{"title":"简论诺瓦克的自由主义论战","authors":"David Peroutka","doi":"10.5840/studneoar20171435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Briefl y in Response to Lukáš Novák’s Libertarian Polemic In response to Novák’s polemic attack I try to remove some misunderstandings and defend compatibilism about free will. My main argument goes thus: Let us take for example two agents who both decide not to kill. The fi rst one makes his choice out of his dilemmatic mental state of incertitude and perplexity. Conversely the second person understands the sense of moral principles so clearly that she makes the right decision with necessity. Since the morality of the second person surpasses that of the fi rst, my point is that the libertarian thinker puts in confl ict morality and freedom: The more a person (the latter agent) is virtuous, the less she is free (for the supposed necessity of her volition is taken to be incompatible with freedom in the libertarian theory). And – on the other hand – the less an agent (the former one) is moral, the more he is free. Indeed, he would be free while the latter unfree if it were true (as the libertarian believes) that freedom entails contingency. This is a peculiar rule of proportion. Compatibilism avoids such a peculiarity.","PeriodicalId":55635,"journal":{"name":"Studia Neoaristotelica","volume":"14 1","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/studneoar20171435","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stručně k Novákově libertariánské polemice\",\"authors\":\"David Peroutka\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/studneoar20171435\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Briefl y in Response to Lukáš Novák’s Libertarian Polemic In response to Novák’s polemic attack I try to remove some misunderstandings and defend compatibilism about free will. My main argument goes thus: Let us take for example two agents who both decide not to kill. The fi rst one makes his choice out of his dilemmatic mental state of incertitude and perplexity. Conversely the second person understands the sense of moral principles so clearly that she makes the right decision with necessity. Since the morality of the second person surpasses that of the fi rst, my point is that the libertarian thinker puts in confl ict morality and freedom: The more a person (the latter agent) is virtuous, the less she is free (for the supposed necessity of her volition is taken to be incompatible with freedom in the libertarian theory). And – on the other hand – the less an agent (the former one) is moral, the more he is free. Indeed, he would be free while the latter unfree if it were true (as the libertarian believes) that freedom entails contingency. This is a peculiar rule of proportion. Compatibilism avoids such a peculiarity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55635,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Neoaristotelica\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"1-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/studneoar20171435\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Neoaristotelica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/studneoar20171435\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Neoaristotelica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/studneoar20171435","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Briefl y in Response to Lukáš Novák’s Libertarian Polemic In response to Novák’s polemic attack I try to remove some misunderstandings and defend compatibilism about free will. My main argument goes thus: Let us take for example two agents who both decide not to kill. The fi rst one makes his choice out of his dilemmatic mental state of incertitude and perplexity. Conversely the second person understands the sense of moral principles so clearly that she makes the right decision with necessity. Since the morality of the second person surpasses that of the fi rst, my point is that the libertarian thinker puts in confl ict morality and freedom: The more a person (the latter agent) is virtuous, the less she is free (for the supposed necessity of her volition is taken to be incompatible with freedom in the libertarian theory). And – on the other hand – the less an agent (the former one) is moral, the more he is free. Indeed, he would be free while the latter unfree if it were true (as the libertarian believes) that freedom entails contingency. This is a peculiar rule of proportion. Compatibilism avoids such a peculiarity.
期刊介绍:
Studia Neoaristotelica is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal devoted to the promotion of Aristotelian philosophy broadly conceived, drawing on the rich legacy of the scholastic tradition and contemporary analytical metaphysics. Special emphasis is placed on the most advanced forms of scholastic thought that emerged during the Renaissance and Baroque periods. Our vision is to work toward a philosophical synthesis of analytic and scholastic methods and ideas, providing a contribution to Christian philosophy as well as wider secular thought. The journal is published by Editiones Scholasticae and the University of South Bohemia Faculty of Theology.