it up (since I do not just make statements like this as you do without reiterating the argument as proof that your claim that some previously mentioned argument still stands is false) OIC fails just as much in the future because either you are able to convince someone to deterministically alter their behavior, or you are not in which case they will not and should not do what you think they should do. In either case, the statement "they should do x" is not true unless you define should to simply mean that someone should attempt to convince them.

 

 

:( There is no compatability between determinism and OIC and this is the first time I heard you try and claim such which is funny since you have been arguing for free will this whole time.

 

C) Owl did not make an argument relating determinism to OIC. One of the papers written by someone else which you presented as a defense of OIC attempted to make an argument for compatability of OIC and Determinism. The argument basically said, well it might be true that a murderer might have to murder, and yet have an obligation to stop murdering, but there might not be any murderers. Anotherwords the argument was rediculous.

 

To preserve ought in a deterministic enviornment, you have to agree that you only should do things that you actually do. Therefore OIC becomes COMPLETELY useless because you would never say that someone should do something they already do. Furthermore by defining ought this way you cannot make statements like "A murderer should stop murdering", which does not model normal language.

 

It is more natural to label this statement true, but by "should" mean that someone should do something to stop or dissuade the murderer and then OIC becomes false.

[ughaibu]

Your basic contention, on this thread, is that "ought implies can" is suspect and thus unsuitable as a premise in Owl's proof. Your defense of this contention has been vague and inconsistent, to the extent that I still dont know what your objection is. I've had enough, it's unproductive, boring and frustrating. I'm dismissing your challenge to the proof.

[Kriminal99]

Your basic contention, on this thread, is that "ought implies can" is suspect and thus unsuitable as a premise in Owl's proof. Your defense of this contention has been vague and inconsistent, to the extent that I still dont know what your objection is. I've had enough, it's unproductive, boring and frustrating. I'm dismissing your challenge to the proof.

 

Unfortunately your willfull refusal to "see" the objection is not signifigant, neither is your dismissal of it. It is a very simple objection that has been clearly worded SEVERAL times throughout the thread, and that you appear to be trying to conceal by drowning the thread with repeat posting.

 

A person cannot do something they do not know how to, or does not have a reason to, or simply does not want to (when they do not control their wants).

 

Terms such as "ought" and "should" are terms used to influence the above factors. They are always false (in which case OIC is meaningless) unless you alter their meaning to simply mean that someone should try to convince a person to alter their future behavior (in which case OIC is false).

 

An example of the former is saying "Your friend bobby should drive to mexico today" (no he shouldn't because he doesn't have a reason to and therefore never would/can't), an example of the latter is "Bobby should stop stealing" (Someone should try to get him to stop somehow, but until they do he will not and cannot stop)