Timeline for Brain states, morality and free will: What can we discern from the case of the schoolteacher who became a pedophile post-brain tumor?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:56 | comment | added | Futilitarian | That makes sense. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is whether or not, given both are - in the end - simply distinct neurological circumstances, we have any more agency over the 'normal' state than the cancerous state (sorry, just read your next comment). I get you now. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:55 | comment | added | causative♦ | @Futilitarian Generally speaking, I like to say that a person is the parts of their mind that are aligned with their executive desires. If they are trying to fight against some part of themselves, perhaps some base desire or failing, then that part does not count as themselves as long as they are fighting it. It is not aligned with their executive desires. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:52 | comment | added | causative♦ | @Futilitarian The tumor is a disease state, and we generally consider disease states to be something the person fights rather than something the person is. There is also the other point I made, which is that the tumor means that the person's behavior cannot be corrected by moral condemnation, whereas the behavior of a different person without such a tumor might be. So, because moral condemnation is ineffective in this particular case, this influences what we count as person and non-person. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:49 | comment | added | Futilitarian | Yep. I guess I'm asking why do we not count the tumour as part of the person? Isn't it merely another aspect of the person; a shift in circumstances? If it's merely another set of neurological circumstances, why do we place more moral authority with the person not affected by the tumour, but affected by their non-tumour state? Does that make any sense. I think that's the crux of my question. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:46 | comment | added | causative♦ | @Futilitarian I said: because we count the tumor as non-person, its influences are counted as external control over the person. The person unaffected by tumor does not have a major part of their brain that is counted as non-person. And so they do not have a major part of their behavior that is dictated by external control (meaning, external to those parts we count as the person). | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:45 | comment | added | Futilitarian | Agree with a lot of your comments. One issue still outstanding: Why is the person unaffected by tumour necessarily 'more in control'? Aren't they merely in possession of a different brain state? Why does it matter if it's a tumour or unaffected by tumour? Both are circumstances over which it's hard to see that we have any control. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:44 | history | edited | causative♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 37 characters in body
|
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:38 | history | answered | causative♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |