3 ms·

I think the author underestimates how much this changes things. Assuming we know for certain there is no free will; the way we treat bad behaviour should change

I think the author underestimates how much this changes things. Assuming we know for certain there is no free will; the way we treat bad behaviour should change - people who behave badly should simply be retrained. There should be no punishment; there is no concept of individual guilt or personal accountability; there are only behaviours that need to be modified to conform with a social norm. There should be no execution of killers; no prison terms, people would be held for as long as it takes (potentially indefinitely) to change unacceptable behaviour. A lot of popular religious concepts also fly out of the window.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
luckylion 6y ago
> the way we treat bad behaviour should change - people who behave badly should simply be retrained Does this hinge on us knowing/believing that free will doesn't exist? I'd say it's mostly that we cannot "simply retrain" somebody. If we had an injection that we could give people who's violence threshold is too low, we'd give it to them. But we don't, not even close. That's what stops us, not our belief in free will.
vharuck 6y ago
I don't see a difference in this regard. In my opinion, punishment that isn't intended to reform the criminal is done so three rest of us can feel good. I consider it sadism, but can understand if others object to that term. >There should be no execution of killers If they are likely to only be a danger to society, and the society does not hold all lives sacred, the death penalty would fit. In my opinion, this needs to be an extreme case. For example, a drug lord who, despite being in jail, repeatedly finds ways to hire hitmen. >no prison terms Prisons make perfect sense for some cases, especially violent criminals. It'd be foolish not to separate them from society of they're likely to cause harm again. Also, it would be a good guarantee they would attend behavioral therapy. >people would be held for as long as it takes (potentially indefinitely) to change unacceptable behaviour This does make me feel unsure of an answer, but luckily I can use a simple cop-out: removing sentencing limits would be too ripe for abuse.
- jerry80 6y ago
  >In my opinion, punishment that isn't intended to reform the criminal is done so three rest of us can feel good. I consider it sadism, but can understand if others object to that term. Punishment is arguably intended first and foremost to be a deterrent to committing crime in the first place, and secondary as a way to take dangerous criminals off the street. Reform of the criminal should probably be considered a bonus, not the primary intention. I think almost no one, aside from direct victims and their families, want punishment purely for punishment's sake (i.e. sadism).
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Assuming we know for certain there is no free will; the way we treat bad behaviour should change If there is no free will, the word “should” doesn't mean anything, there is only “is” and “is not”.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

luckylion 6y ago

> the way we treat bad behaviour should change - people who behave badly should simply be retrained Does this hinge on us knowing/believing that free will doesn't exist? I'd say it's mostly that we cannot "simply retrain" somebody. If we had an injection that we could give people who's violence threshold is too low, we'd give it to them. But we don't, not even close. That's what stops us, not our belief in free will.

vharuck 6y ago

I don't see a difference in this regard. In my opinion, punishment that isn't intended to reform the criminal is done so three rest of us can feel good. I consider it sadism, but can understand if others object to that term. >There should be no execution of killers If they are likely to only be a danger to society, and the society does not hold all lives sacred, the death penalty would fit. In my opinion, this needs to be an extreme case. For example, a drug lord who, despite being in jail, repeatedly finds ways to hire hitmen. >no prison terms Prisons make perfect sense for some cases, especially violent criminals. It'd be foolish not to separate them from society of they're likely to cause harm again. Also, it would be a good guarantee they would attend behavioral therapy. >people would be held for as long as it takes (potentially indefinitely) to change unacceptable behaviour This does make me feel unsure of an answer, but luckily I can use a simple cop-out: removing sentencing limits would be too ripe for abuse.

jerry80 6y ago
>In my opinion, punishment that isn't intended to reform the criminal is done so three rest of us can feel good. I consider it sadism, but can understand if others object to that term. Punishment is arguably intended first and foremost to be a deterrent to committing crime in the first place, and secondary as a way to take dangerous criminals off the street. Reform of the criminal should probably be considered a bonus, not the primary intention. I think almost no one, aside from direct victims and their families, want punishment purely for punishment's sake (i.e. sadism).

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Assuming we know for certain there is no free will; the way we treat bad behaviour should change If there is no free will, the word “should” doesn't mean anything, there is only “is” and “is not”.