Schwartz's natural philosophy leads him to conclusions in moral philosophy. The mechanistic notion is that people are little more than carbon-based robots who make decisions mechanically, or if one goes along with Edelman, with a certain randomness that allows for creatively. But people don't have moral responsibility for actions which are programmed or random. If people are fleshy robots, it's not their fault when they do wrong; they're merely the product of the society that raised them. This logic has often been used to excuse crimes committed by the poor and oppressed--though paradoxically, the crimes of oppressors are rarely excused in this manner. Schwartz concludes, quoting a Buddhist teaching, "All beings are owners of their karma. Whatever volitional actions they do, good or evil, of those they shall become the heir."
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
1 - Lee Kent Hempfling
You should now read 'The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing' available at the URL to see how the brain works and how it is possible to misconstrue what the mind is in order to make claims such as are made in the book referenced in your article.
2 - seesir
interesting book and commentary. why should this artificial dicotomy continue? brain affects mind; mind affects brain! or whatever other terminology one wishes to use. there used to be the mind/body dicotomy. (hopefully that is diminishing.) why not accept rational viewpoints and try to integrate them? we are at the threshold of great things regarding the functioning of our brains. let's not get sidetracked with unnecessary philosophical talk.
3 - Eric Olsen
fascinating Rick, excellent job nad very glad you got theeye problem resolved. Ideas are energy and that isn't nothing.
4 - Ellis' REBT Cognitive Therapy
This of course, makes perfect sense (the mind affecting the brain's structure, I mean); if learning changes you, which, in a way, is the very definition of learning, obviously (?!) the brain and/or nervous system (and/or endocrine system?) has to have changed...
5 - Darin
I found the book illuminating and exciting because the implications of the thesis, if it were accepted by a diverse range of researchers in various fields related to the brain and mental functioning, can open new lines of study and research that may help people who would otherwise suffer needlessly from neurological malfunctioning. I myself reject Platonic and Catesian dualism, but frankly, the philosophic debate is less important than having the means of helping people, however important one thinks that debate is. Of course, if you outright reject Schwartz's thesis, then the very possibility of beginning new research will be ruled out and any hope of helping people remains straitjacketed simply because scientist's a priori biases take precedence over charity!! And that's really sad.
People are always more important than ideas. And the scientist who feels his ideas are that important betrays the very philosophy that gave the foundation for his or her ideas in the first place, namely humanism. To me, that's an egregious inhumanism and makes me wonder if science has become wholly superfluous by it's utter detachment from real human concern and by a bloated sense of it's importance as seen in the idealogical priorities of the scientist qua philosopher.