A quick discussion of how funny it is that determinists (people who deny free will) so frequently base their morality upon consent, since according to their theory, it is impossible for anyone to consent to anything. They are literally basing their morality on something which they deny can exist.
Chris Lansdown 
That and people who claim Free Will doesn’t exist are saying that they are just Robots. So nothing they say or do is worth anything. š
LikeLiked by 1 person
Determinism means it is possible to give *or* withhold consent in a given situation. If we’re happy with the situation, we can give consent, if we’re unhappy, we can withhold consent. Libertarian free will would mean that we would have to be able to both give *and* withhold consent in any situation, whether we’re happy or not, which would completely undermine the principle of consent and make our choices random. If someone with libertarian free will were asked if they had made the right choice, they would be unable to tell, even in principle, as their choice could not have been determined by the situation, by definition.
LikeLike
“Interesting” terms here.
Our host defined “Determinism” as “Outside Forces Determine Our Actions”.
What you appear to be talking about is “Situational Ethics”. What is ethical or not ethical depends on the situation.
As for “Libertarian free will”, I’ve talked with plenty of libertarians and have not encounters anything like you’re talking about.
While libertarians vary greatly, most appear to believe that we are Free To Choose Actions on our own. Not because “Outside Forces determine our actions”.
LikeLike
It seems as if you misunderstood what I wrote, as I (broadly) agree with CL’s definition of determinism and wasn’t talking about ‘situational ethics’. To make my point in a simpler way, I’ll just say that if there’s no causal connection between ‘outside forces’ and our choices, then our choices are random, and therefore actually meaningless.
LikeLike