Huemer keeping that consistency in being the worst big name in philosophy. What kind of a crap argument is that? Like someone pointed in the comment, depending on the notion of "can" premise 2 or 3 are clearly false.
If logical possibility, clearly 2 is false. This necessitarian type of hard determinism is a metaphysical thesis. It restrics metaphysical possibility. It's just false that anything logically possible will be done by agents
But if we switch to metaphysical possibility 2 is just clearly false. Child murderer S could have murdered the child, and so they did (necessitarianism). Obviously they shouldn't have. This should be especially clear considering Huemer is a realist. The moral truth that S shouldn't have done that is presumably true independently. Clearly 'ought implies can' just fails on this necessitarian hard determinism.
NotASpaceHero t1_jdrekht wrote
Reply to A Proof of Free Will by philosopher Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder) by thenousman
Huemer keeping that consistency in being the worst big name in philosophy. What kind of a crap argument is that? Like someone pointed in the comment, depending on the notion of "can" premise 2 or 3 are clearly false.
If logical possibility, clearly 2 is false. This necessitarian type of hard determinism is a metaphysical thesis. It restrics metaphysical possibility. It's just false that anything logically possible will be done by agents
But if we switch to metaphysical possibility 2 is just clearly false. Child murderer S could have murdered the child, and so they did (necessitarianism). Obviously they shouldn't have. This should be especially clear considering Huemer is a realist. The moral truth that S shouldn't have done that is presumably true independently. Clearly 'ought implies can' just fails on this necessitarian hard determinism.