5 ms·

Is there any way for your statement (which has many bold assertions) to lead anywhere but "We're all just victims of our genes"? Your materialistic assumptions

Is there any way for your statement (which has many bold assertions) to lead anywhere but "We're all just victims of our genes"? Your materialistic assumptions are a wonderful way to do science, but a terrible way to be human or govern.

vidarh 10y ago
It goes further. His statement (which I agree with) implies that we have no individual responsibility because our actions are entirely beyond our control. In that case the perpetrator is just as much victim, which alters the entire balance of justice, and creates all kinds of ugly rabbit holes to deal with with respect to societal effects and morality.
- hx87 10y ago
  Providing a strong disincentive to the perpetrator (and in the mean time, locking them up) improves society, whereas doing so to the victim does not. That makes all the necessary difference.
- mcguire 10y ago
  1. The perpetrator of at least some crimes lays costs on society far outweighing the costs to the perpetrator of the actions. 2. Morality is irrelevant. We don't have free will either.
alanwatts 10y ago
>Is there any way for your statement (which has many bold assertions) to lead anywhere but "We're all just victims of our genes"? Maybe that we are influenced far more by uncontrollable environmental factors than by our "freely* willed" decisions. >Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; When you are hungry, you need to eat. But if you don't have any money and take an apple from the market you will be punished. So technically in this situation, the person acted out of necessity and therefore did not act out of free will.
- mcguire 10y ago
  The "crime by necessity" argument is well known and well accepted in moral philosophy (even if not always in jurisprudence). The real question is unnecessary crimes: You choose to steal cars and ride around. Can we convince you not to do that (and other, worse, things), or are you simply broken?
hx87 10y ago
Victims or not, people need incentives to not harm other people, and when these incentives fail society needs to be protected from the offenders. Once retribution is out of the picture (as it should be), free will doesn't matter with respect to justice.

vidarh 10y ago

It goes further. His statement (which I agree with) implies that we have no individual responsibility because our actions are entirely beyond our control. In that case the perpetrator is just as much victim, which alters the entire balance of justice, and creates all kinds of ugly rabbit holes to deal with with respect to societal effects and morality.

hx87 10y ago
Providing a strong disincentive to the perpetrator (and in the mean time, locking them up) improves society, whereas doing so to the victim does not. That makes all the necessary difference.
mcguire 10y ago
1. The perpetrator of at least some crimes lays costs on society far outweighing the costs to the perpetrator of the actions. 2. Morality is irrelevant. We don't have free will either.

alanwatts 10y ago

>Is there any way for your statement (which has many bold assertions) to lead anywhere but "We're all just victims of our genes"? Maybe that we are influenced far more by uncontrollable environmental factors than by our "freely* willed" decisions. >Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; When you are hungry, you need to eat. But if you don't have any money and take an apple from the market you will be punished. So technically in this situation, the person acted out of necessity and therefore did not act out of free will.

mcguire 10y ago
The "crime by necessity" argument is well known and well accepted in moral philosophy (even if not always in jurisprudence). The real question is unnecessary crimes: You choose to steal cars and ride around. Can we convince you not to do that (and other, worse, things), or are you simply broken?

hx87 10y ago

Victims or not, people need incentives to not harm other people, and when these incentives fail society needs to be protected from the offenders. Once retribution is out of the picture (as it should be), free will doesn't matter with respect to justice.