4 ms·
Nobody is claiming that all moral theories require agency. The point is that many do, so if there are no agents (as defined above), it means that we should rej
by chrisdevereux 12y ago
Nobody is claiming that all moral theories require agency.
The point is that many do, so if there are no agents (as defined above), it means that we should reject moral theories that we might otherwise accept. That's a significant result whether or all kinds moral judgement require agency (and as you rightly point out, they don't. As did I...).
As far as I can see, it's an open question whether there are any agents. It depends partly on whether the universe is deterministic (which is basically all that these 'scientist solves the free will problem' articles concern) and partly on whether it's possible to give an account of agency that is compatible with determinism.
- Retric 12y agoSorry, if I was not clear. I don't see a meaningful difference free will makes at human complexity levels when it comes to morality. Basically, if given identical situations we always chose the same response then we don't have free will. The only other option is randomness, basically given identical physical and spiritual situations we somewhat randomly pick an outcome. Further DNA is tied to identity making the classic argument if you had lived his life you could have made the same choices not be true.