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?
"I'm saying people innately distinguish between persons, who have intentionality, and things, which don't"
By the word innately, are you referring to genetically predisposed to being able to read another persons desire or purpose in their actions? If so, how do guilt and shame fit into the intentional theory and where does one go for absolution for breaking the rules?
p.s. I thought you only operated within a one hour limit central time?