Posted: Aug 06, 2019 3:52 pm
by Cito di Pense
zoon wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:……
We have laws that simply make drunk driving illegal, regardless of degree of mental competence when sober. …...

The mental competence of the driver when sober is definitely taken into account. In the UK, a child of 9 who drives a car on a public road, drunk or sober, has not committed a criminal act, because they are too young for criminal responsibility. It’s the parent, or whoever was supposed to be safeguarding and controlling the child, who is more likely to be charged. Similarly, if someone who has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act manages to get drunk and then drive a car on a public road, the question for the law would probably be: who was supposed to be looking after them.

Of course, these are rare cases in practice, but to say that the law with regard to drunk driving takes no account of mental competence when sober is piffle.


Then your degree of free will depends to a large extent on whether you're operating heavy machinery or just watching TV. How's that? You didn't cite those exceptions, which would have been simple for you to add, in your post 13664. Fuck the piffle, zoon. Pretending that creating a working definition of free will is some act of intellectual merit is the piffle. This is all you wrote:

I would not say that people have free will if they have mental difficulties which prevent them from coping with the complexities of social rules in ordinary life.


You didn't write about specific regulations in a specific society, about people who have been 'sectioned'. You only wrote about "mental difficulties which prevent..." in what I just quoted. You made no attempt in 13664 to say what you denoted by "mental competence". I gather that your conception of so-called "free will" applies, then, to people who have not been 'sectioned' by a mental health authority, which is only a restricted kind of coercion. I still don't think you have any clear definition of free will other than "not coerced", and you could easily spare yourself writing the reams of bullshit you write about how you find the concept useful, if only you quit all this obfuscation, and drew the line at coercion.

Of course, that's not very impressive filosofeezing, ending as it does in yet another Department of Tautology Department patented tautology.

zoon wrote:
Of course, these are rare cases in practice, but to say that the law with regard to drunk driving takes no account of mental competence when sober is piffle.


And that, dearie? That's a technical quiblble that goes no way to helping you explain what you denote by 'free will'. That's just you trying to save a little face after your bullshit is ripped up. Free will, the way you sell it, is local to this or that society, not a really impressive construct.