Outcome Author
M · E · C · D · C · I
Inside causes already under way, a person still authors a purpose, tests it by observation, and is willing to judge it by what it yields.
This is not a measure of personality, mental health, intelligence, or character.
Reality, on this profile, is a physical order, and observation is what should be able to correct a claim about it. Reasoning organizes what inquiry delivers. It is not pictured as a separate route around the world.
Acts are judged by what they produce, and they are read as the outcome of earlier conditions. If praise and blame survive, they survive as ways of shaping causes, not as verdicts on an uncaused will.
Meaning is something a person institutes by commitment. Company can matter, but the authority to give a life its point stays with the one who lives it. This is not a claim that nothing is valuable.
The axes in this code
- Reality — Physicalism
- Knowledge — Empiricism
- Morality — Consequentialism
- Freedom — Determinism
- Meaning — Creation
- Social life — Individual priority
What this stance can see
- You keep explanations answerable to a world that can resist them.
- You let observation revise a theory that was pleasant to believe.
- You keep harm and benefit in view when a principle starts to feel abstract.
- You take the causes of character seriously, including the ones no one chose.
- You take a sustained commitment to be capable of giving a life weight.
- You refuse to dissolve a person into a collective aim.
What this stance can miss
- You may decide too quickly that a physical description has already said what experience is.
- You may wait for more data when the trouble is already in the question being asked.
- You may talk yourself into using a person once the sum looks favorable.
- You may conclude too quickly that a caused act leaves nothing to call responsibility.
- You may underdescribe the standards a project answers to that its author did not create. This pole is not nihilism.
- You may understate debts and dependencies that were never the product of consent.
A pressure in the pairing
A pressure in this pairing: once outcomes lead and the will is caused, it is easy to replace “who is answerable?” with “what will change the effects?” The replacement may be right. It should be noticed.
Questions this combination has to face
The explanatory gap
A physicalist picture has to say what a completed physics would have done with the fact that seeing, hurting, and understanding are like something. Some physicalists treat the difficulty as a limit on our concepts. The difficulty is not yet a formal contradiction.
The sum and the person
Judging by outcomes and refusing to use a person can recommend opposite acts. Mill tried to defend liberty because of its benefits. Nozick treated rights as constraints that are not derived from the sum. The disagreement is real, and neither side is a personality flaw.
Debts that were not consented to
A strong priority for the person still meets relationships, languages, and care that no one contracted for. The profile can keep the person as a limit and still ask which of those debts are real.
Questions for reflection
- What would count as a reason to say that some part of experience is not captured by a physical description?
- Where has a careful observation forced you to drop an explanation you wanted to keep?
- If a harmful act was going to happen because of earlier causes, what, if anything, is the point of blame beyond changing what happens next?
- What standard, if any, can show that a purpose you created is a bad one?
Traditions in the neighborhood
Reading, not a syllabus ranking
- David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748)
- Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947)
- Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942)
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1861)
- Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)
Editorial family: Physicalism, created meaning, and the priority of the person.