Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bradskii" data-source="post: 77680641" data-attributes="member: 412388"><p>I know you have some reservations about hypotheticals, but I can't help that. I'm going to use one anyway. </p><p></p><p>Consider a scientist who has managed to work out how to prompt certain reactions in a person by operating some mechanism. It's not that far fetched as injections of various substances or the excitation of certain parts of the brain can do this. The part of the brain might be the anterior singular cortex which relates to social awareness, or the amygdala which controls emotions. The person is presented with an easy opportunity to steal some money. Normally he wouldn't. But our scientist knows the exact neurological conditions that present when someone decides to break social norms and steal someone's property. So he flicks some switches and causes our hero to take my wallet.</p><p></p><p>Is the guy to blame? He was literally being controlled by someone. He wouldn't have taken the wallet unless that happened. So there's obviously no culpability. He had no choice.</p><p></p><p>But what if the scientist was able to rearrange the various parts of the brain in advance. And then leaves the guy to his own devices. He still steals my wallet. Is he to blame? The same applies...he wouldn't have stolen the money if he hadn't been neurologically changed, outside of any control that he had. It wasn't his fault that that happened. How can he be culpable?</p><p></p><p>Now you can see where this is going. Now the neurological changes to the guys brain happened in the womb. As he was growing. Depending on what his mother was doing when she was pregnant. The changes happened due to the type of education the guy had. Whether he was assaulted as a child. Whether violence was a part of his upbringing. None of which were under his control. It wasn't his fault that that happened. How can he now be culpable?</p><p></p><p>Well, you think in the third example he can rise above everything, step outside of his character, reject what was inevitable in the first two. He must accept blame in the third instance but not in the other two. Even though <em>his neurological states were exactly the same and in none of the cases did he have any control over them.</em></p><p></p><p>That seems to make sense to you. It makes none to me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bradskii, post: 77680641, member: 412388"] I know you have some reservations about hypotheticals, but I can't help that. I'm going to use one anyway. Consider a scientist who has managed to work out how to prompt certain reactions in a person by operating some mechanism. It's not that far fetched as injections of various substances or the excitation of certain parts of the brain can do this. The part of the brain might be the anterior singular cortex which relates to social awareness, or the amygdala which controls emotions. The person is presented with an easy opportunity to steal some money. Normally he wouldn't. But our scientist knows the exact neurological conditions that present when someone decides to break social norms and steal someone's property. So he flicks some switches and causes our hero to take my wallet. Is the guy to blame? He was literally being controlled by someone. He wouldn't have taken the wallet unless that happened. So there's obviously no culpability. He had no choice. But what if the scientist was able to rearrange the various parts of the brain in advance. And then leaves the guy to his own devices. He still steals my wallet. Is he to blame? The same applies...he wouldn't have stolen the money if he hadn't been neurologically changed, outside of any control that he had. It wasn't his fault that that happened. How can he be culpable? Now you can see where this is going. Now the neurological changes to the guys brain happened in the womb. As he was growing. Depending on what his mother was doing when she was pregnant. The changes happened due to the type of education the guy had. Whether he was assaulted as a child. Whether violence was a part of his upbringing. None of which were under his control. It wasn't his fault that that happened. How can he now be culpable? Well, you think in the third example he can rise above everything, step outside of his character, reject what was inevitable in the first two. He must accept blame in the third instance but not in the other two. Even though [I]his neurological states were exactly the same and in none of the cases did he have any control over them.[/I] That seems to make sense to you. It makes none to me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
Top
Bottom