4 ms·

The Limits of the Coded World

21 points by donohoe 16y ago

Jach 16y ago
tl;dr: Science can never predict with absolute certainty, therefore you can never take away my freedom! There's also a weak thrust in a "What about moral responsibility?!" argument thrown in. My answer: punishment should be handed out only to stop repeated bad behavior from an individual and discourage others from repeating it, not for some "justice must be served" idea. This can take the argument to what constitutes bad behavior, why we should care, but that at least simplifies matters.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  What is wrong with Justice must be served idea? Although your suggestion might work in criminal law, in contract law it is not so much as a question of punishment as it is a question of putting a right wrong, so too in much civil law. So, the notion of justice is very much fundamental to law. Even in criminal law, what is just is the basis upon which any authority can legitimately imposed. It is for example not just to punish someone who was provoked to kill at the same rate as someone who intended, with full and clear mind, to kill. Also, even assuming that individuals do not have any free will at all, a murderer still should be punished, regardless of any notion of moral responsibility. This for example we do with the insane who it can not be said are morally responsible, yet are locked away so as to not harm others. Thus, in a fundamental way, it is not so much as to what is evil that the law is guided by primarley, but practical matters, what is desirable, fair and very much just.
  - Jach 16y ago
    You don't need to invoke this sacred "justice" to accomplish any of this, though. Your latter example of putting the insane away so as not to harm others, falls under my first category of "preventing repeated offenses" and keeps them from causing further harm. (On a side-note, I think more attempts should be made at rehabilitation, but the stigmas around mental health aren't that much better today than decades ago.) Again, with contracts, we have already decided that contracts are good and breaking them is bad. (But not in all cases!) By punishing, or putting a wrong right, is done to encourage this assumption of contracts being good and useful. If we standardize on usefulness and in fuzzier cases "goodness", I think that's a step forward from this notion of Justice. I suspect we may have a simple disagreement over the meaning of the word, and less so on the actual details, but that's all the more reason to go away from it. My usage of justice can be invoked to justify sentencing a murderer 50 years after the fact to death, and I don't see how that's useful or good at all given he's just a normal guy by then.
Ardit20 16y ago
The article focuses on a very narrow point, but it does offer an insight on the debate of free will. However, it does not quite tackle the crux of the matter. If the choice we make is determine by influences beyond my control, as much as the cup of coffee has no choice but to follow my will, so to we as humans would have no choice but to choose the choice we made. Thus, perhaps it can not be said that we have free will. We do not know the entire complexities which create any given behaviour at any moment, thus in any practical way we do have free will, but in a theoretical level, if like the cup of coffee I am bound to act in a certain way, how can it possibly said that I am free?

21 points by donohoe 16y ago

Jach 16y ago

tl;dr: Science can never predict with absolute certainty, therefore you can never take away my freedom! There's also a weak thrust in a "What about moral responsibility?!" argument thrown in. My answer: punishment should be handed out only to stop repeated bad behavior from an individual and discourage others from repeating it, not for some "justice must be served" idea. This can take the argument to what constitutes bad behavior, why we should care, but that at least simplifies matters.

Ardit20 16y ago
What is wrong with Justice must be served idea? Although your suggestion might work in criminal law, in contract law it is not so much as a question of punishment as it is a question of putting a right wrong, so too in much civil law. So, the notion of justice is very much fundamental to law. Even in criminal law, what is just is the basis upon which any authority can legitimately imposed. It is for example not just to punish someone who was provoked to kill at the same rate as someone who intended, with full and clear mind, to kill. Also, even assuming that individuals do not have any free will at all, a murderer still should be punished, regardless of any notion of moral responsibility. This for example we do with the insane who it can not be said are morally responsible, yet are locked away so as to not harm others. Thus, in a fundamental way, it is not so much as to what is evil that the law is guided by primarley, but practical matters, what is desirable, fair and very much just.
- Jach 16y ago
  You don't need to invoke this sacred "justice" to accomplish any of this, though. Your latter example of putting the insane away so as not to harm others, falls under my first category of "preventing repeated offenses" and keeps them from causing further harm. (On a side-note, I think more attempts should be made at rehabilitation, but the stigmas around mental health aren't that much better today than decades ago.) Again, with contracts, we have already decided that contracts are good and breaking them is bad. (But not in all cases!) By punishing, or putting a wrong right, is done to encourage this assumption of contracts being good and useful. If we standardize on usefulness and in fuzzier cases "goodness", I think that's a step forward from this notion of Justice. I suspect we may have a simple disagreement over the meaning of the word, and less so on the actual details, but that's all the more reason to go away from it. My usage of justice can be invoked to justify sentencing a murderer 50 years after the fact to death, and I don't see how that's useful or good at all given he's just a normal guy by then.

Ardit20 16y ago

The article focuses on a very narrow point, but it does offer an insight on the debate of free will. However, it does not quite tackle the crux of the matter. If the choice we make is determine by influences beyond my control, as much as the cup of coffee has no choice but to follow my will, so to we as humans would have no choice but to choose the choice we made. Thus, perhaps it can not be said that we have free will. We do not know the entire complexities which create any given behaviour at any moment, thus in any practical way we do have free will, but in a theoretical level, if like the cup of coffee I am bound to act in a certain way, how can it possibly said that I am free?