Free will, morality and crime

[Sava]

I think that you could make a case for both free will, and some sort of fate where past events dictate the future (cause and effect. etc). I tend to think there's a little bit of truth to both.

Crime and punishment are interesting topics because they aren't universal moral truths, they are simply a product of humanity.

[Ben Kenobi]

SD-

"natural unchangeable progression of events."

How is it possible for something unchangeable to progress?

"In this world is there any real sense of morality?"

That being said, a predetermined world without free will could not have any sense of morality.

Morality depends on the existence of moral entities, without free will, we are the same as computers. Can a computer ever do anything moral or immoral? No, because it has no option to choose what is wrong.

In what sense is something punishment if it is predetermined? What can one be punished for? Punishment is intended to bring about correction, without an offense, there can be no correction.

Sure, bad things would happen, but without free will, it cannot be punishment, since we would see punishment as just a bump in the road, mere fate.

"Crime and punishment are interesting topics because they aren't universal moral truths, they are simply a product of humanity."

Sava, the question is not, do we live in a world without free will, but merely, without free will, what are the qualities of the world? Different topic entirely.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by obiwan18
SD-

"natural unchangeable progression of events."

How is it possible for something unchangeable to progress?

That is, how a system will progress is unchangeable, not that the system is static. No matter what you "will" you cannot effect the result or how it came about - it is fated to happen in that fashion.

That being said, a predetermined world without free will could not have any sense of morality.

Morality depends on the existence of moral entities, without free will, we are the same as computers. Can a computer ever do anything moral or immoral? No, because it has no option to choose what is wrong.

In what sense is something punishment if it is predetermined? What can one be punished for? Punishment is intended to bring about correction, without an offense, there can be no correction.

Sure, bad things would happen, but without free will, it cannot be punishment, since we would see punishment as just a bump in the road, mere fate.

That's also my conclusion for such a situation. I wondered how it would effect society if it was publicly proven will lived in such a world.

[Ramo]

Assume that free will is 'proven' to be an illusion. That is, every act that we perform is not of conscious decision but determined by natural unchangeable progression of events.

This would mean your actions are as predetermined as night following day or a dropped object falling to the ground. There may be some random chance (i.e non-predetermination), such as with rolled die, but that is no more free will than predetermination.

In this world is there any real sense of morality? Everything we do is out of our control. Are we responsible for our actions?

If a person commits a crime are they to be held accountable? - they had no control over it. Accusing them of a crime is like accusing an hurricane of deliberate mass murder and wanton destruction.

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

1. I agree with the premise that free will doesn't exist, if you mean that there are no super-natural forces affecting an individual. I do think, however, that consciousness is a seperate concept from free will. A conscious individual has certain feedback systems in his brain to direct his thought processes (brain chemistry).

2. Criminal detention as punishment is never justified. Revenge is an atrocious use of a state authority. Criminal detention as a protection of society can be justified, depending upon the circumstances of the crime. The death penalty is never justified for precisely this reason.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ramo
2. Criminal detention as punishment is never justified. Revenge is an atrocious use of a state authority. Criminal detention as a protection of society can be justified, depending upon the circumstances of the crime. The death penalty is never justified for precisely this reason.

Suppose the crime commited was heinous but extremely unlikely to recur, such as an emotionally charged crime of passion. Say it was a double-murder of spouse and the person s/he was cheating with. Should the murderer immediately go free as s/he is not a threat to society?

(ignore the free will stuff, I'm talking in the courts today)

[Ramo]

If she had no control over her actions to a significant degree, the state should make her get extensive mental help for the safety of society. If she did have control over her actions, she should be locked up for the same reason (revenge is a perfectly rational motive).

By control, I mean that an action involved a conscious, rational choice.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ramo
If she had no control over her actions to a significant degree, the state should make her get extensive mental help for the safety of society. If she did have control over her actions, she should be locked up for the same reason (revenge is a perfectly rational motive).

By control, I mean that an action involved a conscious, rational choice.

Of course if there is no free will,
you never have total control over your actions.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ramo
If she had no control over her actions to a significant degree, the state should make her get extensive mental help for the safety of society. If she did have control over her actions, she should be locked up for the same reason (revenge is a perfectly rational motive).

By control, I mean that an action involved a conscious, rational choice.

My point is that the motive for murder was a single, one-off occasion that is extremely unlikely to recur. Society is not at threat from the murderer, nor is the murderer mentally unstable. It was just a sorry state of affairs that ended tragically.

You say that detention as punishment is wrong. If there is no threat, but a serious crime has been commited, should the perpetrator go free simply because they are never going to do it again?

Also, if you are locking people away for the safety of society and not as punishment, then surely all crimes should be given the same sentence - life - until that person has proven they will never commit a crime again.

[Ramo]

Of course if there is no free will,
you never have total control over your actions.

I didn't define control by free will. If the feedback systems that allow an individual to "control" oneself break down due to some chemical imbalance or whatnot, I don't consider a person to have control over one's actions. If these feedback systems are intact, I do consider a person to have control over one's actions.

My point is that the motive for murder was a single, one-off occasion that is extremely unlikely to recur. Society is not at threat from the murderer,

Sure it is. It's been demonstrated that if she gets really pissed off at people, she may assault/kill them.

You say that detention as punishment is wrong. If there is no threat, but a serious crime has been commited, should the perpetrator go free simply because they are never going to do it again?

The justice system also plays a part in deterring crime (to protect society), so no, not necessarily.

If you are locking people away for the safety of society, then surely all crimes should be given the same sentence - life - until that person has proven they will never commit a crime again.

Not at all. I believe that in a society, liberty from authority should be maximized. Imprisoning a person is a great assault on one's liberty, so life imprisonment can be justified only in extreme circumstances, namely those where the probable loss of liberty this person poses to the rest of society exceeds his loss of liberty for his entire life.

[Az]

Great thread.

I'll post my utilitarian pov sometime tomorrow.

[orange]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Doesn't SD's scenario imply that everyone is aware of predetermination?

Even if they are, they do not know which way that predetermination will lead. Maybe predetermination says they will punish people by putting them in jail. Maybe it doesn't.

See, the thing is if people do not know the determination they will have to continue to do what they are doing because that may be the predetermined path, no?

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.

SD - John Anderton is the lead role of Minority Report

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ramo

Sure it is. It's been demonstrated that if she gets really pissed off at people, she may assault/kill them.

Its not just "pissed off". Its not like someones crashed their car into yours and you experience road rage, or you've got into a bar fight and are smashing the crap out of each other.

With a crime of passion, you a upset, angry, betrayed, lost, confused, and a host of other emotions. This combination of emotions is very uncommon.

The justice system also plays a part in deterring crime (to protect society), so no, not necessarily

In such a crime of passion people do not think straight, and so thoughts of criminal detention aren't even considered. Locking people up for the crime will not be a deterrent.

Not at all. I believe that in a society, liberty from authority should be maximized. Imprisoning a person is a great assault on one's liberty, so life imprisonment can be justified only in extreme circumstances, namely those where the probable loss of liberty this person poses to the rest of society exceeds his loss of liberty for his entire life.

Would it be ok to incarcerate a person who is extremely likely to commit a serious crime, but has so far not? Prevention being better than cure - It would after all be protecting society.

[Az]

a small utilitarian reply on this:

Would it be ok to incarcerate a person who is extremely likely to commit a serious crime, but has so far not? Prevention being better than cure - It would after all be protecting society.

"more likely" is vague. You don't know if he will or will not, therefore imprisoning him will surely create unhappiness in him, because he'll have to sit in jail. you will also cause unhappiness in people that would see that anyone could get to jail for no apparent reason ("there was a chance..." just doesn't cut these days, see the Iraq issue and world opinion.), but this plays a rather small part in comparison to the suffering of the person who is jailed.
If we could read people's minds, then if there was an established, and a clear intent to kill someone, JAILING THE PERSON WOULD BE RIGHT.

you see, it's all so clear when you look from the utilitarian perspective.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Free will exists.

In the same way "I think therefore I am".

" I can therefore I have free will" is.

"I can" means that I have choice, and that choice is dependant on me and on me only. That is free will for me - in this reality where we live. And that is the difference betwen life and non-life. Life can, non-life cannot do anything on its own.

Now our free will might be limited by our abilites/ status in society etc... but everyone has it.

No God/human/or any other force known or unknown will not prevent me to type this "word" now. This is my choice and my choice only "I can" and therefore I have free will.

P.S as well as pressing this Submit Reply button ...

*One could say "free will" is as certain as the world that exists around us.

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Free will exists.

In the same way "I think therefore I am".

" I can therefore I have free will" is.

"I can" means that I have choice, and that choice is dependant on me and on me only. That is free will for me - in this reality where we live. And that is the difference betwen life and non-life. Life can, non-life cannot do anything on its own.

Now our free will might be limited by our abilites/ status in society etc... but everyone has it.

No God/human/or any other force known or unknown will not prevent me to type this "word" now. This is my choice and my choice only "I can" and therefore I have free will.

P.S as well as pressing this Submit Reply button ...

*One could say "free will" is as certain as the world that exists around us.

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".