this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
117 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
2700 readers
45 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've never seen this line of thinking as useful. For practical things-- the actions you take and the beliefs you express-- their effect is not connected to whether you're a conscious, free-willed entity, or whether you're a collection of chemical and physical processes that emulates the first option.
It's the same argument as "I have no free will, so it's not my fault I'm committing this crime." Ok, well then it's also not my fault that I'm arresting you.
In short, just because you can explain why a certain action is taken, that doesn't mean that the action is justified.
I would suggest that on the contrary, it suggests a useful point of intervention. A great deal of crime descends from poverty. If you don't like crime, you could focus on it being about the individuals committing the crime, or you could focus on fixing the poverty. Doing the former has gotten us the highest proportion of our population in prison in the world, higher than any police state that I am aware of.
If you're using it to diagnose or study and not to justify then yes it's an excellent tool.
I think of myself as a consequentialist. I care about outcomes, and having an understanding of the inputs and the function gives you much better control over the outputs.