Given that we do have freedom to choose, the distinction between the either/or world and the is/ought world becomes paramount to me.
In the either/or world, you can choose to believe things able to be demonstrated as not true. Just as you can choose not to believe things able to demonstrated as in fact true.
What becomes crucial here is the fact that, sans sim worlds, demonic dreams, solipsism etc., there is an objective truth to be found. Now, we may not be able to pin this down beyond all doubt but in the either/or world something either is or is not true.
On the other hand, in the is/ought world, we can all agree that certain things are in fact true, but we don’t all agree regarding our reaction to those truths. The state executes John Doe. That’s a fact. Jane supports this execution. That’s a fact. Jim does not support it. That’s a fact.
But if the discussion shifts to whether or not capital punishment is a good thing or a bad things [moral or immoral] that’s when I broach the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Those are the “conditions” that are of most importance to me.
Now, if, instead, we presume that human interactions [and everything else] are embedded in a wholly determined universe, what does it mean to speak of one of us choosing one thing rather than another?
Yes, a choice is made. A woman chooses to have sex and becomes pregnant. This woman then chooses to have an abortion. A doctor chooses to perform it. A law official chooses to place them under arrest because abortion is illegal where they reside. A jury chooses to find them guilty. A judges chooses to sentence them to prison.
Now, in a wholly determined universe, is there anything that unfolds in this sequence of events that could ever have possibly been anything other than what it was?
That’s what I can’t wrap my head around here. And I will readily admit I might not be thinking this all through in the most reasonable manner.
But: if in fact we do choose something only because in fact we could not not have chosen it, how can we speak of a “compatibility” between a so-called “metaphysical determinism” and a so-called “psychological freedom”?
I must be missing something really important here.
If we live in a wholly determined universe then the manner in which I convey my own moral philosophy [nihilism] is just one more set of dominoes toppling over in sync with all the other ones. I choose to convey this here, but I was never able to not choose to.