"If this does not qualify for the death sentence, then there is no case that would''

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Templar
You fail to appreciate the contradiction hidden in your argument. If anyone given a set of stimuli will commit a crime, then their is no choice involved. If there is no choice there is no moral responsibility. If there is no moral responsibility, what is the basis for guilt?

GAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!



****ing morons who think determinism precludes free will



Just because you made the choice according to certain ruels, doesn't mean you DIDN'T MAKE THE CHOICE!!!!!! You "couldn't do anything about it" because you decided NOT to! You have the moral responsibility for it, because it wasn't some decision forced on you externally, but rather made internally! It doesn't matter if you used predictable rules to make the choice!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Anybody could end up like that like that given the right set of circumstances / balance of chemicals in their brain during their life - both of which are not their fault

If someone dosed you with chemicals, then I can see you complaining. But since YOUR MIND made the decision, YOU bear the responsibility. What you're saying amounts to "if he hadn't been standing there, then I wouldn't have shot him, so it's not my fault that I shot him".

[tinyp3nis]

Care to show the studies that show this? Also you seem to think we are all born "the same". I guess genes don't exist either?
When I years ago figured out that nobody gets to choose what they born to be, I realised how irrelevant it is if they do or don't. I agree if you know enough about a deed, be it good or not, you can predict it, so there are no outstanding feats or horrible crimes... but wait... if there are no penalties because everyone is the same, why should there be rewards, to add a flawor? ? Or anything at all, everything is the same.

[Kuciwalker]

However, I don't want to get into a free will debate right now, so I'll give a simple utilitarian answer: whether or not the person is "guilty", there is a net positive result from punishing him.

[Q Classic]

still against dp.

what would befit this crime? castration and permanent residence in a 2x3x2 cage.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
You're failing to see the distinction between punishment and detterence

...and I dont have to show that my way is more effective, I have to show it is morally right. Anyone who says that debate about the DP is about it's effectiveness is insane. People's lives cant be ended for administrative reasons. Otherwise we start killing the unemployed to balance the budget.

I have shown how it's the "right" thing to do - it results in a net benefit for society.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kucinich
****ing morons who think determinism precludes free will

Yes it does.

Maybe you shouldn't bang your head against the wall so much... you seem to have developed brain damage...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why are we assuming the guy is insane?

I am not. I am just saying that there's no basis for capital punishment. That's why it should not be applied here, or in any other case.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Just because you made the choice according to certain ruels, doesn't mean you DIDN'T MAKE THE CHOICE!!!!!!

Does a burglar alarm have freewill?

[Q Classic]

if said alarm is a dog, then i think it does.

[Urban Ranger]

What if the dog always barks very loudly at strangers who enter your house from midnight to 7am? Does it have freewill?

[Fake Boris]

Spiffor, Civman, Whaleboy, Zulu:

I think it is utterly hypocritical to claim you are against the DP, just to specify that there are exceptions. You are for or against, period.

[Fake Boris]

Skywalker, again: it's not only about making a choice, but about making a choice that is only subject to a self-created algorithm.

Maybe you'll understand this someday.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am not.

Then I wasn't refering to you then.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Kucinich


GAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!



****ing morons who think determinism precludes free will

Temper, temper ...

The idea of freewill coexisting with determinism is called compatablism. As a former colleague once said "compatabilism isn't".

Just because you made the choice according to certain ruels, doesn't mean you DIDN'T MAKE THE CHOICE!!!!!!

Of course, if the rules must be followed (i.e. there is no choice not to follow) and the rules force one course of action, then there is no choice.

There is no possibility of opting out of the rules if there is no free will, and there is no choice between courses of action if action is a product purely of hardwired characteristics and environmental input.

So you need some form of freewill for morality. But, the existence of freewill is something for which its defenders must make a case.

You "couldn't do anything about it" because you decided NOT to! You have the moral responsibility for it, because it wasn't some decision forced on you externally, but rather made internally! It doesn't matter if you used predictable rules to make the choice!

Boring.

You just presupposed freewill (the capacity to make decisions) in order to show freewill. Circular argument.