This is not a free will debate, its assuming free will exists. You used an argue from eudemonia, i was going to use the same argument! I didn't publish an argument in the first round, as I believe me opening this debate was a bit hasty of me, as I don't have a strong argument just yet, nor am I sure of it myself. It's the same with the anti-natalism debate I have going on. In fact, I'm not even an anti-natalist.
Rebuttal I: Free will and eudemonia
My argument, just like yours, entails an argument from eudemonia. Unlike you, however, I believe freedom, or at least the sense that we have control over our actions, is crucial for human happiness and therefore our flourishing. Even if we recognise we may not have free will consciously, this never registers emotionally. Regardless, if we recognise we do not have control, we believe we do in day to day living, just as we may recognise the universe may not exist ( solipsism) but treat it as if it does. Aristotle's Eudemonia was generated by someone following their truest nature, i believe a big part of this, at least for a human, is free will. If we truly didn't believe the universe existed, we would go mad. Just as if we acted as if we had no free will, we would go mad. This is an innate a priori within the human experience that can be denied through discursive knowledge. It can be denied by the rational logical mind, yet it cannot be denied by the qualia, the intuitive mind. You cannot separate eudemonia and free will from the human phenomenological experience.
Rebuttal II: The value of choice
What exactly is goodness? I've become convinced that goodness doesn't even exist. What is goodness? It is simply whatever someone's nature makes them want to pursue. In the case of a human, this is the avoidance of suffering and the maximisation of mental and physical comfort. If you disagree with this position, then you must prove morals objective beyond peoples feelings. The question then really becomes, is there value in allowing a being to go against their own flourishing if they so desire? i would say yes. You can teach a creature logically, and rationally what something is, you can tell a child that touching a boiling water will hurt them, that they shouldn't do it. The child will understand this, yet the child would still not truly know what touching scolding water is like, this is why many children will go against their parents advice and still choose to put their hand in the hot water when told not too. This is called intuitive knowing, when i taste my coffee, i need not to discern anything logically to know the taste of coffee. I know it immediately and intuitively, just as i know myself intuitively to exist. This is the ultimate form of knowledge, as it is self evident, it is immediate. It cannot be denied. In reality, We can never know anything external without directly being aware of ourselves as the experiencer of that thing. Anything that we know always includes a knowledge of ones self at the same time.
Self knowledge is direct and immediate, It is always an aspect of any other kind of knowledge. We don't know ourselves as a bunch of universal concepts, But directly and immediately. Therefore since all experiences of outside things are in reality experiences of the self, Whatever is directly present to the self we experience directly simply by being present with it. You will never question if your coffee really tastes like coffee. This is an a priori, maths in an a priori for instance. This is an important concept to understand. Being able to have free will and to deny yourself happiness of your own will is therefore a great source of knowledge, growth, and experience. The ultimate form of knowledge, in fact, this is locked away from a person without free will. They will never know suffering; they will never know what it is truly like to not follow a certain path. This is a rejection of a thing in itself, an intuitive knowledge of what it means to have a choice. There is value in being able to have choice, not only is the desire to have choice in our eudemonia, there is value in being able to experience what it is like to go against our best interests. I would argue this desire to go against what it is always good for us is in line with our eventually flourishing though.
DDO has many glitches, even if you think a debater there is good, this site is better.
That was not in your debate rules, you cannot just set a rule after the debate begins just because you made it.
Just because word salad comes froma philosopher doesn't mean it isn't word salad. The usage of words in your philosophical rant is flawed and ignoring the real definition of terms as we know them today thanks to science. Knowledge, happiness and freedom don't mean what the old philosopher believed they did.
Furthermore, stop insulting RationalMadman. On our website, we don't do shit like that.
shmuck
You're a waffler brother.
failed to address the issue of free will? i literally said multiple times it isn't a free will debate, its assuming free will exists....
I do not believe you're one day over the age of 17 rationalmadman.
The sense of free will is indeed necessary for happiness in an individual, theres studies showing that once your desires for food, water etc have been met. What next is on the totem poll is the desire for freedom.
No one seems to like indulging in hypotheticals, allergic.
saying there is subjective goodness to oneself based on their nature and recognising or believing no objective goodness are two separate concepts. Its not a contradiction, I've become convinced that DDO debaters are better than the debaters here.
You didnt understand it as you don't know the philosophy behind the argument i put forth, i imagine if you talked about Kant and synthetic a priori's it would appear to be word salad to them too. In fact thats probably word salad to you, i bet you dont know what that means either.
Not a free will debate Benjamin, you literally have no idea about the philosophy i talked about in that round. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying its some pseudo intellectual word salad. Its not, its a real philosophy. "no clear argument format" brother, you just didn't understand it, that's all.
Benjamin, this is not a free will debate brother. I said that in the previous round.
To skip a round in debateart without losing a conduct point one can waive the round. Next time, write and post "Waived" in order to avoid forfeiting.
I (similarly) think free will is basically the capacity for evil. But without it, the world would be brute: for whatever a thing was designed, so it shall behave. There would be nothing worthy of exaltation in a world like that.
Free will is the root of all evil today, ironically, if it exists in the first place.
This is a very strange debate, depends how each side ends up defining 'ultimate good'.