4 ms·

I'd suggest reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#FreeWillMoraResp https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#FreeWillMoraRes... and jumping f

I'd suggest reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#FreeWillMoraResp https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#FreeWillMoraRes... and jumping from there if you're interested. There is a difference if you're empathetic or not. That's easily observable in reality. What you're arguing against is perhaps the moral attribution to a decision if you have no control? That is, of course, irrelevant to the discussion being had.

dionidium 4y ago
The point is that this whole conversation is irrelevant and terms like "moral attribution" are non-sensical if there's no free will. Sam Harris does this same thing. He'll spend 45 minutes in a podcast explaining why it's unlikely that you have free will and then say, "but it's still important for you to act morally." Huh? That makes no sense. If I literally can't do anything except that I'm doing, then in no sense is it coherent to advise me to "act ethically." You're just saying what the causal chain made you say and I'm responding to it however the causal chain demands I respond. That is, you're saying it because you can't not say it and I'm responding like this because I also can't do otherwise. But intellectually the game is up. You can't tell the plinko ball to "act ethically" on its way down. It's just gonna go whichever way the physics play out based on the state of the world when you let go of the ball.