3 ms·

My point is that you're calling people jerks for something they probably have very little control over and are helplessly unaware of. If you're walking behind s

My point is that you're calling people jerks for something they probably have very little control over and are helplessly unaware of. If you're walking behind someone with a broken leg, do you complain that they should be walking faster? Perhaps you don't intend the term "jerk" to carry overtones of moral responsibility or social judgement, but that's a fairly common connotation.

astine 17y ago
You're implying nobody has any real control over what their actions and thereby assigning killers and rocks about the same level moral culpability. This may be rational if you accept a mechanist understanding of human behavior (as you explicated in your previous post) but if that's the case, it becomes ridiculous to argue about 'morality' in general. Moral judgment becomes just a tool to modify undesirable behavior and indignation in this case is perfectly 'justified.' Put another way, yelling at a cripple is not likely to give them their health back, but guilting an insensitive 'jerk' will (likely) cause them to change their behavior to something more socially acceptable.
- camccann 17y ago
  You're implying nobody has any real control over what their actions and thereby assigning killers and rocks about the same level moral culpability. No, I'm just saying that the default state is to have neither control nor awareness of decision-making. Actual conscious decision-making is possible with effort and, to the extent that morality is a well-defined concept, it applies only to conscious minds. guilting an insensitive 'jerk' will (likely) cause them to change their behavior to something more socially acceptable. Not necessarily, if their reasons for behaving that way are unknown to them. More likely their mind will confabulate something sensible-sounding that fits their pre-existing world-view and (unless they already hold a positive disposition toward you) they'll just write you off as being a jerk, after all, you're attacking them for something they had a perfectly valid reason to do... they think.
  - astine 17y ago
    No, I'm just saying that the default state is to have neither control nor awareness of decision-making. Actual conscious decision-making is possible with effort and, to the extent that morality is a well-defined concept, it applies only to conscious minds. In which case they are culpable for not forming good habits (and we are back at Aristotle.) You're not going to get very far telling me that people are not responsible for acting like jerks because either you deny human moral choice altogether, or at some level they are.

astine 17y ago

You're implying nobody has any real control over what their actions and thereby assigning killers and rocks about the same level moral culpability. This may be rational if you accept a mechanist understanding of human behavior (as you explicated in your previous post) but if that's the case, it becomes ridiculous to argue about 'morality' in general. Moral judgment becomes just a tool to modify undesirable behavior and indignation in this case is perfectly 'justified.' Put another way, yelling at a cripple is not likely to give them their health back, but guilting an insensitive 'jerk' will (likely) cause them to change their behavior to something more socially acceptable.

camccann 17y ago
You're implying nobody has any real control over what their actions and thereby assigning killers and rocks about the same level moral culpability. No, I'm just saying that the default state is to have neither control nor awareness of decision-making. Actual conscious decision-making is possible with effort and, to the extent that morality is a well-defined concept, it applies only to conscious minds. guilting an insensitive 'jerk' will (likely) cause them to change their behavior to something more socially acceptable. Not necessarily, if their reasons for behaving that way are unknown to them. More likely their mind will confabulate something sensible-sounding that fits their pre-existing world-view and (unless they already hold a positive disposition toward you) they'll just write you off as being a jerk, after all, you're attacking them for something they had a perfectly valid reason to do... they think.
- astine 17y ago
  No, I'm just saying that the default state is to have neither control nor awareness of decision-making. Actual conscious decision-making is possible with effort and, to the extent that morality is a well-defined concept, it applies only to conscious minds. In which case they are culpable for not forming good habits (and we are back at Aristotle.) You're not going to get very far telling me that people are not responsible for acting like jerks because either you deny human moral choice altogether, or at some level they are.