3 ms·

86 years old might actually be relevant. An uncomfortable truth is that an uncomfortable fraction of our behavior is actually simple neuro-physical and not real

86 years old might actually be relevant. An uncomfortable truth is that an uncomfortable fraction of our behavior is actually simple neuro-physical and not really a good basis for defining character. There was a case of a man, no criminal record, live a perfect life, upstanding member of his community, living in a nursing home. One day he had a stroke. After the stroke, he raped someone else in the nursing home. Again, live his whole life not being a rapist, up until the point where he had a bit of brain damage. The question of his guilt is a very uncomfortable topic. If some rapists are simply brain damaged, are not guilty on account of not being capable of being in control in the first place, are any of them guilty? At what point are you in control enough of your own neuro-chemistry to be responsible for what it does? Is anyone really responsible for anything? In the brain, like in anything, the most complex functions are the most fragile. Poke a few random neurons with a stick you're more likely to get a high-abstraction failure like speech or consciousness than you are to get a low level failure like forgetting to breath. Human sexuality and social behaviors are at least complex enough to be fragile. Fragile enough to be noticeably different in some people on drugs or with brain damage. So who knows, maybe the slow deterioration of faculties for someone 86 years old really does matter.

CMCDragonkai 3y ago
There's a difference between physical responsibility as in cause and effect and moral responsibility. Assuming we have no free will then moral responsibility is fiction. However it is useful fiction. That is punishment is therefore amoral but still required as a feedback mechanism to correct physical processes. If we can separate these 2 things, then one can accept punishment as required, without judgement of morality.
gizmo686 3y ago
As far as disbarment goes, does that really matter. The goal of licensing is to protect the public who will rely on his services. If he cannot provide that service adequately, he should not be licensed, weather his failure is a moral one or a disability which cannot be accomodated.
tbrownaw 3y ago
> The question of his guilt is a very uncomfortable topic. For something possibly similar, there's also Typhoid Mary. Becoming hazardous to society doesn't necessarily have to have a moral component. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

CMCDragonkai 3y ago

There's a difference between physical responsibility as in cause and effect and moral responsibility. Assuming we have no free will then moral responsibility is fiction. However it is useful fiction. That is punishment is therefore amoral but still required as a feedback mechanism to correct physical processes. If we can separate these 2 things, then one can accept punishment as required, without judgement of morality.

gizmo686 3y ago

As far as disbarment goes, does that really matter. The goal of licensing is to protect the public who will rely on his services. If he cannot provide that service adequately, he should not be licensed, weather his failure is a moral one or a disability which cannot be accomodated.

tbrownaw 3y ago

> The question of his guilt is a very uncomfortable topic. For something possibly similar, there's also Typhoid Mary. Becoming hazardous to society doesn't necessarily have to have a moral component. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon