Quote:
Originally Posted by zvacet  Very good sofisam ,but sofisam only.If you think there is no free will it is irelevent to you if moral is universal or relative.You can not choose to use it anyway.If you stick with your opinion(and you have no choice,do you) you have to say that Hitler was not bad guy.And this bring answer to your question of yardstick of morality.I think we can start with basic humanity. |
Of course if we can agree on a yardstick for judging the behaviour of individuals then I am as free as anybody else to say Hitler was a tyrant!!
Ok lets step back a minute. What is interesting is not the extent to which the question of freewill makes one moral/immoral/amoral, but what exactly is freewill, or perhaps more pertinantly given the direction of this thread, what exactly is morality. I believe they are both flavours of the same thing i.e. they are simply thought. Thinking we have freewill is as good as it gets, thinking an act is moral or not is as categorical as we can be. Perhaps we can reassess the *power* of thought and how it influences the world. We have brains, it seems that part of the functions of these brains is to think, it's just that thinking ain't that important!!
We can't think ourselves into believeing something that we don't believe . . .
(You can try this by trying to believe we don't have freewill
)