RE: What would be the harm?
November 28, 2018 at 11:52 pm
(This post was last modified: November 29, 2018 at 1:22 am by bennyboy.)
It depends how you choose to view it. We don't normally take an evolutionary/deterministic view when we are talking about mental agency, but there's no particular reason not to except linguistic convention.
If we are to view morality through an understanding of subjective agency, including some version of the idea of free will and therefore culpability, then feelings and ideas rule the roost, and I'd call that subjective. If we are to look at it as a black-box experiment (data in, processing, behavior out), with the sense that processing is deterministic, then I'd say that even without knowing exactly what leads to a behavior, we can assume it to be objective in nature-- after all, what does subjectivism really mean in a material monism?
If we are to view morality through an understanding of subjective agency, including some version of the idea of free will and therefore culpability, then feelings and ideas rule the roost, and I'd call that subjective. If we are to look at it as a black-box experiment (data in, processing, behavior out), with the sense that processing is deterministic, then I'd say that even without knowing exactly what leads to a behavior, we can assume it to be objective in nature-- after all, what does subjectivism really mean in a material monism?
