6 ms·

>Free will is needed to identify who the criminal is in any given situation, No. Causality is all you need to identify who the criminal is. Physical stimuli a

>Free will is needed to identify who the criminal is in any given situation, No. Causality is all you need to identify who the criminal is. Physical stimuli are basically all we need as intelligent beings to come to a conclusion about things we don't like happening to us, and thus ultimately make into moral laws or codified ones. These are the inputs, these are the causes. Then, once enough human beings have had those inputs result in a large enough collective coming to the conclusion that stuff is Bad, we end up with laws. Then, whenever someone acts in a way that we have determined is Bad, they are the criminal. They do not need to possess free will for the rational thing to do to be to provide punishment for them, because punishing them ultimately changes the inputs used by others to reach decisions. Nothing about this requires free will - it's all just as applicable if you just believe the laws of physics and causality determine every choice we make.

naasking 8y ago
> No. Causality is all you need to identify who the criminal is. Unfortunately not. If your gets car stolen, without free will, you can't assign responsibility to the "thief", because you yourself were a causal factor in your car getting stolen: had you parked somewhere else, your car wouldn't have been stolen. Had society or his parents better supported the "thief", he wouldn't have stolen that car. Had your city placed that street somewhere else, your car wouldn't have been stolen. To designate the "thief" as the "singular" cause that's relevant, you need free will.
- cthalupa 8y ago
  All of those things are true, and I don't need them to be untrue to assign the largest share of responsibility to the thief. Having laws (and the enforcement of laws) in place is something we believe to be the most effective input in causing the Bad Things to not happen. As such, having them and enforcing them is purely logical. We have decided that having someone "broken" in such a manner that these inputs are not enough to result in them not doing Bad Things need to be removed from the public, and do so. Let's even step away from laws and assigning moral responsibility there. Let's look at interpersonal relationships. I love my SO. I try to avoid doing things that hurt her, because seeing her hurt fundamentally makes me unhappy. It makes me unhappy enough that it outweighs the personal benefits of whatever decision I was making. We would all agree that not being shitty to your SO for personal gain is a morally correct choice, but this is still all a matter of causality. Either you have negative stimuli to it from something more direct, such as in my situation, or perhaps just because of social pressure and the desire to conform, but morality still comes into existence from the causal nature of reality. Free will is not necessary to explain it.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > All of those things are true, and I don't need them to be untrue to assign the largest share of responsibility to the thief. You actually do. The very process of assigning "share of responsibility" is precisely the question that depends upon free will. If the thief stole your car only because someone was holding his wife hostage, now where does the responsibility lie? The circumstances immediately surrounding the car theft are precisely the same, but now an influence further back in the causal chain is presumably responsible. How would you differentiate these two scenarios without free will? > I love my SO. I try to avoid doing things that hurt her, because seeing her hurt fundamentally makes me unhappy. It makes me unhappy enough that it outweighs the personal benefits of whatever decision I was making. [...] Free will is not necessary to explain it. Free will is necessary to explain why you are morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for your choice of whether to go with your inclinations.
    - cthalupa 8y ago
      >If the thief stole your car only because someone was holding his wife hostage, now where does the responsibility lie? Still with the thief. He still has all of the other inputs into his system beyond just the fact that someone kidnapped his wife. Believing that causality ultimately determines every decision we make doesn't mean that I believe that it's a simple one to one mapping. He knows he can call the police - this isn't an action movie, and he's not the characters Jason Statham plays. If he is the characters Jason Statham plays, well, it doesn't really matter because he's not going to be caught anyway, and I'm left railing against the hypothetical thief that more often matches reality than your car getting stolen by the living embodiment of an action movie hero/anti-hero. >The circumstances immediately surrounding the car theft are precisely the same, but now an influence further back in the causal chain is presumably responsible. How would you differentiate these two scenarios without free will? By not believing that one changed input unrelated to all of the others somehow invalidates all of them. >Free will is necessary to explain why you are morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for your choice of whether to go with your inclinations. Free will is unnecessary to explain why I am morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for my choice of whether or not to go with my inclinations. Both are assertions that do not stand alone.
- ajuc 8y ago
  It is allowed to park a car, it is not allowed to take somebody else's car. If it was a place where you can't park, and a police took your car - it would be your fault, not theirs. It doesn't depend on the free will, it just depends on the laws. And the laws are what they are because of practical concerns and not free will. Notice that if you left your TV on a parking lot for a week - and accused people who got it of theft - you would be ignored. But with car it's a theft :) It's all about agreed customs that work reasonably well for the socity, not some platonic ideals.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Unfortunately not. If your gets car stolen, without free will, you can't assign responsibility to the "thief" Actually you can. Or rather, without free will, you have no say on whether you can or cannot. If the deterministic chain comes out so, you will assign responsibility to the thief, even if it has no meaning to do so.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > If the deterministic chain comes out so, you will assign responsibility to the thief, even if it has no meaning to do so. I describe a contrasting scenario further down the thread with the other poster, where the thief is now compelled to steal your car because his wife was taken hostage. Responsibility for stealing your car lies with the thief in one scenario but not the other. How would you make this distinction without free will?
coldtea 8y ago
>No. Causality is all you need to identify who the criminal is. Causality just determines who did something criminal. The word criminal though also invokes a moral judgement (of character) and intent, which presupposes an agent, which presupposes free will.
- ajuc 8y ago
  > which presupposes an agent, which presupposes free will. In an universe without free will there can still be agents.

naasking 8y ago

> No. Causality is all you need to identify who the criminal is. Unfortunately not. If your gets car stolen, without free will, you can't assign responsibility to the "thief", because you yourself were a causal factor in your car getting stolen: had you parked somewhere else, your car wouldn't have been stolen. Had society or his parents better supported the "thief", he wouldn't have stolen that car. Had your city placed that street somewhere else, your car wouldn't have been stolen. To designate the "thief" as the "singular" cause that's relevant, you need free will.

cthalupa 8y ago
All of those things are true, and I don't need them to be untrue to assign the largest share of responsibility to the thief. Having laws (and the enforcement of laws) in place is something we believe to be the most effective input in causing the Bad Things to not happen. As such, having them and enforcing them is purely logical. We have decided that having someone "broken" in such a manner that these inputs are not enough to result in them not doing Bad Things need to be removed from the public, and do so. Let's even step away from laws and assigning moral responsibility there. Let's look at interpersonal relationships. I love my SO. I try to avoid doing things that hurt her, because seeing her hurt fundamentally makes me unhappy. It makes me unhappy enough that it outweighs the personal benefits of whatever decision I was making. We would all agree that not being shitty to your SO for personal gain is a morally correct choice, but this is still all a matter of causality. Either you have negative stimuli to it from something more direct, such as in my situation, or perhaps just because of social pressure and the desire to conform, but morality still comes into existence from the causal nature of reality. Free will is not necessary to explain it.
- naasking 8y ago
  > All of those things are true, and I don't need them to be untrue to assign the largest share of responsibility to the thief. You actually do. The very process of assigning "share of responsibility" is precisely the question that depends upon free will. If the thief stole your car only because someone was holding his wife hostage, now where does the responsibility lie? The circumstances immediately surrounding the car theft are precisely the same, but now an influence further back in the causal chain is presumably responsible. How would you differentiate these two scenarios without free will? > I love my SO. I try to avoid doing things that hurt her, because seeing her hurt fundamentally makes me unhappy. It makes me unhappy enough that it outweighs the personal benefits of whatever decision I was making. [...] Free will is not necessary to explain it. Free will is necessary to explain why you are morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for your choice of whether to go with your inclinations.
  - cthalupa 8y ago
    >If the thief stole your car only because someone was holding his wife hostage, now where does the responsibility lie? Still with the thief. He still has all of the other inputs into his system beyond just the fact that someone kidnapped his wife. Believing that causality ultimately determines every decision we make doesn't mean that I believe that it's a simple one to one mapping. He knows he can call the police - this isn't an action movie, and he's not the characters Jason Statham plays. If he is the characters Jason Statham plays, well, it doesn't really matter because he's not going to be caught anyway, and I'm left railing against the hypothetical thief that more often matches reality than your car getting stolen by the living embodiment of an action movie hero/anti-hero. >The circumstances immediately surrounding the car theft are precisely the same, but now an influence further back in the causal chain is presumably responsible. How would you differentiate these two scenarios without free will? By not believing that one changed input unrelated to all of the others somehow invalidates all of them. >Free will is necessary to explain why you are morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for your choice of whether to go with your inclinations. Free will is unnecessary to explain why I am morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for my choice of whether or not to go with my inclinations. Both are assertions that do not stand alone.
ajuc 8y ago
It is allowed to park a car, it is not allowed to take somebody else's car. If it was a place where you can't park, and a police took your car - it would be your fault, not theirs. It doesn't depend on the free will, it just depends on the laws. And the laws are what they are because of practical concerns and not free will. Notice that if you left your TV on a parking lot for a week - and accused people who got it of theft - you would be ignored. But with car it's a theft :) It's all about agreed customs that work reasonably well for the socity, not some platonic ideals.
coldtea 8y ago
>Unfortunately not. If your gets car stolen, without free will, you can't assign responsibility to the "thief" Actually you can. Or rather, without free will, you have no say on whether you can or cannot. If the deterministic chain comes out so, you will assign responsibility to the thief, even if it has no meaning to do so.
- naasking 8y ago
  > If the deterministic chain comes out so, you will assign responsibility to the thief, even if it has no meaning to do so. I describe a contrasting scenario further down the thread with the other poster, where the thief is now compelled to steal your car because his wife was taken hostage. Responsibility for stealing your car lies with the thief in one scenario but not the other. How would you make this distinction without free will?

coldtea 8y ago

>No. Causality is all you need to identify who the criminal is. Causality just determines who did something criminal. The word criminal though also invokes a moral judgement (of character) and intent, which presupposes an agent, which presupposes free will.

ajuc 8y ago
> which presupposes an agent, which presupposes free will. In an universe without free will there can still be agents.