The prevailing explanation is immoral because it views people as mindless machines executing commands based on their brain chemistry. That’s dehumanizing. It’s what animals do, but not people.

The prevailing explanation is immoral because it views people as mindless machines executing commands based on their brain chemistry or reward and punishment. That’s dehumanizing. It’s what animals do, but not people.

The prevailing explanation is immoral because it views people as mindless machines executing commands based on their brain chemistry or reward and punishment. That’s dehumanizing. It’s what animals do, but not people.

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.