When I make an act based on what kind of a person I am, I make a choice.
That’s the compatibilist definition of choice.
I agree; but compatibilism is at odds with how people commonly use language. David DeAngelo says “Attraction isn’t a choice”, and by saying that he communicates the valuable lesson that you can’t make a woman be attracted to you by convincing her to choose to be attracted to you. And yet, attraction is a choice, by the compatibilist definition. The compatibilist definition of “choice” ruins the word’s usefulness, as it then fails to make any distinction… everything we do is a “choice” to the compatibilist, even breathing.
David DeAngelo says “Attraction isn’t a choice”, and by saying that he communicates the valuable lesson that you can’t make a woman be attracted to you by convincing her to choose to be attracted to you.
On the other hand it is possible to change someone’s ethics, e.g., change their religion, make them vegetarian, by convincing them to change their religion, become a vegetarian, etc.
And yet, attraction is a choice, by the compatibilist definition.
This isn’t true. You can be a compabilist without believing that all mental states are the result of choices. Breathing, for instance, is neurally involuntary. Your breath reflexes will ultimately override a decision to not breathe.
The compatibilist definition of choice says that “choice” is the deterministic working-out of “who you are”. You could, in principle, work out some sort of division of your actions into categories that have causes within the parts of your brain that you are most fond of, and those that have causes primarily with other parts, like the brainstem. Why would you want to do that?
I agree; but compatibilism is at odds with how people commonly use language. David DeAngelo says “Attraction isn’t a choice”, and by saying that he communicates the valuable lesson that you can’t make a woman be attracted to you by convincing her to choose to be attracted to you. And yet, attraction is a choice, by the compatibilist definition. The compatibilist definition of “choice” ruins the word’s usefulness, as it then fails to make any distinction… everything we do is a “choice” to the compatibilist, even breathing.
On the other hand it is possible to change someone’s ethics, e.g., change their religion, make them vegetarian, by convincing them to change their religion, become a vegetarian, etc.
That’s a good point.
This isn’t true. You can be a compabilist without believing that all mental states are the result of choices. Breathing, for instance, is neurally involuntary. Your breath reflexes will ultimately override a decision to not breathe.
The compatibilist definition of choice says that “choice” is the deterministic working-out of “who you are”. You could, in principle, work out some sort of division of your actions into categories that have causes within the parts of your brain that you are most fond of, and those that have causes primarily with other parts, like the brainstem. Why would you want to do that?