Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're implying nobody has any real control over what their actions and thereby assigning killers and rocks about the same level moral culpability.

No, I'm just saying that the default state is to have neither control nor awareness of decision-making. Actual conscious decision-making is possible with effort and, to the extent that morality is a well-defined concept, it applies only to conscious minds.

guilting an insensitive 'jerk' will (likely) cause them to change their behavior to something more socially acceptable.

Not necessarily, if their reasons for behaving that way are unknown to them. More likely their mind will confabulate something sensible-sounding that fits their pre-existing world-view and (unless they already hold a positive disposition toward you) they'll just write you off as being a jerk, after all, you're attacking them for something they had a perfectly valid reason to do... they think.



No, I'm just saying that the default state is to have neither control nor awareness of decision-making. Actual conscious decision-making is possible with effort and, to the extent that morality is a well-defined concept, it applies only to conscious minds.

In which case they are culpable for not forming good habits (and we are back at Aristotle.) You're not going to get very far telling me that people are not responsible for acting like jerks because either you deny human moral choice altogether, or at some level they are.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: