3 ms·

> "Protecting others" carries an implicit assertion that failing to abide by this principle means you are broken, rather than that the principle itself is mista

> "Protecting others" carries an implicit assertion that failing to abide by this principle means you are broken, rather than that the principle itself is mistaken, as would be true if you really believed blame didn't exist. Not at all. People seek to stop fires in order to protect others, but few believe fire carries blame for burning people. Of course, you need to believe that there is determinism (the fire is causing the burns, so stopping the fire will stop the burns), but that's it. > And then you still have to account for whether the transgressor was coerced rather than was acting from their beliefs and desires (aka made a free choice). This is still just a question about causality. The problem you are trying to solve is that people are getting hurt. You need to determine the ultimate cause for that in order to effectively solve it. So, if A is killing people that you want to live, you will want to first stop A from doing so. Next, you will have to determine what was causing A to kill people - if A was doing so because B paid for it, then you probably need to stop B as well: otherwise B may pay C to kill people even if A is in jail. If this has been determined, A may or may not need to be jailed at all, based on beliefs about whether A may still continue to kill people even if B has been stopped. None of this requires some metaphysical notion of blame, it only requires a belief in determinism and a model of causality of behavior. A computer could be built that would take such decisions in a purely deterministic way, and using only information about purely physical facts (A performed act x, B performed act y, other people that share characteristics d, e, f with A performed act x, etc).

naasking 3y ago
> but few believe fire carries blame for burning people Because fire doesn't have intentions, beliefs and mental states that respond to feedback about right/wrong, and that govern its future behaviour. > he problem you are trying to solve is that people are getting hurt. You need to determine the ultimate cause for that in order to effectively solve it. So, if A is killing people that you want to live, you will want to first stop A from doing so. Next, you will have to determine what was causing A to kill people - if A was doing so because B paid for it, then you probably need to stop B as well: otherwise B may pay C to kill people even if A is in jail. If this has been determined, A may or may not need to be jailed at all, based on beliefs about whether A may still continue to kill people even if B has been stopped. None of this requires some metaphysical notion of blame It's frankly amazing that you can perform an in depth analysis of how to ascertain who is to blame, and yet conclude that blame is not required. You're performing this elaborate dance trying to avoid the word "blame" despite the fact that this analysis is exactly what everybody means by "blame". There's nothing metaphysical about it.
- simiones 3y ago
  You can call it blame, of course, but then we also have to say that the fire is to blame for hurting these people. The point was to show that the same analysis for why we should stop a fire (which is not considered a moral agent) is or can be carried out for why we should jail someone. Since we don't need to believe that the fire has free will in order to put it out, it stands to reason we also don't need to believe that a killer has free will in order to justify jailing them.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > The point was to show that the same analysis for why we should stop a fire (which is not considered a moral agent) is or can be carried out for why we should jail someone. Since we don't need to believe that the fire has free will in order to put it out, it stands to reason we also don't need to believe that a killer has free will in order to justify jailing them. The key difference is that fire is not considered a moral agent and a person is. That's why the justification is required.
    - simiones 3y ago
      The difference between moral agents and amoral agents is only relevant if you care about non-physical effects of morality. The legal system wouldn't need to change if we just believed that no one is a moral agent - this is what I'm trying to say. So, to the extent that free will is required for being a moral agent, doing away with belief in free will would not require any changes in the legal system.
      - naasking 3y ago
        I don't see how you reach that conclusion. The law is specifically targeted at liability and responsibility of moral agents. That's why it has its own definition of free will of moral agents that is agnostic to determinism. That's why you can't sue a fire but you can sue a person. In the future, you will almost certainly be able to sue certain types of AI agents as well. I also assert, with evidence [1], that this legal understanding of free will is how most people think about it. I can't make any sense of your argument unless you're employing a different definition of free will. [1] https://philarchive.org/rec/ANDWCI-3 https://philarchive.org/rec/ANDWCI-3

naasking 3y ago

> but few believe fire carries blame for burning people Because fire doesn't have intentions, beliefs and mental states that respond to feedback about right/wrong, and that govern its future behaviour. > he problem you are trying to solve is that people are getting hurt. You need to determine the ultimate cause for that in order to effectively solve it. So, if A is killing people that you want to live, you will want to first stop A from doing so. Next, you will have to determine what was causing A to kill people - if A was doing so because B paid for it, then you probably need to stop B as well: otherwise B may pay C to kill people even if A is in jail. If this has been determined, A may or may not need to be jailed at all, based on beliefs about whether A may still continue to kill people even if B has been stopped. None of this requires some metaphysical notion of blame It's frankly amazing that you can perform an in depth analysis of how to ascertain who is to blame, and yet conclude that blame is not required. You're performing this elaborate dance trying to avoid the word "blame" despite the fact that this analysis is exactly what everybody means by "blame". There's nothing metaphysical about it.

simiones 3y ago
You can call it blame, of course, but then we also have to say that the fire is to blame for hurting these people. The point was to show that the same analysis for why we should stop a fire (which is not considered a moral agent) is or can be carried out for why we should jail someone. Since we don't need to believe that the fire has free will in order to put it out, it stands to reason we also don't need to believe that a killer has free will in order to justify jailing them.
- naasking 3y ago
  > The point was to show that the same analysis for why we should stop a fire (which is not considered a moral agent) is or can be carried out for why we should jail someone. Since we don't need to believe that the fire has free will in order to put it out, it stands to reason we also don't need to believe that a killer has free will in order to justify jailing them. The key difference is that fire is not considered a moral agent and a person is. That's why the justification is required.
  - simiones 3y ago
    The difference between moral agents and amoral agents is only relevant if you care about non-physical effects of morality. The legal system wouldn't need to change if we just believed that no one is a moral agent - this is what I'm trying to say. So, to the extent that free will is required for being a moral agent, doing away with belief in free will would not require any changes in the legal system.
    - naasking 3y ago
      I don't see how you reach that conclusion. The law is specifically targeted at liability and responsibility of moral agents. That's why it has its own definition of free will of moral agents that is agnostic to determinism. That's why you can't sue a fire but you can sue a person. In the future, you will almost certainly be able to sue certain types of AI agents as well. I also assert, with evidence [1], that this legal understanding of free will is how most people think about it. I can't make any sense of your argument unless you're employing a different definition of free will. [1] https://philarchive.org/rec/ANDWCI-3 https://philarchive.org/rec/ANDWCI-3