After social determinism, here comes neurological determinism - I never came across one respectable argument against social determinism and I dont think they will ever be none against "neurological determinism" either. What people need to realise is that democracy/morals/ethics are not based on scientific facts, and that you need either to give up on democracy, either to acknowledge that democracy is based on the religious-like belief in free will... I am inclined to believe that this is something Robespierre already had in mind when setting up "theophilanthropisme".
Call me an optimist, but I really feel like Dennett makes a very good case for free will. It's certainly mitigated by certain elements, and I agree we need to alter our ideal-based government systems with this in mind. I still think that at its base democracy is a good idea, but with a careful focus on minimizing harm to the citizen (something akin to heavy socialism) and a penal system based on cold, hard science instead of "WE WANTZ REVENGE LULZ".
Comments 2
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment