Jim F. says: > Well, I think that Miles is on to something here.  The extreme enphasis that our culture places on the role of individual intentions as the determining factor in human social behavior, goes far beyond what can be vindicated by modern behavioral or social science. Given what "modern behavioral or social science" has on offer, that's not necessarily much of a criticism. But you misunderstand Miles' point. It wasn't that American ideology is too individualistic and ignores social causes of intentions. It was that science, or maybe philosophy, has proved that there are no such things, that their existence cannot be tested scientifically, and that they have no causal efficacy. This is full blown eliminativism of a fairly radical sort. > Any viable sort of scientific determinism is going to require us to change the way that we conceive of ourselves. A pleasant philosophical parlor game. If you like, I will also prove to you that there is no such thing as personal identity through time, and therefore you should care less about what happens to you in particular; moreover that you should not fear death, which is a patetly irrational thing to do, and lots of other conduncrims that philosophers amuse themselves with. But the only thing that changes the way So if masses of people think about themselves is changes in their social relations. So if Luke is right that: It actually seems quite conceivable to me that within the next hundred years or so most people in the US won't think of fetuses as persons. It will not because people have been persuaded of the correctness of some metaphysical views, but because feminism (underf whatever name) will have won some major victories. > Honderich insists that while determinism can be reconciled with notions of freedom as voluntariness, we must accept that determinism at the same time requires that we sacrifice our notions of freedom as origination.  And in Honderich's opinion that does imply that we rethink our notions concerning such matters as retributive punishment and of defenses of social and economic inequality in terms of just deserts, which presuppose a conception of freedom as origination. But of course it would not be irrational to say that if that is what we must do to maintain scientific determinism of Honderich's sort, then to hell with it. At any rate, whatever logic requires, it is only changes in social circumstances that will bring out such reconsideration. A more solidaristic and less competitive society might place less emphasis on the idea that what each of us contributes (good or bad) somehow ought to determine our lot. Afterwards, the philosophers will rationalize the view. > > But more to the point, there is absolutely zero payoff > in esscalating a political discussion to metaphysics. That point is certainly well taken.  One of the consequences of the development of behavioral science is that this issue is being gradually taken out of the hands of the philosophers and is being placed in the hands of behavioral and social scientists. A good thing, but not my point. Politics doesn't belong to the experts. They have a role, but they can't tell us what matters to us, and in a free and democratic society don't get to make the final decisions, only to kibitz, offer advidce, and adminster the decisions made by the hoi poloi -- the rest us us, including them as acitizens. Lke says: I can't really see the conflict here. One can acknowledge that intentions generally move action (I'm inclined to accept the stronger claim that they always move action) while granting that they don't arise ex nihilo. Social convention plays an immensley large role in shaping the preference structures of individual agents. Sure, so? > With good reason! I don't know that I'll ever understand where the retributive compatibilists are coming from. Because not everyone is hard determinist or an autonomist? Anyway, stop with the metaphysics. It's mere entertainment, in fact self-indulgence, and a distraction, sort of the mental equivalent of spinning hula hoops. Were talking politics, and the metaphysicians are trying very hard to derail the conversation. "But first you must say what the meaning of 'is' is." Puuuleeze. jks <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Mail Plus</a> - Powerful. Affordable. <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Sign up now</a>