Lileks Waxes Philosophical

A very good column today, in which Lileks riffs on the nature of morality. He mentions the case in which Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb on the grounds that they had no free will, conditioned as they were by their upbringing, society, the laws of physics, etc, etc. I've often thought that if I'd have been the jury, I'd have stated, "This jury has no free will. Our upbringing, genetics, society, and the whole deterministic chain of events going back to the beginning of the universe, compel us to render the verdict: GUILTY!!"

A bit of humor kicks off the column:

Gnat came along, and while they worked we went to the deli across the street for hot chocolate and coffee. It’s the ordinary moments that count with kids – not the toys or treats or indulgences, but time. More than anything they want your time. (And toys and treats and indulgences.) We played tic-tac-toe (somehow, she beat me) and Napkin Soccer. The latter requires a salt-and-pepper shaker and a wadded-up napkin. You use your hand as a goalie. She beat me 4-3, whereupon two British guys in a nearby booth set fire to the place, threw a chair through the window, ran down the street, beat up three Italians and set fire to a Somali-owned convenience store. I hate soccer.