Morality cannot be reasoned about mechanistically, as mechanistic explanations are backward-looking (inasmuch as they explain the present as something churned out of the past). Given the fact that I presently desire to attain X and want to know whether and how to attain it, it will do no good to explain how that desire originated in me from past events (be they of my own past or of my ancestry). Telling me how my desire is a result of the past: does not tell me whether I want to act on it here and now or how I am to bring about its satisfaction.
This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level. No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies. None of them thinks about the whole as such. And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist). None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well? And why not parts of these parts, et...
Comments