Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kangewalter t1_je7ecgi wrote

Reply to comment by Nickesponja in A Proof of Free Will by philosopher Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder) by thenousman

Why would you think Huemer interprets P1 in that way when he explicitly has the ought implies can principle as P2? Obviously, if you can't believe the truth about something (because you don't have access to information, for example), you can't be obliged to believe it. In the comments, Huemer is explicit that P1 is meant in the sense of "if P is false, then you should refrain from believing it."

1

Nickesponja t1_je94cjb wrote

> if P is false, then you should refrain from believing it

But this is just false if ought implies can, because there are plenty of situations where you can't help but believe falsehoods (say, when you're being convincingly tricked).

1