4 ms·

If there's no free will as you're positing, what logically follows is that we should not have a legal system. Why punish someone because they stole for example?

• dragonwriter 6y ago
  > If there's no free will as you're positing, what logically follows is that we should not have a legal system. That does not follow. In fact, the idea that we “should” or “should not” is irrelevant unless you assume free will. Because what we should do only matters if we have a choice.
  • apta 6y ago
    So as you're putting it, it doesn't matter, it's all the same either way whether we or don't have a legal system. So why punish people if they don't have free will?
    • vidarh 6y ago
      You would have an interest in doing what minimises harm to society rather than for punishment. That means focusing on rehabilitation rather than vengeance. Consider that eg the US legal system has absolutely awful reoffending rates compared to eg Norway - it is geared for punishment rather than minimising harm.
    • dragonwriter 6y ago
      > So as you're putting it, it doesn't matter, it's all the same either way whether we or don't have a legal system. No, I'm saying if we don't have free will, having a legal system or not isn't a choice either. If the actions a legal system might regulate are predetermined, so is whether or not we have a legal system, and what the nature of that system is. > So why punish people if they don't have free will? If we don't have free will, what does the question “Why?” even mean, other than asking for an explanation of the mechanical forces producing an outcome? Questions of purpose behind actions presuppose free will directing actions for a purpose.
• vidarh 6y ago
  No, it follows that we should model the legal system on the basis of what protects society with the least damage to the people we lock up, on the basis that they had no choice. We still have a reason to protect others. And arguing that it 'breaks' apart because you don't like the consequences is ludicrous. Give me a definition of free will that doesn't suffer the problems I described, and we can talk.
  • apta 6y ago
    You seem to be arguing from an agnostic or atheist point of view (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case, then there is no incentive whatsoever to limit the "damage" to the people who do get locked up, because it's meaningless. Whether they get locked up for 1 year, 10, or just straight out executed, it's all the same. Rape isn't inherently bad anymore, it just is. Same with murder, theft, etc.
    • slfnflctd 6y ago
      I think you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not authoritarian by any means, and I think defunding a bunch of police departments in the U.S. might be a good idea, but when people start acting like everything is deterministic society falls apart. You have different outcomes than you would otherwise have. I know this from having given up on life a few times.
    • vidarh 6y ago
      A religious view makes no difference - it just pushes the question back one step. And yes there is every incentive to limit damage, to protect people even if there was no decision. But that also then extends to the perpetrators. There is no logic at all to your assertions here.
      • apta 6y ago
        > A religious view makes no difference - it just pushes the question back one step. I disagree. You have well-known atheist figures that have expressed views similar to what I was describing. That rape isn't inherently bad, it's just something that exists in the world. That incest is ok if it's between "consenting adults". Or Dawkins defending pedophilia. There literally isn't a gauge to determine whether something is moral or not anymore. It may sound absurd or over-exaggerating, but that is the logical conclusion of a purely materialistic view. We've seen its effects throughout history.