Timeline for If one accepts hard determinism then why attempt to persuade others based upon that belief?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 20, 2023 at 9:49 | history | edited | user67675 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 103 characters in body
|
| Oct 20, 2023 at 9:44 | comment | added | user67675 | i think you misunderstood @NotThatGuy too much to reply to all of it, but while hard determinism is often defined as amounting to a case against moral responsibility, i don't mean that as an argument. attacking psychological motives/character may be light, but it's not "rude" and anyway so what if there's no moral responsibility ;) | |
| Oct 20, 2023 at 9:15 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | So you're suggesting that hard determinism may preclude moral responsibility, which is questionable, but also a fallacious appeal to consequences. Then you're suggesting that hard determinists appeal to the same fallacy, which seems a lot like an ad hominem to dismiss hard determinism (attacking someone's character instead of their arguments). It's also assuming the worst of people, that they're intellectually and morally corrupt, which may not be explicitly fallacious, but it's rude and extremely detrimental to constructive discourse. | |
| Oct 20, 2023 at 5:50 | history | answered | user67675 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |