One argument linking morality and immortality speaks of punishment and reward: the following argument doesn't. We discover moral principles by thinking of our actions (and those of others) as belonging to a society that persists: in fact, persistence is integral to that discovery. When we think globally about morality, we think as if all rational beings do or could belong to a quasi-society that persists. And persists. And persists. And that's a kind of immortality that we seem to assume when talking about morality at the cosmic level.
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