27
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + + + +
→Section on morality
:::Your addition and your writing here are not necessarily clear. If you wish to break up the article into two sections, then do so showing clearly that Hume is using his own definition of free will to make his point. In the absense of free will it is obvious that there is no blame for actions as free will would be a necessary precursor for free action. You also seem to be confused that lack of free will does not equal random. Indeed much of what occurs is structured and orderly; there is just no will involved. In nature an apple falling from a tree does so due to gravity - and will do so each and every time unless some other outside stimulus intervenes. The apple has no free action to suddenly fall up, nor does it have a free will to consider that. It reacts based upon the bio-chemical nature of its makeup. Humans are no different when considered from this same naturalistic setting. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Your addition and your writing here are not necessarily clear. If you wish to break up the article into two sections, then do so showing clearly that Hume is using his own definition of free will to make his point. In the absense of free will it is obvious that there is no blame for actions as free will would be a necessary precursor for free action. You also seem to be confused that lack of free will does not equal random. Indeed much of what occurs is structured and orderly; there is just no will involved. In nature an apple falling from a tree does so due to gravity - and will do so each and every time unless some other outside stimulus intervenes. The apple has no free action to suddenly fall up, nor does it have a free will to consider that. It reacts based upon the bio-chemical nature of its makeup. Humans are no different when considered from this same naturalistic setting. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that my writing is not clear. I'm afraid you misunderstand me entirely. What I mean by 'freedom of will' above is the idea that people can engage in thought which is essentially ''uncaused'', since if thought has a cause (like the apple falling from the tree) it's not 'free', in the same way the apple is not 'free' to fall upwards. Hume points out that logically if thoughts are uncaused then they must be random, which is obviously a problem for libertarians. This is sometimes referred to as the 'randomness problem'.
::::Anyway I agree that my contribution is lacking as it is, and when I have a bit of free time on my hands I'll re-write it substantially. Thanks for the feedback.--[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 16:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)