One is morally praise- or blameworthy for those acts that one enters into freely. That follows, I believe, by definition.
If you believe that free will is essentially libertarian, you will say that a compatibilist doesn’t believe in free will. I, on the other hand, believe that free will is essentially deterministic, so I believe that the libertarian doesn’t believe in free will. He believes in essentially random, “spontaneous” action. In other words, it would appear to me that the paradigmatic free act for a libertarian is a random twitch.
Well the free will I don’t believe in is libertarian and the thing I’m concerned about and what people generally intuitevly feel we have .
I believe we have all the free will you believe in (I think) but can’t reach the conclusion you think follows.
Any way thanks for returning to this but we are stuck.
I was actually trying to do something else.
I was talking about choice not free choice and thought it was perfectly possible to seperate the two concepts.
If we look in a dictionary, most of the time the definition will be to do with selecting between options and picking the one that has the highest value.
What I thought is that it is a matter of fact that we don’t need to be able to do otherwise in the circumstances at the time to do this.
If I were to ask my daughter if she would like roast potatoes or mashed potatoes.
She will select between options and pick the one that has highest value.
She has always picked roast so far because she loves them and doesn’t much like mashed.
I don’t see any need for her to be able to like mash or pick mash in the circumstances for this to be a choice.
So I was hoping that regardless of who you are libertarian, compatibalist or what ever, that it is simply a matter of fact to say could do otherwise in the circumstances at the time, is not a necessary condition of having a choice.