Re: Unusual line of reasoning in Kant's response to the antinomy of free will

On Nov 12, 1:07 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 11:37 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Steven Pinker - HOW THE MIND WORKS page
54-6http://makeashorterlink.com/?M10722072
>
> > As science advances and explanations of behavior become less fanciful,
> > the Specter of Creeping Exculpation, as Dennett calls it, will loom
> > larger. Without a clearer moral philosophy,
>
> Utter ****ing crap, not worth reading the rest.
>
> What's missing from human behaviour these days is a real and therefore
> clear objective standard to judge one's ideas and actions against, its
> that simple.
>
> To determine what that standard ought be, one has to first ask, what
> are morals, who needs morals, and why do they need them.
>
> The answer is YOU, YOU are the ultimate standard of YOUR own morals /
> values, no one else but YOU can be expected to have YOUR morals and
> they theirs.
>
> MG

When you said;

Irresponsibility is created as responsibility is removed.

And the idea of a free or determine -will- was being discussed, it
made me think of Pinker's position that it doesn't matter if it is
determined or free, the laws that protect individual right should
still be enforced. Pinker says that if it turns out all to be
determined, we should get over it.