3 ms·
My objection is with the word "should", because (and maybe I'm wrong) it implies choice. Nobody says a falling rock should avoid hitting a child - the lack of a
by icebraining 7y ago
My objection is with the word "should", because (and maybe I'm wrong) it implies choice. Nobody says a falling rock should avoid hitting a child - the lack of agency of the rock makes that statement meaningless.
Similarly, if you posit that we have no free will, saying that humanity should rehabilitate and not punish is meaningless.
- syssbin 7y agoI understand your objection. Should is just a word for human expression to be shared from me to you. Maybe, not the best word. Although, I thought as a whole the post answered your original point. Yes, we're similar as the rock because of no agency that's truly our own. We assume typically the rock has no individual conscious and for all we know panpsychism exists contrary to our assumption. Basically, we cannot know what's right or wrong and if a rock should avoid hitting a child. It all factors into fate in the end. Might be favourable for being hit by the rock or not. One could argue, except that's a rock & a human. I think (human & human) could be treated the same as (rock & a human) but we're dealing with equation of humanity and the emotions of deeper similarity shared. The majority consensus favour our deeper similarities for connection. So the majority consensus doesn't want (human & rock) treatment to be the same like throw the rock away like a piece of trash that's been used up. Anyway, Fate will decide in the end if we should treat all other objects equally and even while knowing cause & effect. I think cause & effect and with our humanity connection thus favours the rehabilitation modal if the majority consensus ever updates by fate.