-1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
I don't understand what you are saying, can you unpack it a bit?
Comment by TheAncientGeek at 25/08/2024 at 15:10 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Does it give you moral responsibility?
Yes, up to a point. For one thing, there is a pragmatic justification for behaving as if moral responsibility existed. For another , it allows intentionality.
Galen Strawsons argument against MR requires that moral responsible agents have "Causa Sui " the ability to create themselves out of nothing. But agents can have a degree of self modification , and therefore a degree responsibility for their character therefore a degree of moral responsibility. It's well known that certain experiences --education, travel,raising a family -- are character forming , so the decisions to do them are chacter forming.
Under my model of free will, agents have the ability to choose between two or more actions that they are motivated to perform, so they cannot choose an action they have no reason to perform, so their a tins, even if undetermined, are intentional and connected to their motivations.
The point is similar to compatibilism: compatibilism allows something like free will, but as more of a human construct and less of a metaphysical absolute.. This approach, sometimes called semicompatibilism, takes a similar attitude to moral responsibility. Given that we can't just empty the jails, or cure all social deviancy medically, we are still going to hold some people as responsible for their reactions and in need of correction. (And we are still going to hold other people as being not responsible for their actions).
There is no theory of hard Determinism that eliminates moral responsibility entirely. Its a black and grey distinction, not a black and white one