3 ms·

Assigning blame requires only the impulse to assign blame, which is derived from a very primitive impulse to neutralize a threat, be it a tiger, or a thief, or

Assigning blame requires only the impulse to assign blame, which is derived from a very primitive impulse to neutralize a threat, be it a tiger, or a thief, or whatever. The whole notion of free will is a cultural construct. There are societies that have no perception of it, they believe that their actions are guided by spirits. Western concepts of justice are founded on the idea of free will, so of course you need it for western rationalizations of how to apply justice, but arguing that we need free will for justice to work is putting the cart before the horse. We just need it for our version of justice. My cat doesn't need it to take a swipe at the dog when it goes for the cat's food. It is in my interest to argue that life has intrinsic value because if I don't I risk being considered a threat by people who happen to value their own lives quite a bit. It's just simple game theory. I don't see how free will, either real or imagined, is necessary to value the lives of others. And of course, there are no consequences for killing a chicken, so there are no strong moral impulses against it. By our own rationalizations, life doesn't have any intrinsic value unless it is a life that serves us, or has power over us, and the value of a chicken's life extends only as far as it is tasty to us.

naasking 6y ago
> Assigning blame requires only the impulse to assign blame Causally, sure. Morally, I disagree. You've just justified mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. > there are societies that have no perception of it, they believe that their actions are guided by spirits. Sure, and what do those societies do when someone kills their neighbour and claims the spirits said their neighbour had to die? > Western concepts of justice are founded on the idea of free will, so of course you need it for western rationalizations of how to apply justice, but arguing that we need free will for justice to work is putting the cart before the horse. Western justice is founded on free will because it's a logical necessity for coherently assigning blame. > It is in my interest to argue that life has intrinsic value because if I don't I risk being considered a threat by people who happen to value their own lives quite a bit. No, it's actually in your interest to argue that your life has intrinsic value, and that anyone else's life is of lesser value. So here we arrive at the morally repugnant conclusions I mentioned: if you can effectively argue this point, as they did with the divine right of kings, there is no logical basis upon which you can dispute this conclusion. Moral progress has been marked by eliminating such artificial distinctions, not justifying them. > By our own rationalizations, life doesn't have any intrinsic value unless it is a life that serves us, or has power over us, and the value of a chicken's life extends only as far as it is tasty to us. Please explain how this follows from anything I've said in this thread.

naasking 6y ago

> Assigning blame requires only the impulse to assign blame Causally, sure. Morally, I disagree. You've just justified mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. > there are societies that have no perception of it, they believe that their actions are guided by spirits. Sure, and what do those societies do when someone kills their neighbour and claims the spirits said their neighbour had to die? > Western concepts of justice are founded on the idea of free will, so of course you need it for western rationalizations of how to apply justice, but arguing that we need free will for justice to work is putting the cart before the horse. Western justice is founded on free will because it's a logical necessity for coherently assigning blame. > It is in my interest to argue that life has intrinsic value because if I don't I risk being considered a threat by people who happen to value their own lives quite a bit. No, it's actually in your interest to argue that your life has intrinsic value, and that anyone else's life is of lesser value. So here we arrive at the morally repugnant conclusions I mentioned: if you can effectively argue this point, as they did with the divine right of kings, there is no logical basis upon which you can dispute this conclusion. Moral progress has been marked by eliminating such artificial distinctions, not justifying them. > By our own rationalizations, life doesn't have any intrinsic value unless it is a life that serves us, or has power over us, and the value of a chicken's life extends only as far as it is tasty to us. Please explain how this follows from anything I've said in this thread.