4 ms·
You state your opinion as facts, but forget to give an argument. The least you could do is provide a reference. Prima facie, I don't find your view plausible a
by DigitalTurk 13y ago
You state your opinion as facts, but forget to give an argument. The least you could do is provide a reference.
Prima facie, I don't find your view plausible at all.
- XorNot 13y agoHow can an entity which consists of between dozens to hundreds of thousands of people, each of whom has limited agency over the aggregate actions of that entity, and can be replaced at any time while fulfilling the same function (on paper) be remotely capable of demonstrating human-like moral agency?
- pvarangot 13y agoStates have not-human-like moral codes: agree Amoral states: don't agree I believe each group of people have their own social and moral codes that guide their behavior. I don't believe its something easy to understand, determine or represent.
- DigitalTurk 13y agoThat's a question, not an argument. Here's another question: "How can a human being, which consists of many neurons, each of which has limited agency over the aggregate actions of that entity, be remotely capable of demonstrating moral agency?" Incidentally, I noticed that you substituted 'human-like moral agency' for 'moral agency' in the OP. I never said states have human-like moral agency (nor am I making a claim to the contrary per se).
- XorNot 13y agoNo it's a rhetorical question, turn it into one with an answer and you'd have rebutted the argument. You might also note that the answer to your question is that they don't. It is a problem applicable at scale - and we do terrible things to single neurons all the time in the name of science.
- DigitalTurk 13y agoMy question wasn't whether neurons have agency. It was whether people have agency. Also, I intended 'limited agency' to be read as 'zero or very little agency'.