[ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 19/08/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> > Compatibilism involves redefining "free" so that it doesn't mean the
> > logically impossible thing we intuitively feel it means: neither
> > determined nor random. Whether you accept the redefinition and call
> > yourself a compatibilist is a matter of taste rather than a
> > substantive philosophical issue.
>
> A matter of taste?  Really?

Compatibilists say that you had no choice in your actions given the
circumstances, but that's OK, you still have free will because if
circumstances had been different your actions could have been
different. Incompatibilists say that you had no choice in your actions
given the circumstances and this means that there is no free will,
even though if circumstances had been different your actions could
have been different. There is no difference in factual claims, just a
difference in whether the words "free will" should be used to describe
the facts.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou