Posted: Aug 14, 2017 2:49 pm
zoon wrote: But then he says that it follows we ought not to blame people for what they do, and at this point I think he’s fallen into the trap Hume identified (* see below). Where does that “ought” suddenly come from?
I see differences between moral accountability to a god and a realisation that things would be better for us collectively if we did X.
Granted people can't be held accountable to God if they act according to how they were made and they were made by that god. Clearly responsibility can be attributed to the maker in that case. God must hold himself to blame. Just as Tesla will be to blame if their autopilot leads to loss of life for easily foreseeable reasons the designers failed to make provision for.
In terms of evolved behaviour of humans, and abilities to imagine futures different to the present the 'ought' is surely no more than a 'it might be better if...' that is just a discovery about the world on par with which substances are nourishing or how to make fire. These are aspects of the unfolding of the world that apply just as much if we view it as all set on a path at the Big Bang or jiggling about as it flows like a river carving a channel. Is free will necessary to discover strawberries taste good and nourish? I would say not.
We can see societal rules could prevent various unpleasant situations in the future and establish coercive rules to encourage that to happen.
o I think I agree with you that Sapolsky is mistaken to say we ought not blame anyone because it lacks pragmatism and he can't appeal to 'moral authority'.