Today in philosophy we started to get into Kant’s morality, but our professor started the class by talking about determinism and whether morality is possible in a society that believes everyone is scientifically determined.
Is it possible to be moral when you have no freedom to choose other than what you are determined?
One of the examples we talked about is whether child molesters can be punished if that is just the way they have been born. If behavior is dependent upon genetics and environment, that can’t be changed. And someone can’t be held accountable for a behavior they can’t control. Right?
Than again, can we succumb to the idea that some behaviors are more harmful than others to society and thus they should be punished, whether they are determined to or not. For example, a child molester would be punished for his behavior because it is harmful to children, but a nonviolent neo-Nazi could spew his hatred as long as he did not act upon it. But then how is a behavior that is active judged over a behavior that is passive? Isn’t that a morality judgment?
Where do we even get the idea that some ideas are worse than others?
I want to hear some thoughts on this. (reblog or answer)
Is morality possible in a determined world? ARE we determined? And where does this moral sense come from?
-
maxistentialist likes this
-
williamsuphan answered:
I believe a morality that works is simply one that seeks to minimize harm.
-
tideofthought posted this
