...how does one reconcile our law and the punishment of criminals with that belief? If no one is truly in control of their actions, it's not their fault they're breaking the law.

Free will not existing =/> people should use it as a justification in legal proceedings or any social structures which predicate themselves on agency. I'm not saying that I'm a hard determinist or anything, but there are those have a problem with the justice system as a fundamental level. I mean, the sooner we get away from this silly Cartesian "we are not our bodies" trash the better, but I don't think it's gonna work its way out of social structures any time soon.

Free will not existing =/> people should use it as a justification in legal proceedings or any social structures which predicate themselves on agency.

But I mean, why not? It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to say. If no one chooses to break the law, then why do we punish them for it? It isn't their fault.

I'm simply trying to make sense of the free will argument. It was something that came up in my law class -- once you admit that we don't make decisions, people are no longer held accountable for their actions (or something like that.)

Quote from: green on October 23, 2015, 09:57:43 PM

Free will not existing =/> people should use it as a justification in legal proceedings or any social structures which predicate themselves on agency.

But I mean, why not?

Because I thiiink we can both agree that walking into a courtroom today and saying "nah it's nobody's fault shut it down" is a little silly. I think I buried my point somewhere because...

It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to say. If no one chooses to break the law, then why do we punish them for it? It isn't their fault.

That's exactly my point though: hard determinists have a fundamental problem with the law as it stands, because it's all predicated on agency and dualism [and consequently so is assignment of punishment].

Because if our actions are dictated to us by fate or something, and we are just set in roles, hen it's the cop's role to arrest the perpetrator, the judge to sentence him, and Big Bubba to use him as an onahole.

Bingo. Like I always say--just because life is just a play doesn't mean you shouldn't read your script.

Bingo. Like I always say--just because life is just a play doesn't mean you shouldn't read your script.

If these people aren't in control of their actions, how moral (ethical?) is confining them to a cell? Just seems absurd to me. Complete overhaul of the system (which is what I think Goji was getting at) seems to be like the best option from that point.

Quote from: Cindo on October 23, 2015, 09:31:57 PM

Good thing it does, then, lad

Nope.

I have a theory that you're just a contrarian at this point

Quote from: Verbatim on October 23, 2015, 10:41:23 PM

Quote from: Cindo on October 23, 2015, 09:31:57 PM

Good thing it does, then, lad

Nope.

I have a theory that you're just a contrarian at this point

What an original theory.

Most atheists who have given any thought on the subject at all are determinists. Sorry.

Well one could say our government's role is to foster a stable society, so they should be able to set guidelines and rules to best guide citizens down that path.  Just because someone can't control being a murderer doesn't mean we anyone is obligated to let them murder.  Punishment is moreso a a courtesy to the people who follow the rules to not be negatively impacted by people -like say- murderers and rapists.

Well, I'm not trying to say that we should just let people do whatever they want. As much as I'd want the man who kills my wife to be beaten to death with a heavy mallet, how justified would that be if he couldn't choose not to do that?

And suddenly I'm thinking of Britain's plan with Australia back in the day (which was essentially just separating the criminals from the rest of society, albeit, in a poorly-executed way) and how a modified version of that could work.

It doesn't matter if they're in control of their actions or not--it's still our moral obligation to prevent them from doing bad things, which they are pre-ordained to do. I see no absurdity.

Of course, I'm not saying "yeah, whatever, they didn't choose to do that thing so let's let them off the hook."

I'm trying to reconcile the two ideas, and I'm not sure how to go about it.

Focus on results of punishment on society as a whole instead of the individual and argue for the continued existence of punishment

So, "How does this punishment affect society?" sort of deal (whether it be economically or otherwise)? Instead of "How does this affect the criminal?" (morally or ethically)?

[again, I'm not advocating any of these positions].

I'd like to hear your position, if you don't mind. Hearing all sides of the argument is the only way to fully grasp the concept.

Stochastic. Our minds are stochastic -- effectively random -- and so our will, while entirely deterministic, is effectively free and undetermined.

I have to wonder though how much of that is really in our control. If things are random, the element of choice still seems... not present.

Well, I'm not trying to say that we should just let people do whatever they want. As much as I'd want the man who kills my wife to be beaten to death with a heavy mallet, how justified would that be if he couldn't choose not to do that?

Well, I would say context matters.  Like, if you found him in the act and killed him vs. killing him outside of the trial vs. having an executioner do it after he is found guilty.  Then intentions could come into play such as whether you simply used him as a scape goat for your pyschopathic fantasy or if you believed doing so prevents repeat offenses.

And suddenly I'm thinking of Britain's plan with Australia back in the day (which was essentially just separating the criminals from the rest of society, albeit, in a poorly-executed way) and how a modified version of that could work.

Like an Arkham Asylum sorta society?

If free will truly doesnt exist, and were essentially following a pre-destined life line then I think that a reform system is the only way to go, over any other system it would create a way to facilitate personal growth of the individuals. Even if we do believe that nobody has true free will this isnt exactly contradictory, as one could commit crime prior to the education and skill development they face during incarceration. One of the biggest causes of crime is under education and poor upbringing. If can nullify one of those factors from an individual it could play a large role in them truly reforming.