|
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Of course. Why would it not? |
Because not every culture sees free-will the way westerners do. Yet, in cultures where free-will is non-existent, people can still live a moral live according to their standards.
So, if morality is present both in deterministic and libertarian societies, are we to consider free-will as being responsible for morality?
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Cheating per se is probably biologically advantageous; whatever subjective moral framework we impose upon the behavior of human beings strikes me as a giant, rancid red herring.
The real reason we should view cheating as repugnant - if we should at all - seems to be that, as a breach of an express or implied commitment, it reduces the ability of human beings generally to rely on the commitments of others, and thereby discourages interdependence and cooperation, which reduces behavioral efficiency.
Of course, that leaves open the question of whether some particular commitment in question has sufficient utility to be justified. If we can efficiently determine that a particular commitment does not, then the prudent thing would seem to be to simply refrain from making it, although, considering how emotionally fragile human beings tend to be, this may be generally impracticable. |
I'm not sure it's biologically advantageous either: I actually know a guy who got divorced once he realised his daughter didn't look anything like him (and, after a couple of DNA tests, it was clear he was not the father). So, if you're the biological father in this case, your offspring is not being looked after. Even if you play with the possibilities, the downsides probably don't make it worth the risk.
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
|