-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/02/14/limited-government-and-morality-as-a-fill-in-the-blanks-slate/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Robert S. Porter
56 comments · 1 points
-
mfarmer
18 comments · 7 points
-
uknowbetter
362 comments · 19 points
-
huadpe
40 comments · 1 points
-
Vangel
78 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Bernanke and the Pringles Problem
4 days ago · 17 comments
-
What Progressive Redistribution Is For
6 days ago · 23 comments
-
Can “the Big Cutoff” Settle the Science?
2 weeks ago · 57 comments
-
When You’re in a Liquidity Trap…
5 days ago · 12 comments
-
Climategate
3 weeks ago · 62 comments
-
Bernanke and the Pringles Problem
Does reading Ayn Rand cause people's moral calibration to shift? Or, does she only appeal to those who were already there?
What about things like the Drew Carey videos at reason.tv, or Penn & Teller's "Bullishit!"?
The individual is just as artificial as the nation, no? We're the sum of a bunch of self-interested neurons and other cells in a pretty similar way to how a nation is a "sum" of self-interested people, right?
And yet self-interest of an individual is thought to be OK. We're alright with letting people self-actualize, rather than wanting to impose a really strict norm like "do research for a year on how you can best help the world, and then do exactly that."
Of course, humans are moral agents and neurons are not. So I guess it sounds like we're saying: hone your analysis down to the finest possible granularity of moral agents, and then grant those agents a large level of autonomy.
So what about conflicted people? What if it were possible to "grant autonomy" to distinct personalities in a person's head by chopping their brains in half very carefully? What if we found that you could create 5 brains instead of 1 by doing surgery on a very young developing brain (with very very plastic neurons)? Would we then be morally obligated to dissolve the "fiction" of indivisible moral identity?
Weird questions, but basically I am wondering how rock-solid the philosophy is here. We may well bump up against questions like these, and sooner than you might think.
I'm VERY interested in the question of the granularity of personhood. My pet theory is that continuity in subjective personal identity is a solution to a intrapersonal coordination game that helps solve interpersonal coordination games in small, face-to-face, reputation-based communities. I don't think this makes persons a "fiction", since I don't buy any essentialist metaphysics of persons that I would accept as a contrast. But the sense of stable ongoing identity has a function, and that function is served partly by having an unfounded horror of disintegration.
But really you're saying here that Homo Sapiens' evolved, ingrained sharing norms are not sufficient to ensure that your average human would react with moral revulsion to the repeal of the New-Deal style welfare state. That sounds quite possible.
They can change?