Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Responsible in what sense? I think it's okay to have a pragmatic ethics that is not grounded in the deepest metaphysical truths. There isn't any ground anyway. Nor do you have to depend exclusively on a notion of personal responsibility for a system of ethics or morality. For instance, the utilitarian argument for justifying a certain law. The illusion or fabrication of free will has obvious advantages for an individual member of our species. It allows one to recognize that she is the author of her actions, which obviously plays a crucial role in our learning from experience. To put it in another way, it would be impossible for a person to adopt a "psychology" (for the lack of a better word at the moment) of determinism because our FEELING of a conscious, free will is so strong and innate. Wegner, as I recall, likened it to an emotion. Though I'm not sure I agree completely, I think the message is fairly clear -- free will is a feeling that is not going away.
That being said, there are advantages, IMO, of seeing free will as something fabricated rather than something "real"...
|
When I say "responsible," I mean in the sense that a "negative" behavior/crime can be punished to serve some abstract ideal of "justice."
If determinism holds true (and it seems to me like we have to assume it does), then punishment for punishment's sake (in other words, not used as a part of reconditioning) is a grievous mistake based on a fallacious idea.