Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on March 31, 2011 at 1:30pm

I'd amend your statement about value judgements, by saying that they are sometimes, perhaps, even often retrospective, not ALWAYS.  Just because a moral judgement is popular at one point in time, but not in another, doesn't make it true or not true.  There are facts that don't change with time, though perception of that fact does change.   I think we are given a ship (circumstances,environment,family, body, genes), but that our mind is the rudder (yes, the mind influenced by genes and circumstances) that gives us freewill.  I have witnessed guilt, embarrasssment, and some freewill in animals, too.  We humans choose whether or not to use our minds or consciences.  I know of times when I knew the better path, but took the one that vented my feelings, whether right or wrong.  We ARE heavily influenced by circumstance/environment/genes, by aren't COMPLETELY controlled by them. We also have the choice, at some point, to remove ourselves from circumstances (drinking,drugs, physical abuse).

I read an old text book on criminolgy and it's studies on identical twins removed at birth.  Genes did play an enormous role, but so did the nurturing (or lack of) in the adoptive families.  And so did freewill, though the studies rarely went into this.  Why are all 3 of my brothers Christian and only I am atheist?  Genes obviously aren't the answer.  Circumstance is also unlikely, since my decision was so early/young.

Permalink Reply by Alice on April 1, 2011 at 3:06am

Tonya,

I say that value judgements are retrospective, because they relate to the past. They are an opinion that a person developed about something another person did in the past. They are very subjective and very open to change.

My phrase was regarding value judgements being retrospective, as a way of injecting ironical humour by using a value judgement to describe value judgements.

I disagree that value judgements are facts that don't change with time. But remain open to consider are argument to the contrary.

Value judgements are about opinions. They are not tangible or material more than a thought or notion can be.

I'm quite confused as to why you are promoting freewill as a fact? My understanding of naturalism is that there is no such thing as contra causal free will - we are all fully determined - fully caused.

I'm curious as to your definition of free will - can you decribe it to me?

I'm interested how you view choice working and what your definition of choice is?