We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – why Jane Austen matters edition “The year 2026 brings four semiquincentennials that matter greatly to me, that I think are related to each other: the American Declaration of Independence; the publication of Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations; the publication of Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; and the patenting of James Watt’s double-acting steam engine. Each event marks a profound shift in how human beings understood and interacted with the physical world and with each other. Before this cluster of anniversaries, we’ve just passed another related semiquincentennial, of the birth of one of our most influential applied moral philosophers. I am speaking, of course, of Jane Austen.”
– Lynne Kiesling, at the Knowledge Problem substack. The article came out on New Year’s Eve, 2025. Definitely worth a read.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I have a tenner on Jane Austin.
NickM
I see what you did there. Well played.
Oh, I think there are other semiquincentennials that are at least 6.022 x 10E23 as interesting and indicative of profund shifts in the understanding of interactions with the physical world.
llater,
llamas
Yes indeed.
Apart from the reference to David Hume (the great opponent of the Scottish Enlightenment) who, by denying moral agency, the ability of human beings to choose to do other than we do, undermined the basis (foundation) of ethics – whether Aristotelian ethics, or any other form of ethics.
As for psychology – contrary to William James (in his 1890 work on psychology) there does NOT need to be an assumption of determinism in order to study the human mind (indeed an assumption of Determinism denies the very existence of mind, personhood, the choosing “I” – as William James himself, elsewhere, admitted – so he was contradicting himself), indeed neither the inventor of the term “psychology” Ralph Cudworth (back in the 17th century) or the two leading psychologists of the 19th century (neither of whom William James even mentions in his book – he does not refute them, he just dodges their existence) Noah Porter and James McCosh, were determinists.
However, hat tip to William James on one point – like Kant he denounced “Compatibilism” for falsely declaring that two radically incompatible things (human moral responsibility and determinism) were compatible – which they just are-not.
Jane Austin is best seen as part of the great Western tradition of Aristotelianism – with a heavy influence of Christianity, there is no need to bring David Hume (who was neither an Aristotelian or a Christian) into the discussion – which the article, unfortunately, does.
The modern age celebrates certain philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham, BOTH because of their, disguised (rather thinly disguised) atheism, AND their determinism (their denial of the human person – the moral agent – the “I” – which they try to “explain” i.e. explain-away) – but the past is a foreign country, what are mainstream philosophers now, were not considered so then.
In the past these philosophers were certainly known – but they were not considered the mainstream, they were considered critics of the mainstream.
Today one finds David Hume being presented as the “Scottish Enlightenment”, when, in reality, he was the great critic (opponent) of it, just as Sir William Blackstone is cited as a great influence on the American Founding Fathers in relation to Constitutional Law – he was indeed, but as what they were AGAINST (i.e. no rights against Parliament – with any whim of Parliament being considered “law” overriding basic liberties and natural justice).
Imagine what, for example, Sir John Holt (Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710) would have thought of Sir William Blackstone’s doctrine – published a few decades later.
Sir William Blackstone carefully said that he believed in moral responsibility (the basis of the criminal law – i.e. that people can choose NOT to commit the crimes they commit) and that he believed in natural justice – natural law. But his doctrine concerning Parliament undercut this.
As for John Stuart Mill, who became well known after Jane Austin was dead, see James McCosh “An examination of the philosophy of Mr John Stuart Mill” which makes the point that the philosophy of J.S. Mill (specifically his support for what he calls the “light of Hume” in explaining-away the human mind) undermines his own politics.
The same point could be made about F.A. Hayek in the 20th century – who wanted to keep the politics of the “Old Whigs” whilst rejecting the philosophical basis (what used to be called “the nature of man”) that was the foundation of that politics.
It makes no sense to deny human personhood (moral agency) – and then claim that the “freedom” of such flesh robots (or creatures – for they are not human BEINGS) has moral value, one might as well say that the “freedom” of water after a dam is blown up has moral value.
The “freedom” of water after a dam is blown up has no moral value – it does not CHOOSE to gush out – it just does.
A Hobbesian definition of “freedom” leads to Hobbesian politics – tyranny.
As for psychology – contrary to William James (in his 1890 work on psychology) there does NOT need to be an assumption of determinism in order to study the human mind (indeed an assumption of Determinism denies the very existence of mind, personhood, the choosing “I” – as William James himself, elsewhere, admitted – so he was contradicting himself), indeed neither the inventor of the term “psychology” Ralph Cudworth (back in the 17th century) or the two leading psychologists of the 19th century (neither of whom William James even mentions in his book – he does not refute them, he just dodges their existence) Noah Porter and James McCosh, were determinists.
Well, I’m glad we cleared that up. And all in a single sentence!
William James’ brother would have approved.
There you go again Paul Marks. Throwing up your hands in horror at the ideas of determinism but failing to suggest some mechanism by which the universe isn’t deterministic. Of course the universe isn’t strictly deterministic due to the realities of quantum mechanics it is actually stochastic, but that is a pedantic point on my part since it isn’t what you are claiming. You are more arguing for the idea of a soul outside of the material world (whatever word you might want to use, it is nonetheless a non materialist idea) and offering no evidence beyond “if I’m not right the outcome would be horrible.” Maybe you have evidence of this non materialistic origin for decisions, and I’d be very happy to hear it, because I agree, the outcome of not having it is quite horrible.
To use an example I have before, I think the idea of human morality, or more specifically my mortality, quite horrific. But my horror does not make it any less true. This is simply the logical fallacy of Appeal to Consequences.
As to Jane Austen, TBH I have more read around her than actually read her novels, but what I think it reveals more than anything else is the human origin of morality. There is a religious belief that morality derives from the Bible or Quran or some other source, but the novels of Austen, while set in an overtly religious world, show that most of the moral precepts in how to live a good life are largely an emergent behavior from the people’s interactions within the society, not some good book. It isn’t to say the good book doesn’t influence them, but there is, for example, no stratification of society in the good book (aside from its support of slavery of course). I am sure Miss Austen was a religious person, one had to be in that society to survive, but I think her books reveal how morality really arises from the circumstances and interactions within that society. Which of course brings us to something that Paul would be horrified by, namely the idea that morality is almost entirely circumstantial. It is instead really rather a matter of practicality and the undue influence of the powerful and in many cases anachronisms left off from former times.
In fact it is very much like the idea of the novel itself. The plot of the story arises out of the particulars on individual interactions, there is no plot dump, rather the plot comes from the syntheses of what happens. And so too morality. It comes from the particulars of the invidual interactions, no morality book, but rathe a totality arising from the syntheses of what happens and what has happened.
IrishOtter49 – thank you Sir, and I followed your advance of giving a book reverence (the book of William James – Harvard University Press), even though the book is fundamentally flawed. For better 19th century works on psychology see Noah Porter’s and James McCosh’s works on the subject.
Fraser Orr – I was not writing about a “mechanism” I was writing about human beings – which you, de facto, deny exist.
If free will beings do not exist – then you can not be one, so if I kill you I will not have committed murder – I will simply have destroyed a “mechanism” (your own word Sir), and (according to your philosophy) I had no choice of over my action anyway – I could not have chosen NOT to kill you, indeed, properly speaking, “I” do not exist – because no “I” (no free will being – moral agent) exists.
As for your denial of the existence of objective morality – well as you also deny the existence of human persons, you are being consistent.
If it is “circumstantial” for me to kill you (say because you are infidel who has failed to pay the infidel tax – or not done so in a sufficiently humble and humiliating way, or has mocked Muhammed, and I am a follower of Islam) then, again according to you – not to me, then I should kill you – as (according to you) there is no objective moral right and moral wrong, so (whatever I do to you) I can not, by definition, have done anything morally wrong – and (of course) according to your philosophy, I could not have chosen NOT to kill you – indeed (as already mentioned) there is, according to you, no “I” anyway.
You have a nice day now.
I must stress that I did not bring Mr David Hume or psychology into the discussion – sadly the article did.
It is just perfect – people denying the existence of the human person (the moral agent – free will itself, personhood), and denying the existence of moral right and moral wrong (other than as matters of fashion) – and they think they are “philosophers”.
A philosopher is a “lover of wisdom” – not a lover of evil.
Once again, Paul, as you always do on this point, you offer not support whatsoever for your claim that “I” or “free-will” or whatever non material thing you assert, actually exists. Your argument is, once again, if such a thing doesn’t exist then the consequences would be horrible.
This is not a valid argument, in fact it is a well recognized logical fallacy.
Fraser Orr – I repeat my previous comments.
Your claims are absurd – they are utterly false.
You do exist, you are person – you have the ability to both know moral right and moral wrong, and (with effort) to choose what is morally right against your desire to do what is morally wrong.
It is not just a matter of the “consequences” – your claims are in-themselves absurd, they are absurdities, you deny your very existence as a human being (which is contradictory – as if you do not exist you can not deny your existence, there would be no “I” to deny the existence of “I”) – and you deny the existence of moral right and moral wrong (other than as matters of fashion), which denies the very meaning of the terms “moral right” and “moral wrong” – which are (by definition) NOT matters of fashion.
Why are you bothering to argue, when according to your own doctrine there is no objective moral right or moral wrong so there can be no moral merit in truth – as there is, according to you Sir, no moral merit in anything.
@Paul Marks
Your claims are absurd – they are utterly false.
That’s not an argument it is just an insult.
You do exist, you are person – you have the ability to both know moral right and moral wrong, and (with effort) to choose what is morally right against your desire to do what is morally wrong.
Of course I exist, I am a bag of atoms and molecules. I do indeed know right from wrong, my brain has been trained in this by my parents and my experiences. I do “choose” to do the right thing. But that does not at all imply that there is some non materialist cause for this choice.
Where is your evidence that this “choice” is caused by something non corperial? I write computer programs and they “choose” things all the time, where “choose” here is not evidently distinguishable from the “choice” I make, but there is no magic genie in the box, not in the computer box or in my head.
Why are you bothering to argue, when according to your own doctrine there is no objective moral right or moral wrong so there can be no moral merit in truth – as there is, according to you Sir, no moral merit in anything.
Because that is what we do here. And to be clear there is a huge difference between saying there is no merit it truth and saying there is objective morality. My moral system certainly values truth. All you are doing here is attempting the obfuscate the fundamental question, hide the actual issue behind a wall of insults and appeal to consequences, blustering to avoid the actual axiomatic principle. And that question is — what is the evidence that there is a non material cause for our choices?
I await actual data.
Fraser: have you considered the possibility that to be true, it does not necessarily have to be non-material or non-corporeal?
I don’t think that you have a real way to know this, and that it is entirely possible that you are – to use a materialistic term – prewired to be like this.
@Alisa
Fraser: have you considered the possibility that to be true, it does not necessarily have to be non-material or non-corporeal?
But the argument is that our decision making is in part is non corporeal. If it is matter or corporeal then it behaves as deterministic matter, so it doesn’t seem to add anything. But perhaps you can elaborate so I can understand your point more.
I don’t think that you have a real way to know this, and that it is entirely possible that you are – to use a materialistic term – prewired to be like this.
Sure, undoubtedly some of our choices come from our physical realities and the way our brains are made, some comes from our environment and our individual learning.
There can be discussion of these matters – for example Thomas Aquinas held that human moral agency (free will – the ability, with effort, to do what is morally right against the desire to do what is morally wrong) is in the intellect – reason, whereas (in contrast) Duns Scotus made a sharp distinction between reason and will – and, later, Ralph Cudworth opposed chopping up human personhood (the “I”) between “reason” and “will”.
However, if someone denies human personhood itself, their own existence as a moral agent – capable, with effort, of choosing to do other than they do, then real discussion ends – because they have denied their existence as a person, and denied that any other persons exist.
If they then “double down” and deny the existence of moral right and moral wrong (other than as fashions) YES they are indeed being consistent – as if there is no moral agency, there is indeed no moral right and moral wrong (no possibility of ethics-morality – with every action being predetermined and no persons, just “mechanisms”) – but they are also signalling that may rob and murder other people at any moment – as they deny that they are people, indeed they deny that persons exist, and they deny they have any moral control over their actions – as they also deny there is any such thing as moral right and moral wrong (other than as empty words with no real content).
As for “logic” it is hard to think of any other position that is so radically illogical, so radically self-denying (in a literal sense).
I am reminded of Fraser Orr claiming (as if he was making a logical argument) that Islam was fine because he knew some people who called themselves Muslims who were his friends – he seemed to be unaware that this was not a logical argument, that it was radically illogical. However, denying human personhood (moral agency), and the very existence of moral right and moral wrong (other than as fashions) is much worse – vastly more illogical.
If someone really does deny the existence of human persons (someones – not not just some-things) and denies the existence of real moral right and moral wrong, then they have undercut the foundational principles upon which peaceful discussion rests – see both the late Harold Prichard and Sir William David Ross on this point (but there is no great need to cite philosophers on these matters – as anyone “on the bus passing this lecture theatre” knows this).
It is all very well acting as a sort of gadfly (as Mr Hume may, perhaps, have been doing) denying whatever knows – in order to see how they react, but if someone really does believe there are no persons (no someone’s – no human BEINGS, free will moral agents), and no real moral right and moral wrong, then it will, eventually, come down to being killed by such people (who deny that they are people – indeed deny that people, persons, exist) or killing them – when they start to act on their doctrines, robbing and murdering other people (who they, in principle, deny are people) – claiming that they can not stop themselves doing these things.
It is not a matter of “consequences” – it is a matter of the position itself being insane.
Quantum Mechanics (as usually understood) is irreducibly stochastic. Perfectly random. But why don’t I have an elephant in the room that just appeared? It is entirely possible but just so incredibly unlikely that it won’t happen in a trillion to the power trillion years for so may particles to “transport” like that.At the base level, with small systems, this is different. Hence the scanning tunnelling microscope.
NickM – just have a really hot cup of tea, and all will become clear.
llater,
llamas
Quite some years ago, I wrote a supplement for Steve Jackson Games, GURPS Adaptations, in which I took my examples from several long-surviving literary works, one of which was Pride and Prejudice. I wrote that Austen’s theme was “the moral element in choosing a husband or wife, and the contrasting moral qualities shown by various characters in making that choice.” It pleases me to see someone else making that point . . .
There is a sharp distinction to be made – and, stupidly, I have failed to make it.
The distinction between people who are playing the “logical argument” game – “look I can use what looks like a logical argument to lead to an illogical, indeed irrational, conclusion – that I can do this shows how clever I am” – this game may be annoying, but it is not meant to harm anyone – and the people who play it are indeed clever, they are showing that they are more intelligent than the average person by arguing AGAINST what ordinary people know, arguing AGAINST the obvious.
But there is also a second group of people – people who really do believe they have no control over their actions (no free will – moral agency) and who deny the very existence of real moral right and moral wrong (dismissing moral right and moral wrong as mere fashions).
When I was in the Prison Service such people were transferred out of our custody to special hospitals – there were, I think, four of them – Broadmoor and Rampton were two of them (I forget the names of the other two).
It is very important NOT to confuse the two groups – although they seem to be arguing the same case.
The second group (NOT the first group) really-believe-it – they are what used to be called “criminally insane”. The first group are playing a game they do NOT really believe that they have no control over their actions (no moral agency – free will) and they do NOT really believe that moral good and moral evil are just fashions.
The two groups of people must NOT be confused, and I apologize, apologize unreservedly, if I have implied kinship between the two groups.
Oh dear Paul, so many misunderstandings, miscommunications and misrepresentations it is hard to know where or whether to start. But let’s go with it.
Who is denying personhood? Maybe I am denying your definition of personhood, but you aren’t the king of the English language. So to suggest that “determinism” prevents discussion is to entirely misunderstand what it means. Discussion is the mechanism by which we progress, irrespective of whether there is some spooky non material force at work — a force that you seem to believe in simply because to not believe in it is too terrible to contemplate. Which is to say an appeal to consequences rather than, as I have asked you many times, a presentation of actual measurable evidence. But it is not surprising because as far as I can see there is not such spooky force. However, I’d be happy to be proven wrong, since it would feel a lot better.
So I’ll ask again — what is your evidence — reproducible, scientific, empirical data, to support the existence of this non material force you seem to so strongly insist exists. I would be delighted to hear it. I’d love to believe what you do, but there simple is no evidence that I know of to support it. So please stop pouring forth these word salads and actually show your work, show your evidence, show your data.
As to morality, I have never said there is no such thing as morality, good or bad, on the contrary that there is is self evident. I have simply said that it is not objective. The force of gravity is objective. Were some aliens on a far off planet to measure it they would come up with the same laws as Newton and Einstein. However, what morality those same aliens came up with is surely very unlikely to be the same as ours. But, how can we know, since we do not even know if such aliens exist? Well perhaps we can get a glimmer by looking at our own planet and the intelligent species that we share that planet with. Perhaps the species most closely similar to us are the chimpanzees and the bonobos. By looking at their behavior we can determine what they think is right and wrong. For chimpanzees they are a violent gang culture that think nothing of going to war and massacring their rivals often in cruel and malicious ways, and the dominant males frequently kill their own young. As to the bonobos their culture is one of sex, they use sex mostly to resolve all disputes. In bonobo society, everyone is screwing everyone else. So chimps are sort of like the neocon warmongers of American Vietnam and the bonobos sort of like the free love hippies of Haight Ashbury. Each has their own moral codes apparently, and they are very different, and very different than our own. We all experience gravity the same, objective way, we do not at all experience right and wrong the same objective way.
Which is to say morality is not an objective fact of the universe, it is a derived evolved system that we humans and other species have created, each in our own way, each suited to their own particular needs of their own particular societies. To dismiss this as “fashions” is entirely disingenuous.
One thing I have noticed in your underlying thinking that differs greatly from mine is that you are a top down thinker. You think of some centralized morality, for example, or, to use another example you cited, you think that “Muslim” is what the head honchos of the Muslims say it is. I on the other hand am very much a bottom up thinker. Things are what they are because that is what people say they are. It’s the libertarian in me, I’m not really a fan of centralized anything. Morality is what we humans have evolved mostly by the syntheses of our inter relationships over time, we humans collectively decided what it is, it was not (with some notable, almost always quite vile exceptions) imposed upon us from some central elite, or some law of the Universe. And Muslim means what a billion Muslims think, something we can measure by their actions, not what the 200 people who rule the roost say it is.
To use a very trivial example that I often encounter: the meaning of the word “literally”. People who are top down thinkers, who think of the “rules of English” of maintaining correctness and propriety, grate at usages like “I’d literally die from embarrassment”. Etymologically this is just simply the opposite of being literal — people rarely actually die of embarrassment. But English is a descriptive grammar not, like for example French of Spanish, a proscriptive grammar. English means what the mass of English speakers think it means, it means what people use it to mean. Which is why the definition of “literally” as an intensifier is given in every quality English dictionary.
Fraser Orr – either someone has moral agency, free will, can, with effort, control at least some of their actions – or they do not.
And either someone accepts there is moral right and moral wrong (real moral right and moral wrong) – or they do not.
If someone denies they have moral agency – denies they can control their actions, sincerely denies it – is not just playing a David Hume style “logical argument” game (and I sincerely hope you are just playing such a game – i.e. showing how clever you are by using “logical arguments” to reach illogical, indeed irrational, conclusions), and denies there is any such thing as moral right and moral wrong (real moral right and moral wrong) – then such a person (who denies they are a person – denies they are a “someone” rather than just a something) is a danger to everyone around them, and they need to be in a secure hospital or other place of security – for the sake of everyone else, and themselves.
A sane person does not ask for “evidence” about foundational principles – things that are true by-definition. Such as A is A.
To bring the discussion back to Jane Austin.
If Jane Austin had met a person who denied they were a person – who denied they had free will, proclaimed that they could not stop themselves following their urges – no matter how evil these were. And then proclaimed that good and evil did not even exist (other than as fashions), Jane Austin would have been very wary of such a person (a being who claimed that they were not a being), and Jane Austin would have been quite correct to be wary of such a person.
To imply that Jane Austin held these opinions herself is quite wrong – the lady did not hold these opinions, no more than Aristotle did.
It is very rare to read so much nonsense on Samizdata.
(Not that i read all of it: I was bored enough by last night’s World Cup final.)
The above paragraph is just to explain why i reply to a comment from NickM which is NOT nonsense, but nonetheless is wrong:
Yeah, sure, but now consider a Geiger counter connected to a triggering device for a nuclear bomb in Manhattan (or the City of London).
Isn’t that evidence that randomness can play a large role in our lives?
(NB: the above relies on the assumption that QM is “irreducibly stochastic”; which of course is open to debate.)
@Paul Marks
A sane person does not ask for “evidence” about foundational principles – things that are true by-definition. Such as A is A.
A sane person does not deny the foundational principles that to die in the service of Allah will be greatly rewarded.
It is perfectly fine to label something, that’s just language, but to say something about the Universe or people, you need evidence. I can easily provide you with evidence that gravity works. I can tell you how to repeat the experiment. The same cannot be said about right and wrong. All throughout history people have tried to derive what is right and wrong and have come up with quite different answers, while they all agreed that gravity is the same. Which tells us that unlike gravity right and wrong are not properties of the universe, but are properties of groups of people and their circumstances.
And more importantly, something as complex as the putative soul or free will is not a matter of labeling. You claim that in addition to the four known forces of nature there is another one: the soul, the free will. That, I’m afraid, requires just as much proof as gravity or electromagnetism. Scientists claimed there was a “strong nuclear force” that nobody could see. Not until a lot of people saw it, however briefly, over Hiroshima. Apparently you don’t have any proof to offer of this imagined fifth force of nature, and so your prognostications on the matter are no different than the religious deliberations of those who require no proof of their beliefs about the divine. It is no different than the faith of Hebrews 11:1.
As to personhood, of course I don’t deny that I am a person, I just reject your definition of personhood to include a soul. Of course I make decisions and am responsible for them and can control them. There is just not some external divine will or non corporeal force influencing them.
As to Jane Austen’s judgement, I am sure she was a very interesting and smart lady but she’d find it a ridiculous notion that we are descended from a small shrew sized mammal or find it horrifying that some people do not believe in the God of the Bible. So, within her domain she has a lot of value to offer, but in this area of the physics of life I’m not sure she has much to say.
But I think that is enough for now. No doubt this subject will come up again.
@NickM
Quantum Mechanics (as usually understood) is irreducibly stochastic.
FWIW, there is a growing body of belief that QM is not actually stochastic at all. This is the so called “many worlds” idea, which means that where we see a stochastic “decision” made in QM, the so called collapse of the wave function, that instead we rather split the wave function in two and have a super position of the two possible outcomes.
Which sounds weird and ridiculous, but superposition is a very well established fact in physics, even if it is hard to conceptualize. We have large complex machines that work because superposition exists. Which is to say that QM is, by this theory anyway, entirely deterministic. The photon went through both slits, and the two resulting outcomes are superpositions of the Universe’s wave function. The cat is dead in one superposition and alive in another. What you see depends on which of those two super positions you ended up in. If you are interested you might want to listen to the loudest voice on this subject, which would be Sean Carroll.
Growing??
As for the proof of our existence – this is our consciousness, this is the “I” – the free will moral agent (the human BEING).
As Rene Descartes put it – “I think therefore I am”, sadly when Professor Harold Prichard mentioned this to Ludwig Wittgenstein, the sneering response he got was “am what?” (the full reply was “am what, old man” – Professor Prichard was indeed old, and was clearly dying – coughing his lungs out, he did not live long after this encounter).
The modern establishment present this as a brilliant reply – in reality it was not just sneering, it was flippant and dishonest. Wittgenstein knew very well what was meant – he was only pretending not to understand.
It was not really intellectual failure by Ludwig Wittgenstein (although there is no reason why an intellectual failure, a failure to understand, should be celebrated) – it was a MORAL failure. Wittgenstein did not believe that individual human beings should be respected – hence his support for the Soviet Union, and he did not like to be reminded that each individual human is a human BEING – a free will moral agent, i.e. a someone (a SOUL) not just a something.
Jane Austin (more than a century before) understood these matters.