Comments on: Interview: John Martin Fischer http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/interview-john-martin-fischer/ Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:52:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Ethical Theory around the Internet: 2/2/07 « the realm of ends http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/interview-john-martin-fischer/#comment-71 Ethical Theory around the Internet: 2/2/07 « the realm of ends Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:30:18 +0000 http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/interview-john-martin-fischer/#comment-71 [...] Florida Student Philosophy Blog has an interview with philosopher of action J.M. Fischer (U.C. Riverside). What’s philosophy of action, you [...] [...] Florida Student Philosophy Blog has an interview with philosopher of action J.M. Fischer (U.C. Riverside). What’s philosophy of action, you [...]

]]> By: John Fischer http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/interview-john-martin-fischer/#comment-61 John Fischer Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:55:59 +0000 http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/interview-john-martin-fischer/#comment-61 I note that Rico asked me why I think causal determinism is or could be compatible with moral responsibility. I didn't really answer the question--rather, I said why it would be desirable if it were. To answer a bit more directly: I distinguish between two kinds of control, regulative and guidance control. These correspond to two kinds of freedom: freedom to do otherwise and acting freely. Moral responsibility requires acting freely (guidance control), but not freedom to do otherwise (regulative control). If this is right, then even if causal determinism rules out freedom to do otherwise and regulative control, it would not thereby rule out moral responsibility. Further, I would argue that there are no strong arguments that causal determinism rules out moral responsibility "directly"--i.e., by threatening guidance (but not regulative) control. I hope this sketch helps. I develop these considerations more in my publications, including MY WAY. I note that Rico asked me why I think causal determinism is or could be compatible with moral responsibility. I didn’t really answer the question–rather, I said why it would be desirable if it were. To answer a bit more directly: I distinguish between two kinds of control, regulative and guidance control. These correspond to two kinds of freedom: freedom to do otherwise and acting freely. Moral responsibility requires acting freely (guidance control), but not freedom to do otherwise (regulative control). If this is right, then even if causal determinism rules out freedom to do otherwise and regulative control, it would not thereby rule out moral responsibility. Further, I would argue that there are no strong arguments that causal determinism rules out moral responsibility “directly”–i.e., by threatening guidance (but not regulative) control.

I hope this sketch helps. I develop these considerations more in my publications, including MY WAY.

]]> By: Rico Vitz http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/interview-john-martin-fischer/#comment-58 Rico Vitz Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:15:09 +0000 http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/interview-john-martin-fischer/#comment-58 Thanks, Joe. More interviews are coming. (Stay tuned.) Thanks, Joe. More interviews are coming. (Stay tuned.)

]]> By: Joe Olechnowicz http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/interview-john-martin-fischer/#comment-57 Joe Olechnowicz Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:12:46 +0000 http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/interview-john-martin-fischer/#comment-57 Nicely done. Looking forward to further interviews. Perhaps those authors that Professor Fischer mentions would oblige. Nicely done. Looking forward to further interviews. Perhaps those authors that Professor Fischer mentions would oblige.

]]>