Language and Logic (General)

by David Turell , Wednesday, April 02, 2014, 23:07 (3886 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Romansh: Were you completely unaware of this use of the word responsible Tony?
> > 
> > 
> > My Concise Oxford gives being the primary cause as the sixth meaning. And gives an example of an electrical short circuit being responsible for a fire.
> > 
> 
> Tony: No, I was not completely unaware of the misuse of the word, and apparently neither are numerous dictionaries. Out of 8 that I checked, only 2 had that listed as a possible meaning.-To step into the discussion, my Webster's Collegiate has it as the second meaning as a primary cause, and the third meaning in my giant unabridged dictionary. So what, it is a standard meaning of the word. I don't believe our discussion should stoop to this level. 
> 
> 
> > >Tony: Why does moral have to be put on the same playing field as magical? A person IS responsible for their actions. They have the ability to respond, and accountability for the manner in which they choose to respond. While I certainly agree that perceptions and experience will help inform that response, it is possible to override that conditioning with intent.
> > 
> >Romansh: If we don't have free will - morality is magical (akin to strong emergence). Or it is a completely made up attribute.
> > 
> 
> Tony: Ah, you were basing it on your assumption that people do not have free will, which I strongly disagree with. -I'm with the 'free willers'. Romansh is not able to recognize that we must have some apparatus with which to think. and that apparatus is a biochemical machine, under our control but with degrees of separation. We are not under the control of the mechanism we were given. Certainly the biochemicals are not plotting against us, nor do they confuse our thought unless schizophrenic alterations are present. But even that does not argue against clear thought with a normal brain.