Garrett’s Reviews > Just Deserts: Debating Free Will > Status Update

If I were to imagine either Dan or Gregg's ideal worlds, I don't think there would be a ton of difference on an overarching societal level. I think the primary difference, and benefit of Gregg's world, is the sentiment that Einstein had regarding being able to take his fellow human beings less seriously as 'deciding' agents who have wronged him.

It seems to me the disagreement is largely an intuitive sense of "is" vs "ought". If someone wrongs me, I am upset. Am I simply upset, or am I justified (ought) to be upset. The former is a simple cause and effect of psychology (I am or am not upset based on the factors involved), the latter is a sociological expectation (it is desirable for me to be upset when wronged).

It seems to me the disagreement is largely an intuitive sense of "is" vs "ought". If someone wrongs me, I am upset. Am I simply upset, or am I justified "ought" to be upset. The former is a simple cause and effect of psychology (I am or am not upset based on the factors involved), the latter is a sociological expectation (it is desirable for me to be upset when wronged).