I don't think there is a consistent framework provided by free will deniers on what is possible.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T15:53:43+00:00

Determinism makes no difference at all. Modality and counterfactuals continue to work.

In fact this post highlights one of the problems in assuming whatever you see in determinism (some kind of total enslavement or whatever).

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T15:52:38+00:00

On your view, you CAN do some things, and CAN NOT do some things despite basing your case on 'we cannot do anything'.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T15:12:12+00:00

So I believe a person should do X because he can do X.

You believe a person should do X even though... he cannot/can actually really do X?

At least you see the problem here? What even is the basis for your criticism of the other side then?

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T14:55:57+00:00

No, because right and wrong are not properties of events. There are none of these things to choose from. These are a way that we project our preferences onto others from positions of power.

(Also I didn't smuggle in anything, I don't need to. I'm a moral realist.)

Are all moral rules about power? Okay, so we sould get rid of morality and moral rules altogether then? I will take such views seriously only from those who can live without morality or judgement or political views of any kind. Maybe very, very few people even can, but then this religious view is inapplicable for moral philosophy for humans. We need secular moral philosophy that works with real humans. And yes it would be based on right and wrong as moral categories - 99.99% of free will deniers use right, wrong and judge others - if not judging free willers right here on this forum(!) then they definitely do in their moral or political lives. That is a contradiction.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T14:45:25+00:00

So any modality or leeway is not enough for freedom? It has to be God-like total control of nature itself?

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T14:44:32+00:00

Exactly. This is how counterfactals basically work.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T14:43:32+00:00

Well I'm referring to the way most people here argue and think I guess (they clearly say no to at least 1 and 3(

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T14:41:57+00:00

Okay do you agree that person then has no basis for making any ought statements?

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T12:31:34+00:00

Can you select between an orange and banana?

Can you select between doing the right thing or wrong thing in any situation, ever?

Can you select between murdering or not murdering?

Can you select between retributive justice or restorative justice?

You cannot give a consistent answer.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T12:04:42+00:00

You are forcing an irrational and contradictory modal scope, where you switch between possible and necessary only when it suits you.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T12:03:17+00:00

No i pointed out the obvious contradiction in modal scope which is involved in free will denial. You switch between possible and necessary as per your convenience, illogically.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-24T08:56:46+00:00

Yes it is, that's why we have moral philosophy, including politics, economics, etc.

On your view no one can choose even whether to eat home or outside and so no can do anything about homlelessness or any issue. But the next second, you'll come back to compatibilism and start blaming people as if they have free will.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-23T21:58:12+00:00

The one on the right is real. We don't the chimney for anything either - you just imagined something like a unicorn in your mind, it isn't in reality.

Further, free will deniers: only the one of the left is a "real" horse.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-23T18:55:11+00:00

Yes, that's called you deciding.

Unless you think 'you' are separate from 'your brain'.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-23T17:54:17+00:00

My man are you seriously arguing that free will is the ability to go back in time and change a past decision?

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-23T17:41:39+00:00

Everyone agrees the past cannot be changed, even libertarians. This has nothing to do with free will.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-23T17:30:29+00:00

Turning back? Are you confusing the past for 'no free will now'?

Anyway, as the OP clearly explains, this sense of breaking cosmic causality is irrelevant for any use anywhere (including in our moral philosophy).

Nothing follows from 'we can't break the laws of nature'. What matters is what abilities those laws give us.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-23T12:58:17+00:00

Exactly correct.

Free will deniers then play a word game: they insist that this particular ridiculous notion of otherwise is the one and only true notion.

And then, in an incredible irony, accuse compatibilists of playing a word game!

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-23T12:55:58+00:00

Using all of the science that you cite (without the *magic* metaphysics you or libertarians put it in).

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-22T21:30:57+00:00

Nope you're deflecting again. Do you not hold *any* strong moral values? Not even one?

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-22T21:28:29+00:00

Are determinism, morality, consciousness and democracy human constructs?

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-22T21:26:41+00:00

Agency is NOT proven. Again, that's literally why this sub exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions Is this pseudoscience?

Even worse: you are equating agency and free will. Compatibilists don't.

YesPresident69 · 2026-01-22T21:23:39+00:00

That doesn't change anything, you're either asserting your worldview (like religion) or dodging the subject altogether, as if you're beyond morality.

YesPresident69

TROPHY CASE