作者IsaacStein (三人行，必穿我鞋)
看板W-Philosophy
标题Re: [问题] 要怎麽做
时间Wed Jun 21 20:47:20 2006
※ 引述《realove (realove)》之铭言：
: P1: if determinism is true, then there is no free will (or choice)
: P2: if there is no free will (or choice), then there is no moral res-
: ponsibility.
: C: if determinism is true, there is no moral responsibility
然後，我觉得这个论证很有意思，我想写一个新的试试看。 XD
Abbreviation:
D for determinism.
MR for moral responsibility.
FW for free will.
P1: If D is true, there is no FW.
P2: If there is no FW, there is no MR.
P3: D is true.
According to premises above, we can conclude that
C1: There is no MR.
However, consider the case between Jones4 and Black, in which
P3 is true, and still C1 is false, i.e. there is still MR.
Therefore, either P1 or P2 must be false.
如果重新把论证如此构做的话，Frankfurt 的例子就不会是直接对P2的反对，
反而是构做了一个间接论证，证明P1和P2是不一致的，详细写的话就会如下：
1. D -> ~FW P
2. ~FW -> ~MR P
3. D P
4. D & MR P (according to the case between Jones4 and Black)
5. D -> ~MR 1,2, HS.
6. MR 4, Simp.
7. ~MR 3,5, MP.
8. MR & ~MR 6,7, Conj.
根据间接论证，从前提1到4会得到一个矛盾句的结论，因此四个前提中必定有
假，而3和4是我们不愿放弃的前提。因此1和2便都有可能是错的。
所以，在你原本构做的论证里，Frankfurt 只能证明P2为假，却不能证明P1也
是假的，但是在这里的论证，P1和P2都可能被证明为假了。 :p
--
谢逊提起屠龙刀，恨恨的道：
「还是让你到龙宫中去，屠你妈的龙去罢！」
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.160.181.13
※ 编辑: IsaacStein 来自: 218.160.181.13 (06/21 20:48)