※ 引述《realove (realove)》之銘言：
: 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，我覺得這個論證很有意思，我想寫一個新的試試看。 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.
如果重新把論證如此構做的話，Frankfurt 的例子就不會是直接對P2的反對，
反而是構做了一個間接論證，證明P1和P2是不一致的，詳細寫的話就會如下：
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.
根據間接論證，從前提1到4會得到一個矛盾句的結論，因此四個前提中必定有
假，而3和4是我們不願放棄的前提。因此1和2便都有可能是錯的。
所以，在你原本構做的論證裡，Frankfurt 只能證明P2為假，卻不能證明P1也
是假的，但是在這裡的論證，P1和P2都可能被證明為假了。 :p
--
謝遜提起屠龍刀，恨恨的道：
「還是讓你到龍宮中去，屠你媽的龍去罷！」
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.160.181.13
※ 編輯: IsaacStein 來自: 218.160.181.13 (06/21 20:48)