This one is short and sweet as my thoughts did not stay with the theme of the chapter...
Free will. “It is said to be the most discussed problem in all of philosophy, going back to the ancient Greeks and beyond. This issue raises strong feelings because freedom implies responsibility. We consider ourselves responsible and we hold others accountable for their actions on the assumption that they freely chose to act the way they did.” (p.85)
I read and reread this passage several times before moving on through chapter 6, and while this chapter brings up a lot of interesting points on the biological perspective of free will and consciousness as far as brain function and what is taking place inside the brain while neurons are firing away, I was more intrigued of the social implications this notion of free will presents. If we do have such a thing as free will, and we are in ‘charge’ of our own consciousness and doings, then that forces us to be very trusting of our fellow man, does it not? Yet most of us do not dwell on the fact that we have to interact with strangers throughout the day and one of them my harm us or act outlandish for some odd reason. Oddly for some reason, most of us have some inherent idea of what is right and wrong/ moral and immoral/ good and bad.
So, like previous posts and discussions I have made, does this not warrant some investigation into a universal consciousness? If we as a species for the most part can agree on basic core values at some level, where does that connectedness come from? Food for thought.
"If we do have such a thing as free will, and we are in ‘charge’ of our own consciousness and doings, then that forces us to be very trusting of our fellow man, does it not?" Indeed! And grateful not to have encountered Leopold or Loeb or the like. What if Darrow's defense of them was true? It would then be more a matter of luck, than trust.
ReplyDelete"Oddly for some reason, most of us have some inherent idea of what is right and wrong/ moral and immoral/ good and bad." Whether the moral sense comes from God or from natural selection, you're right: those who lack it are deviants. Maybe their genes and/or upbringings made them do it, but our default assumption that most people can reasonably be held accountable for their actions seems entirely appropriate.
So, a universal consciousness? Something like a transcendental ego? That would explain much, but leave much else in the realm of speculative supernaturalism. To my taste, the evolutionary psychological explanation that we're generally good because cooperatorors and conciliators are naturally selected is more appealing. Couldn't we call that, though, a kind of universal consciousness-or just conscience?