Revisions of #736
Contributors: Dennis Hackethal
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. 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 brainchemistry.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.
↓
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.