On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 03:50:06PM -0800, Philip Hart wrote: > > As it happens, I don't believe in free will, either (more precisely, I've > > never heard a definition that is simultaneously coherant and non-trivial > > [1]). Be that as it may, even if we discount free will, this says nothing > > as to whether a given persons actions ultimately stem from their inherant > > nature or from their interactions with their environment (e.g., the failure > > to uphold a sworn honor). > > I don't see the distinction, frankly. You act because you were programmed > that way by your genes, your environment, or some complex interaction > between them. The degree to which genes, environment, or their > interaction prevails affects social planning but without free will we're > robots and there are bad robots (Grr! Arggh!) but not criticizable ones. Of course they're criticizable! Criticism is part of the environment (or interaction) which shapes their future behavior. If they're dangerously immune to criticism we call them mentally ill and lock them up. -xx- Damien X-)