Hi Mike, the argument still does not work. This is because premises 1 and 2 are in conflict with each other without even bringing in the question of determinism. Consider the following case: Joe watches lots of right-wing "news media" e.g. fox news, conservative talk radio etc. As a result, they believe lots of false and unjustified prop…
Hi Mike, the argument still does not work. This is because premises 1 and 2 are in conflict with each other without even bringing in the question of determinism.
Consider the following case:
Joe watches lots of right-wing "news media" e.g. fox news, conservative talk radio etc. As a result, they believe lots of false and unjustified propositions. "Obama was born in Kenya", "Donald Trump won the 2020 election", etc. In fact, Joe has built his whole identity around these false beliefs to such a degree that he is genuinely incapable of refraining from believing those things.
If we accept premise 1, that we should believe only the truth, then Joe should not believe that Obama was born in Kenya or that DJT won the 2020 presidential elections. But this violates premise 2. After all, Joe should believe other than he does but, in this particular case, is incapable of doing so.
You might think that I'm presupposing determinism. But I'm not. I'm only rejecting an extreme form of doxastic voluntarism where a person is free to choose any belief she wants. After all, it could be that outside of the toxic context of politics, Joe is capable of changing his mind about questions about physics, biology etc. It is only due to his steady and diet of rightwing media and him building his identity around those beliefs that he is selectively stupid about politics. We can generalise this point. As long as there is some unjustified/false belief that some person cannot refrain from having then there is a conflict between premise 1 and 2. Both cannot be true at the same time.
If 1 and 2 alone are sufficient to generate a contradiction, then the mere fact that there is a contradiction when we assume determinism says nothing about whether determinism is self-defeating.
Hi Mike, the argument still does not work. This is because premises 1 and 2 are in conflict with each other without even bringing in the question of determinism.
Consider the following case:
Joe watches lots of right-wing "news media" e.g. fox news, conservative talk radio etc. As a result, they believe lots of false and unjustified propositions. "Obama was born in Kenya", "Donald Trump won the 2020 election", etc. In fact, Joe has built his whole identity around these false beliefs to such a degree that he is genuinely incapable of refraining from believing those things.
If we accept premise 1, that we should believe only the truth, then Joe should not believe that Obama was born in Kenya or that DJT won the 2020 presidential elections. But this violates premise 2. After all, Joe should believe other than he does but, in this particular case, is incapable of doing so.
You might think that I'm presupposing determinism. But I'm not. I'm only rejecting an extreme form of doxastic voluntarism where a person is free to choose any belief she wants. After all, it could be that outside of the toxic context of politics, Joe is capable of changing his mind about questions about physics, biology etc. It is only due to his steady and diet of rightwing media and him building his identity around those beliefs that he is selectively stupid about politics. We can generalise this point. As long as there is some unjustified/false belief that some person cannot refrain from having then there is a conflict between premise 1 and 2. Both cannot be true at the same time.
If 1 and 2 alone are sufficient to generate a contradiction, then the mere fact that there is a contradiction when we assume determinism says nothing about whether determinism is self-defeating.