I think I'd go this way: Ultimately people make choices. But those choices are influenced by a million different things ranging from biology to background to mood. When we look at something like behavior, the types of questions we ask tend to be things like "was the person who made the decision morally blameworthy?" or "Are they likely to do it again?"
Focusing too much on an abstract concept of "free will" tends to muddle those questions and provide little value mostly because in the real world not all "will" is equal (and in some cases it is, even if accurate, deceptive to call it "free"). Looking at things like background, context, etc., seems like exactly the type of way to approach a difficult problem. On the other hand assuming that a mantra is one-size-fits-all and refusing to consider context seems intellectually dishonest.
So my answers would be:
Most sane people have free will in the sense that they ultimately make a choice, but if that is all free will means, it is pretty much a useless concept. If it means enough to be valuable, not everyone has it.
The past influences the future. There can even be direct causes (if you had your leg amputated in 1981, that is why you don't have a leg now!).
I have no clue what the libertarianism section means.
People, generally, are responsible for giving a good faith effort to do the best with what they have. (Exclusive of the objective responsibilities inherent in an civilized society such as not killing, torturing, waterboarding, or voting Republican)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
I think I'd go this way: Ultimately people make choices. But those choices are influenced by a million different things ranging from biology to background to mood. When we look at something like behavior, the types of questions we ask tend to be things like "was the person who made the decision morally blameworthy?" or "Are they likely to do it again?"
Focusing too much on an abstract concept of "free will" tends to muddle those questions and provide little value mostly because in the real world not all "will" is equal (and in some cases it is, even if accurate, deceptive to call it "free"). Looking at things like background, context, etc., seems like exactly the type of way to approach a difficult problem. On the other hand assuming that a mantra is one-size-fits-all and refusing to consider context seems intellectually dishonest.
So my answers would be: