As I mentioned, I can’t figure out what compatibilism is supposed to mean. So I -think- it’s irrational, (the problem is symbolized by: unpredictability is qualitatively different than predictability) but I don’t really know, because I don’t really understand the position.

Animals don’t kill their own species. We could learn from that. If we go the “fight to become leader-of-the-pack route”, then we already do this (in my opinion). Also, when animals are homosexual, they aren’t ostracized and condemned by the rest of their species.

In another note, I agree that choice can be a red herring, but as a naturalist, I must say that nature tends to be a solid bet. When our ethics disagree with nature, it is usually some culturally induced prejudice that doesn’t exist everywhere. Does the choice argument not matter if you want to make the claim that it is less moral to be someone that you are not (assuming not a choice), than to commit an “immoral” act in accordance with your nature?

I think there are some fruitful arguments that can come from the choice argument even if it isn’t immediate.

Cheers for the link, however I’m not sure how it argues for naturalism. The reason the naturalist fallacy is considered a fallacy isn’t because “nature is bad” (I agree that snippet is meaningless by itself) but because there’s no reason to go from “X is natural” to “X is good”.

In your post you don’t provide reasons for this transition (I know you probably don’t need to for the purpose of your post but I also don’t think the reason exists).

I don’t say nature is bad but I would say much of the world of non-human-animals contains acts that would be seen as cruel and unjust from a human perspective — would you disagree?

I didn’t catch why you thought about compatibilism as irrational in your post, what’s your rundown?

Because I actually think compatibilism is so clearly true that the free will debate is mostly pointless [But I need to come up with a clear way of putting it all before I post]

http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2008/07/free-will-determinism-infinity.html

…even if for no other reason than to avoid duplication of effort?

Here is why naturalistic argument is not a fallacy. Any place that you claim nature is bad there is a deeper seeded assumption (mostly Western) that death is bad (or in the case of the psychopath, that somehow psychopaths are acting in accordance to nature). This is what needs to be addressed.

My ethics of naturalism post.

On the actual post, though, I feel as if I missed the point. I thought there was going to be talk about how the discussion of choice leads to backlash groups and feelings of powerlessness. What was the point?