4 ms·

The progress of civilization towards an increasingly better society requires cost and effort. Either you consider human life a fundamental value, or you do not

The progress of civilization towards an increasingly better society requires cost and effort. Either you consider human life a fundamental value, or you do not. There are no final answers in this mysterious, apparently indifferent universe, but there is a lot of empirical data. Over and over, cultures that place a high value on human life lead to the societies where the most people prefer to live. Another issue is that an old religious superstition survives even among atheists/agnostics, because it is disguised as a philosophical concept. This superstition is called "free will". Some people are born with problematic brains, others are raised in environments where they never have the chance to develop a healthy mind. Does society have to protect itself from these people? Absolutely. Do we want to live in a society that decides to kill them because it is more economically effective? I don't. Yet another issue is that of certainty. It is never possible to be 100% certain that someone is guilty. Even if they confess, even if there is video evidence. There is always a tiny probability that there is something fundamental that we are missing. A culture that place a very high value on human life will not be willing to take this chance. Consider also that, in the EU, not only is there no death penalty but not even life sentences. Typically, the harshest sentence you can get is 20-something years, no matter how terrible your crime. And yet, there is less violent crime in the EU than in the US. EU countries spend much less resources in keeping people incarcerated than the US. Why do you think that is?

majewsky 10y ago
> This superstition is called "free will". Some people are born with problematic brains, others are raised in environments where they never have the chance to develop a healthy mind. How can you know that what you're saying is not a superstition itself?
- TelmoMenezes 10y ago
  Because I have never seen a coherent definition of what "free will" is supposed to mean, let alone how to empirically test for its existence. What is this "will" free from? The workings of the brain? If that is the case, then we are talking about the supernatural. If not, then we know that the brain develops according to genetic instructions and the environment, and we also know that both these things can go wrong by no fault of the person.
  - ncd 10y ago
    I suggest reading http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill for a pretty good overview of the arguments in favor of the existence of "free will" (which itself has many definitions). Which isn't to say you're wrong, but I think it's pretty uncharitable to say there aren't any "coherent" arguments in favor of free will. You did say you haven't "seen" any arguments, which I suppose is not the same as a claim that are none, but a cursory glance at that article should be illuminating for you. People have been thinking about this for a very long time, and no consensus seems to have emerged. :-) You might also be interested in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative, which seems to fit what little you've said about your current thinking.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    I was not referring to the "free will" part, but the hypothesis stated thereafter, in the remainder of my quote.

majewsky 10y ago

> This superstition is called "free will". Some people are born with problematic brains, others are raised in environments where they never have the chance to develop a healthy mind. How can you know that what you're saying is not a superstition itself?

TelmoMenezes 10y ago
Because I have never seen a coherent definition of what "free will" is supposed to mean, let alone how to empirically test for its existence. What is this "will" free from? The workings of the brain? If that is the case, then we are talking about the supernatural. If not, then we know that the brain develops according to genetic instructions and the environment, and we also know that both these things can go wrong by no fault of the person.
- ncd 10y ago
  I suggest reading http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill for a pretty good overview of the arguments in favor of the existence of "free will" (which itself has many definitions). Which isn't to say you're wrong, but I think it's pretty uncharitable to say there aren't any "coherent" arguments in favor of free will. You did say you haven't "seen" any arguments, which I suppose is not the same as a claim that are none, but a cursory glance at that article should be illuminating for you. People have been thinking about this for a very long time, and no consensus seems to have emerged. :-) You might also be interested in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative, which seems to fit what little you've said about your current thinking.
- majewsky 10y ago
  I was not referring to the "free will" part, but the hypothesis stated thereafter, in the remainder of my quote.