1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Which side shoulders the burden of proof?
Firstly, free will has no agreed upon definition. You cannot prove something you can't define. Even if you just look at this sub, there is no consensus.
Secondly, even if you pick a definition, it's not provable. Just looking at the definitions provided by the redditors of this sub, there is no definition that is provable to any satisfaction to the opposing side.
Lastly, proof of free will may be irrelevant. For some people, free will is simply a means to an end, which is the kind of morality you want, or don't want. So for some debates, proving or disproving free will becomes a waste of time, as they will simply change the definition of free will to invalidate the proof.
Comment by diogenesthehopeful at 04/09/2024 at 04:15 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Regarding your first point critical thinkers agree what they are discussing prior to trying to reach a consensus.
Regarding your second point, people don't necessarily want to reach a consensus.
Regarding your third point the means to an end could be related to an end that confuses people. I think compatibilism was created for the sole reason of keeping people off balance. One has to lie to people in order to get them to deny their intuition if there is no cogent argument for them to deny their intuition. Intuition isn't reliable but common sense tells us that we don't drop it for no reason.