Free will, morality and crime

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Al'Kimiya


But your choice is the result of events causing the present situation. Whatever choice you make is a result of that. For every "what, when and who" there is a "why".

The "Why?" is actually a proof that I have free will. "Why?" is not a consequence of anything else but my own choice and my own choice exclusivley, like interest in this thread for example is not dependant on anything or anyone else but me, and that is my reality, as certain as the world around me is. That for me is free will.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


The "Why?" is actually a proof that I have free will. "Why?" is not a consequence of anything else but my own choice and my own choice exclusivley, like interest in this thread for example is not dependant on anything or anyone else but me, and that is my reality, as certain as the world around me is. That for me is free will.

Interesting.
With this reasoning,
one could attest also Computers or Computer-Programs a free will.
For example the norns and Grendels in Creatures 1 - 3.
(simulated creatures within a simulated environment in the computer, with an artificial neural network, simulated hormone-Levels and even a simulated DNA)

Everything the norns do is dependand on their own internal state (simulated Hormone-Levels and the like) experiences they have made in the past (which alter their neural circuitry) and the interest they have at the moment (norns can get hungry, sexually aroused, frightened ... ) and so they fulfill every above mentioned criteria, even if their Environment is only a simulated one.

[Rogan Josh]

For those of you who have expressed a belief in free-will, how do you reconcile your belief with science (or, if you like, fundamental physics) which is incompatible with free-will?

[Jack the Bodiless]

But whatever happens, either way, that was the predetermined path. So whether you do or you don't, it's what was 'supposed' to happen. So punish them, don't punish them, put them in jail, don't put them in jail - either way it doesn't matter, becuase in SD's scenario that's what is SUPPOSED to happen, and nothing else can happen.

But the knowledge that committing the crime would result in a jail sentence could have prevented the crime in the first place. It is also likely to prevent more crimes by the same individual, and by other individuals.

If our decisions are predetermined by our brain chemistry and suchlike: why reject one of the major determinants of behavior, fear of punishment?

"Lacking free will" does not mean "pre-programmed from birth". The program is constantly being modified by external events: and the existence or non-existence of a police and judicial system is a MAJOR external factor.

[Az]

as a High-Energy Physicist, how do you reconcile it?

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
"Lacking free will" does not mean "pre-programmed from birth". The program is constantly being modified by external events: and the existence or non-existence of a police and judicial system is a MAJOR external factor.

However, the external events may also be said to be pre-programmed in the same fashion.

[Bas]

Originally posted by Azazel
as a High-Energy Physicist, how do you reconcile it?

From what I gather, he doesn't try to reconcile it, since he does not believe in free will. And I think he's correct.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Bas
From what I gather, he doesn't try to reconcile it, since he does not believe in free will. And I think he's correct.

No, I do believe in free-will. But I think it needs some external mechanism which we don't know about yet (and strangely enough, can't know about by scientific means), in order to feed non-predicability into the system. I would say this was what we traditionally would term a 'soul'....

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Free will, morality and crime

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
You would want to take actions to prevent that crime, but would criminal detention as punishment be unjustifiable? What about the death penalty?

Is it even justifiable now? Locking them up is the best answer to protect our society that we've come up with. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only reason we do it.

[Dauphin]

So you wouldn't detain a person who commits a serious crime, such as manslaughter, but will not repeat it.

Say a drunk driver killed 5 people in a car crash, and after the event was so traumatised that he swore he would never drink or drive again. He is judged to be no threat to society. Should he be let off scott free?

[Az]

good points Sagacious Dolphin.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
So you wouldn't detain a person who commits a serious crime, such as manslaughter, but will not repeat it.

Say a drunk driver killed 5 people in a car crash, and after the event was so traumatised that he swore he would never drink or drive again. He is judged to be no threat to society. Should he be let off scott free?

Obviously, you don't live in the United States. Lawyers for the victims will sue the drunk for everything he has and then some.

Of course, American lawyers have no free will. They just follow the ambulances.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But whatever happens, either way, that was the predetermined path. So whether you do or you don't, it's what was 'supposed' to happen. So punish them, don't punish them, put them in jail, don't put them in jail - either way it doesn't matter, becuase in SD's scenario that's what is SUPPOSED to happen, and nothing else can happen.

But WHAT is predetermined? No one knows. One person may say let them free because they will only kill as many as are determined. Other person might say that detention IS predetermined for those people so they should be incarcerated. How do you know the predetermined path if you cannot see in the future?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously, you don't live in the United States. Lawyers for the victims will sue the drunk for everything he has and then some.

Which he deserves. You drive drunk and kill people, you deserve to have your life ruined by lawyers.

[orange]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
So you wouldn't detain a person who commits a serious crime, such as manslaughter, but will not repeat it.

Say a drunk driver killed 5 people in a car crash, and after the event was so traumatised that he swore he would never drink or drive again. He is judged to be no threat to society. Should he be let off scott free?

If it were proven that Free Will does not exist, no he shouldn't be locked up.

I believe that it does, so he should be locked up as punishment.