Some thoughts: deriving a moral framework from our intuitive moral reactions does seem to be an appeal to nature or tradition - intuitions may well be used to check a moral theory but shouldn't be the sole basis. I think that the argument that Strawson (snr) makes - that as it is almost impossible to not have these reactive attitudes in most cases we should therefore abandon a more objective approach to an act that was causally determined - well, I think it lacks imagination. We now have computer-brain interfaces and other technology that could fundamentally change the way we think and feel, should we decide that we ought to. Then we get to the real question, how ought we react to someone when they commit an undesirable act - and this surely will involve their ability to have done otherwise. For this reason I think that Strawson's (snr) whole approach is 'wrongheaded', (as he puts it). It's almost like Strawson is claiming that, given determinism, we should still hold people accountable because we have lack the free-will to feel otherwise, so therefore determinism doesn't matter. Is it just me, or is that a very confusing position?
Thanks for posting this! Great Podcast with the Very Bad Wizards host!
This is an awesome topic!
Some thoughts: deriving a moral framework from our intuitive moral reactions does seem to be an appeal to nature or tradition - intuitions may well be used to check a moral theory but shouldn't be the sole basis. I think that the argument that Strawson (snr) makes - that as it is almost impossible to not have these reactive attitudes in most cases we should therefore abandon a more objective approach to an act that was causally determined - well, I think it lacks imagination. We now have computer-brain interfaces and other technology that could fundamentally change the way we think and feel, should we decide that we ought to. Then we get to the real question, how ought we react to someone when they commit an undesirable act - and this surely will involve their ability to have done otherwise. For this reason I think that Strawson's (snr) whole approach is 'wrongheaded', (as he puts it).
It's almost like Strawson is claiming that, given determinism, we should still hold people accountable because we have lack the free-will to feel otherwise, so therefore determinism doesn't matter. Is it just me, or is that a very confusing position?
Interesting to see you here.