ekp@mcnc.UUCP (Edward Pavelchek) (09/14/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Those of you who have listened to the iterated definitions of the ONE
TRUE FREE WILL may have missed a pair of contributions to net.abortion.
[Rosen]
Message-ID: <1657@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: 7 Sep 85 23:40:57 GMT
In many cases, the terminology is central to the issue, because misuse of
terminology can result in an abuse of language resulting in bogus manipulation
of opinion.
(...)
By "proving" certain things, human beings gain certain rights. By passing
a test, they become licensed drivers. By completing a curriculum, they
gain a diploma and/or a degree.
[me]
However, only twenty minutes earlier,
[Rosen]
Message-ID: <1655@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: 7 Sep 85 23:17:52 GMT
As I
said in very long and often boring discourse with you, the rights available
to any person (or organism) are limited only by abilities. You have the
"right" to do whatver you can do. A government is a means of forming an
interactive society among many people, and as such it has laws. The rights
"granted" by the government are simply an assertion (and promise) by the
government that no laws of the government will interfere with those rights.
[me]
It is true that our language is insufficient in this field. We have
social, moral, constitutional & legal 'rights', but only one word.
Nevertheless, as Rich says, 'terminology is important'
there is only one meaning of free will
but 'right' can have 3 meanings in 20 mins
what you have satisfied arbitrary
criteria for
what you can do
what the government will let you do
I do not understand how a hard determinist can use the word 'free'.
If everything has a cause, then nothing is 'free' from external
constraints, and the word 'free' can only be used to approximate an
ideal that does not exist for a determinist. Regardless of Rosen's
wishes, I believe that 'free' is well enough established in English to
be permitted to use it.
Growing up Catholic, I remember that the
debates over free will were, for a time, concerned not with whether your
environment/history influenced your will, but whether God did. Man's
actions were recognizably influenced by all sorts of things, they argued
whether your 'soul' was subject to *supernatural* influence, taking for
granted 'some' influence from your surroundings(although not necessarily
liking it).
Ed Pavelchek