Comments on: Neurological Determinism http://nathanaelsmith.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/neurological-determinism/ Theological and Philosophical Musings and Resources Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:45:46 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: nathanaelsmith http://nathanaelsmith.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/neurological-determinism/#comment-275 nathanaelsmith Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:44:41 +0000 http://nathanaelsmith.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-275 Tony, Thanks for the comment. I would be curious to see how an argument from ND to lack of moral culpability is self-defeating. If you know of someone who has argued in this way I would enjoy reading their essay / blog post. Also, I wanted to clarify, my original post was not offered in support of ND. Rather it was simply an effort to formalize an argument which seems to be made in more popular level work on neurology, and a response to the formalized argument. If anything it is a criticism of ND as evinced by the final line of the post. I hope that helps clarify what I intended for the post. I appreciate your comment and visit. Tony,
Thanks for the comment. I would be curious to see how an argument from ND to lack of moral culpability is self-defeating. If you know of someone who has argued in this way I would enjoy reading their essay / blog post.
Also, I wanted to clarify, my original post was not offered in support of ND. Rather it was simply an effort to formalize an argument which seems to be made in more popular level work on neurology, and a response to the formalized argument. If anything it is a criticism of ND as evinced by the final line of the post.
I hope that helps clarify what I intended for the post. I appreciate your comment and visit.

]]> By: Tony Lloyd http://nathanaelsmith.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/neurological-determinism/#comment-274 Tony Lloyd Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:20:20 +0000 http://nathanaelsmith.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-274 A very trite observation, but isn't an argument from ND to lack of moral culpability self-defeating? Say you ask me not to viciously beat you around the head with a baseball bat for the sin of buying me lager and not real ale. You plea "ND"! To which I reply "ND!, if you are not responsible for your bad beer buying decisions then I am not responsible for my gratuitous and excessive violence". We have to assume that there is someone who can act ethically (the judge say). So "ND" cannot be universally applied. In the case of mental disease we remove the universality. They (the subject with mental disease) is not free, we are. A very trite observation, but isn’t an argument from ND to lack of moral culpability self-defeating?

Say you ask me not to viciously beat you around the head with a baseball bat for the sin of buying me lager and not real ale. You plea “ND”! To which I reply “ND!, if you are not responsible for your bad beer buying decisions then I am not responsible for my gratuitous and excessive violence”.

We have to assume that there is someone who can act ethically (the judge say). So “ND” cannot be universally applied. In the case of mental disease we remove the universality. They (the subject with mental disease) is not free, we are.

]]>