So you (or perhaps some extrapolated version of you) would say that a thermostat in a human’s house set to 65 degrees F is moral, because it does the right thing, while a thermostat set to 115 is immoral because it does the wrong thing. Meanwhile one of those free will people would say that a thermostat is neither moral nor immoral, it is just a thermostat.
The main difference seems to be the importance of “moral responsibility,” which, yes, is mixed up with god, but more importantly is a key part of human emotions, mostly emotions dealing with punishment and reward. It is entirely possible to imagine a picture of morality that only makes sense in light of some agents being morally responsible, and that picture seems to be all over the place in our culture. Free will, nebulous though it is, certainly is linked to moral responsibility because “only you are ultimately responsible for your actions” is one of the many partial definitions of free will.
Right—but, that’s where this post starts off. I described the view you just described in your second paragraph, and acknowledged that it’s the majority view, then argued against it.
I don’t think you said this. Your two options for people were “Most people conceive of morality in a way that assumes soul-body duality.” and “They worry about philosophical free will when they mean to worry about intention.”
You seem to be neglecting the possibility that “morality” exists not to refer to a clear set of things in the world, but instead to refer to an important thing that the human mind does.
So you (or perhaps some extrapolated version of you) would say that a thermostat in a human’s house set to 65 degrees F is moral, because it does the right thing, while a thermostat set to 115 is immoral because it does the wrong thing. Meanwhile one of those free will people would say that a thermostat is neither moral nor immoral, it is just a thermostat.
The main difference seems to be the importance of “moral responsibility,” which, yes, is mixed up with god, but more importantly is a key part of human emotions, mostly emotions dealing with punishment and reward. It is entirely possible to imagine a picture of morality that only makes sense in light of some agents being morally responsible, and that picture seems to be all over the place in our culture. Free will, nebulous though it is, certainly is linked to moral responsibility because “only you are ultimately responsible for your actions” is one of the many partial definitions of free will.
Right—but, that’s where this post starts off. I described the view you just described in your second paragraph, and acknowledged that it’s the majority view, then argued against it.
I don’t think you said this. Your two options for people were “Most people conceive of morality in a way that assumes soul-body duality.” and “They worry about philosophical free will when they mean to worry about intention.”
You seem to be neglecting the possibility that “morality” exists not to refer to a clear set of things in the world, but instead to refer to an important thing that the human mind does.