TheI think the prevailing explanation is immoralbecause it views people asand false. People are not mindless machines executing commands based on their brainchemistry or rewardchemistry. Nor is their behavior a result of a biological urge to seek rewards and avoid punishment.That’s dehumanizing. It’s what animals do,That *is* true for animals, but notpeople.people.↵ ↵ True and moral (ie, non-dehumanizing) explanations of humans refer to things like *minds* (not brains), *preferences*, *ideas*, and *problems*. They accurately reflect that a person is a *moral agent*, meaning he has *free will* and is *responsible* for his actions. They do not violate computational universality, nor are they *limited* to explaining behavior.
I think the prevailing explanation is immoral and false. People are not mindless machines executing commands based on their brain chemistry. Nor is their behavior a result of a biological urge to seek rewards and avoid punishment. That is true for animals, but not people.
True and moral (ie, non-dehumanizing) explanations of humans refer to things like minds (not brains), preferences, ideas, and problems. They accurately reflect that a person is a moral agent, meaning he has free will and is responsible for his actions. They do not violate computational universality, nor are they limited to explaining behavior.