6 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2020
    1. Does this argument stop me feeling entirely morally responsible for what I do? It does not. Does it stop you feeling entirely morally responsible? I very much doubt it. Should it stop us? Well, it might not be a good thing if it did.

      Strawson, despite spending most of the article thoroughly detailing the ideals of determinism, includes this at the end, admitting their research didn't exactly change their stance, nor would they blame the reader for feeling the same way, and following determinism might not always be a good thing

    2. determinism, the theory that absolutely everything that happens is causally determined to happen exactly as it does by what has already gone before — right back to the beginning of the universe.

      means that everything that will happen is caused by external circumstances outside of will - can imply humans don't have free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions since they technically don't have any choice when it comes to how they act

    1. A would-be relativist about morality needs to decide whether his view grants the existence of some absolute moral facts, or whether it is to be a pure relativism, free of any commitment to absolutes.  The latter position, I have argued, is mere nihilism; whereas the former leads us straight out of relativism and back into the quest for the moral absolutes.

      Main idea of the article

    2. Most moral relativists say that moral right and wrong are to be relativized to a community’s “moral code.”

      reminds me of how in Mcbayer's article he talks about how facts and opinions can be subjective from person to person - one's own moral code can be formed from their own opinions/beliefs, such as eating meat. Certain societies/religions belive it is morally wrong, but can it be factually wrong?