dimreepr Posted August 16 Posted August 16 4 hours ago, Daniel McKay said: Dim - I'm not sure what you mean by your second comment. By "freedom" I mean the ability of free (possessing free will), rational (possessing the capacity for rationality) agents (conscious entities capable of making some choice) to understand and make those choices that belong to them. What metric are you going to use in order to objectify one's freedom, and make it universally true?
Daniel McKay Posted August 16 Author Posted August 16 Dim - I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to answer the spirit of what I think you're asking and you can tell me if I'm off. I would say that the reason we should think that freedom (of the sort I have just described) is of objective moral value is that it can apply to all moral agents in all possible worlds and, indeed, might well be the only coherent measure of value that can do so.
dimreepr Posted August 17 Posted August 17 On 8/16/2024 at 12:52 PM, Daniel McKay said: Dim - I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to answer the spirit of what I think you're asking and you can tell me if I'm off. I would say that the reason we should think that freedom (of the sort I have just described) is of objective moral value is that it can apply to all moral agents in all possible worlds and, indeed, might well be the only coherent measure of value that can do so. Who sets the rules? For instance, if I was dying of thirst and broke into your home to drink from the tap, in some countries you would be within your rights to shoot me when I turn round, before I have a chance to apologise and offer to pay for the damages.
Daniel McKay Posted August 18 Author Posted August 18 (edited) Nobody "sets" the rules. Things are either right or wrong (edit: or neither). People's opinions, or indeed country's laws don't affect that one way or the other. Edited August 18 by Daniel McKay
dimreepr Posted August 18 Posted August 18 7 hours ago, Daniel McKay said: Nobody "sets" the rules. Things are either right or wrong (edit: or neither). People's opinions, or indeed country's laws don't affect that one way or the other. Your OP seems to... 😉
Daniel McKay Posted August 19 Author Posted August 19 13 hours ago, dimreepr said: Your OP seems to... 😉 I mean, my post sets rules regarding me giving away my money. It isn't the reason for moral facts existing in the world assuming that they do.
dimreepr Posted August 19 Posted August 19 10 hours ago, Daniel McKay said: I mean, my post sets rules regarding me giving away my money. It isn't the reason for moral facts existing in the world assuming that they do. Is there ever going to be a time when you'll pay out your money? Isn't it morally wrong to promise something you have no intention of honoring?
StringJunky Posted August 19 Posted August 19 58 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Is there ever going to be a time when you'll pay out your money? Isn't it morally wrong to promise something you have no intention of honoring? Just shut up and stop turning every thread into spaghetti. .
dimreepr Posted August 19 Posted August 19 24 minutes ago, TheVat said: @dimreepr, please stop trolling this thread. 3 minutes ago, StringJunky said: Just shut up and stop turning every thread into spaghetti. . I'm sorry, did I interupt your replies... 🙄
Phi for All Posted August 19 Posted August 19 5 hours ago, dimreepr said: Is there ever going to be a time when you'll pay out your money? Isn't it morally wrong to promise something you have no intention of honoring? ! Moderator Note Take a break from the thread, or from the site, your choice. Let me know what you decide. This is unacceptable.
Daniel McKay Posted August 20 Author Posted August 20 Dim- It would be wrong to offer money in return for something and then, upon recieving the thing requested, not pay the money. If someone solves the problem, I will pay them the money. If someone makes a significant contribution to solving the problem, I will pay them part of the money. 1
dimreepr Posted August 20 Posted August 20 8 hours ago, Daniel McKay said: Dim- It would be wrong to offer money in return for something and then, upon recieving the thing requested, not pay the money. If someone solves the problem, I will pay them the money. If someone makes a significant contribution to solving the problem, I will pay them part of the money. I'm sorry, there was a point to my question's which would have been revealed upon receipt of your answers (for additional context). Along the lines of, there's no independent adjudication of your rules... Last post @Phi for All, I'd say it's been fun, but lately, with all this prejudice of my intent; no thanks...
Daniel McKay Posted August 20 Author Posted August 20 Dim - yeah, you made that point right at the start, and I responded to it then too.
dimreepr Posted August 20 Posted August 20 1 hour ago, Daniel McKay said: Dim - yeah, you made that point right at the start, and I responded to it then too. Well, maybe neither of us is correct; but you're welcome to your filter bubble, where you can't be wrong... I don't care anymore...
Daniel McKay Posted August 21 Author Posted August 21 Dim - This is an odd response to me pointing out that you have already made this point and I have already answered it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now