tronvillain

If you want to live, you should get off the tracks. If you can't get off the tracks you're going to die. It's that simple.

In one sense, what you should do is whatever step is required to achieve the desired goal, even if the step cannot actually be taken. In another step, what you should do is whatever step you can take towards the desired goal. In other words, the "wide" and "narrow" sense.

So, when I say, "if you want to be rational, you should accept my argument" I mean that accepting my argument is a step towards being rational, though you may or may not be able to actually take the step.

Taffy Lewis

tronvillain:

If they could stop a train from hitting them they would also live. So it's not the case that if they want to live they should get off the track.

This is just another assertion that there must be two senses. My suspicion is that the only reason you want there to be more than one sense is that you need that to be the case in order to avoid the argument. It seems clear that no one would ever use the word in your "sense". It seems contrived.

"What should I do?"

"You should get off the track."

"But I can't."

"Yeah. But that's what you should do anyway."

No one would talk like this. (Except, as I said, unless they are trying to avoid an argument against determinism.)

tronvillain

*shrugs* It's just a word. It means what people use it to mean, and people use it where there is the possibility something cannot be done and even where there is a virtual certainty something cannot be done. If there are not two senses then people are constantly missusing the word, which is a rather amusing stance to take.

As I have repeatedly explained, when I say "If you wish to be rational, you should accept my arguement" I am not saying you can accept my argument. As I have repeatedly explained, as far as I know, you may or may not eventually accept it, but the fact remains that doing so is a step towards rationality.

Just to remind everyone what this "argument" is all about. You gave us these premises:

1. We should refrain from believing falsehoods.

2. Whatever should be done, can be done.

3. If determinism is true, then whatever can be done, is done.

From them we get:

5. We can refrain from believing falsehoods. (1+2)

6. If determinism is true, we refrain from believing falsehoods. (5+3)

Now, it is obvious that we do not always regrain from believing falsehoods, so either determinism is not true or one or more of the premises is false or the argument does not actually follow.

Since when we say something should be done, we certainly do not mean that it definitely can be done, premise two is easily rejected. There many examples, such as "You should brush your teeth after every meal." We say this despite the fact that you may not actually be able to to brush your teeth after every meal - you may not have time, you may not have a toothbrush, etc.

Finally, as for the "chaind to the train tracks" example, obviously you wouldn't tell someone chained to the tracks that they if they want to live they should get off the tracks. Why wouldn't you tell them that? It is obvious and completely unhelpful! If you want them to live you should help them get off the tracks. If the conductor wants them to live he should stop the train. Perhaps you do not use the word this way, but I do, and as far as I can tell so do other people.

Taffy Lewis

tronvillain:

First of all, according to the argument the contradiction only arises if premise 4 is added to the argument. There is nothing contradictory in the statements that "determinism is true" and "if determinism is true everyone avoids believing falsehoods". The reason being that it could be the case that determinism is true and no one believe in free will or any other false belief. This is certainly possible. So unless we add "Someone believes in free will." the propositions in the argument are not inconsistent. That makes me think that you really haven't grasped the argument.

At any rate, your "sense" of "should" has implausible consequences. You want to say that one can claim someone should do something even if they cannot. I pointed out that the reason we tell someone that they should do something is to narrow their options to one or a few possibilities. But there is an infinite number of things which we cannot do. For example, I cannot cause my teeth to be cleaned instantaneously by shouting "Abracadabra! Teeth be clean!!!" So why say that I should brush my teeth everyday rather than say that I should shout the magic spell? (Assuming you are correct that I cannot brush my teeth daily.)Maybe I can't do either.

I think the answer is obvious. In the case of brushing our teeth we believe that is something we can do. Yet in the case of using a magical spell we know we can't do that sort of thing.

It seems to me that when the American Dental Association suggests that we brush our teeth daily they are assuming that it is within our power to do so. I doubt they literally mean that for every meal we eat in our entire lives we should brush our teeth. So the suggestion should be understood as "Brush your teeth as often as you can." Or it should be qualified in some other sense.

Also, I don't see why I can't brush my teeth after every meal. That seems to be something within my power. I could do such a thing for the rest of my life. It may be very unlikely but it is clearly something I could do. You did say:

If you say "you may not" that implies that "you may". And that means that I possibly can.

Lastly, you said:

You made the claims "If you want them to live you should help them get off the tracks." and "If the conductor wants them to live he should stop the train."

Which sense of "should" is being used here?

Should you help them if you can't? Should the conductor stop the train if he can't? Since you believe there is a sense of "should" compatible with your not being able to help and a sense of "should" compatible with the conductor not being able to stop the train, what would it mean to say that you and the conductor "should" do those things if neither of you can?

Do you mean "If I want the person to live then I should help them even if I can't."?

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Taffy Lewis ]</p>

tronvillain

Taffy Lewis:
The statements yield "Everyone avoids believing falsehoods" which is simply not true, which should be obvious since different people hold mutually exclusive beliefs. :rollyes:

No, I am simply pointing out that the argument comes apart before you even bring in the fourth premise. Still, what happens if we do bring in the fourth premise? We get (according to your definition of free will) a logically contradictory conclusion, which tells us that either the argument doesn't follow or that one or more of the premises are false. Which, oddly enough, is what I was already addressing.

Except that when you say brushing our teeth is something we can do, you mean it is something we might be able to do under certain conditions. Cleaning your teeth by means of a magical spell on the other hand, is not something that can be done under any conditions.

Will you then similarly qualify the statement "We should avoid believing falsehoods"? Perhaps the suggestion should be understood as "We should avoid believing falsehoods as often as we can." Or it should be qualified in some other sense. Of course, if you do that the whole argument sort of falls apart doesn't it?

As you say, it is very unlikely. The odds are that at some point you may find yourself without toothpaste, or without toothpaste, or perhaps simply in a hurry. Whether you will or not remains to be seen - whether or not you can actually brush your teeth after every meal will only be determined when you fail to do so or stop having meals entirely.

No, it is "If I want the person to live, then I should help them, but unfortunately I can't help them." If you want them to live you should help them get off the tracks, but unfortunately you can't help them get off the tracks. If the conductor wants them to live he should stop the train, but unfortunately he can't.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

tronvillain

In any case, in the initial argument eight simply does not follow from seven. If seven is a contradiction (which it is according to your definition of free will) then if seven follows from the earlier premises one or more of the earlier premises must be false (premise one or two, depending on which you accept). That is all the argument shows.

Taffy Lewis

tronvillain:

You want to draw a distinction between two senses of the word "should". One applies when you can do something and one applies even when you can't. So for whatever reason, it is true that you cannot clean your teeth by saying "Abracadabra! Teeth be clean!". Thus there is no reason to say one should brush after every meal rather than saying one should use a magic spell.

As to your claim that it isn't possible under any set of conditions that one clean one's teeth by a magic spell, this just seems false. You are making the very strong claim that there isn't any logically possible world in which one could clean one's teeth by a magic spell. But the act seems to make sense even if it is outrageous. So there would be some set of conditions in which it could be performed.

Further, how would you draw the line between those things you cannot do "under any conditions" and those things you cannot do but you can do "under some conditions"? You have to be careful not to make a question begging distinction here.

I addressed this point earlier. If you say that you should avoid falsehoods only when one can then the application of the term "should" will depend on whether or not you think one can. If this is true then in the case of my accepting your arguments you will have to believe I can accept them before you can believe I should. Putting qualifications on the norms of rationality has the consequence that you can't tell me I should accept your arguments.

So my ability to actually brush my teeth after every meal is dependent on whether or not I fail? Or do you mean that you can't know if I can brush my teeth after every meal until I fail?

So if they die then you will say that you should have helped them. Won't people think you are guilty of something if you say that?