"We could have a civil conversation if you'd lose the scare quotes and engage the issue seriously."
I thought I was discussing this topic seriously. I don't know what scare quotes are, I was just highlighting your phrases in order to comment on them. tha is also why I alerted you to the comment.
Now, it looks like we have moved away from deterministic genes to a social construct in order to regulate behavior.
"Dennett's view of how we deal with responsibility is called the 'Intentional Stance'; that is, reagardless of causes and effects, we adopt the stance that people must be treated as intentional agents, responsible for their actions."
If you find it appropriate to regulate behavior by an artificial theory, why are you so opposed to an idea of a supreme law giver who has spoken?
If you find it appropriate to regulate behavior by an artificial theory, why are you so opposed to an idea of a supreme law giver who has spoken?
I'm not proposing we use an artificial theory to regulate behavior. I'm saying people innately distinguish between persons, who have intentionality, and things, which don't. Social systems based on that stance have been successful, albeit with some weaknesses. There is no reason therefore to discard it. Why does a decision to regard people as responsible, intentional beings, something we tend to do anyway, require assumption of an old nobodaddy aloft?