>>22337930>plus it's just not a reasoning that can be used meaningfully for a living, breathing human being, neither directly, nor indirectly.Not sure if you're referring to determinism or indeterminism, but if you're referring to the former, then you're wrong.
>what can this reasoning be used for?You realize that all moral directives are pure rhetoric, as they are mutable, and are only tools used to justify blaming people for being what they are. I don't oppose policing and instilling laws, mind you; I'm simply saying that we shouldn't pretend like morality holds any objective, or rather immutable place in the world.
>that doesn't matter for what we actaully say, think and doDon't know how you got to that conclusion.
>and it's a method of expedient blame-shifting and denigration of ones agency at worst.I see it as the opposite.
The lack of determinism, "indeterminism," supposedly according to you, means that we can hold people responsible for their actions, hence why you claimed that it is opposite, determinism, is used for expedient blame shifting and denigration of one's agency at worst. But do you have any evidence to substantiate your claims? Do you have any counter evidence to the fact that we are not in control of our actions?
What makes you think you are not creating "blame" as an emotional apparatus to serve your wants or needs, and bend others to your will, while keeping them under the impression that if they do not hold themselves accountable, or blame themselves for breaking moral codes, it is their fault, and not a natural outcome in the chain of causality?
