3 ms·

We can punish people for a plurality of reasons: - for moral enforcement (requires free will doctrine) - for retribution (tit for tat) - to balance society o

We can punish people for a plurality of reasons: - for moral enforcement (requires free will doctrine) - for retribution (tit for tat) - to balance society out Even if free will doesn't exist, we can still punish people who cause harm to society, in the interest of the group. It's just society balancing itself out.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
If free will doesn't exist, we can't *not* punish people. By definition. Those arguing against it also can't not argue. But they will lose the argue (it is inevitable), and then society will continue to punish, because it can't not do so. Determinism, whatever the logic of its premise, it intellectually bankrupt.
- kaibee 3y ago
  > If free will doesn't exist, we can't not punish people. By definition. What? You can still change your mind/update beliefs after being presented with new evidence, in fact if you're being rational, you actually have no choice but to do so. I suppose in some sense, the most 'free will' action is to choose to ignore evidence that would change your beliefs.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    > in fact if you're being rational, Rationality implies free will. I am a clockwork robot, and even if the cogs and gearsprings mechanically approximate rationality, it is really only the affectation of such. For irrationality would also just be obeying the same mechanical pathways encoded in my brain, thus neither is superior, or preferable. I can't even really have preferences, in a meaningful sense. Also, the encoding of my personality is quite strong, and easily able to ignore the absurd snickerings of your arguments, so you won't win and change my mind, or enough minds of others to make it the dominant paradigm. Punishment for wickedness remains. You lose.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  I had no choice but to conclude based on evidence that the threat of punishment causes a change in the behavior of others, and since I had no choice in deriving a goal of self preservation, I have no choice but to support laws that punish others for risking that. Believing these things is no more intellectually bankrupt than believing that the Moon has no choice but to revolve around the Earth.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Even if free will doesnt exist, we can punish people for moral enforcement. Morality doesnt disappear if you remove free will. You still have humans with a diverse set of values, and a diverse set of responses when confronted with decisions. If you have values and morals, you can compete to force compliance from others, and punish deviation.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

If free will doesn't exist, we can't *not* punish people. By definition. Those arguing against it also can't not argue. But they will lose the argue (it is inevitable), and then society will continue to punish, because it can't not do so. Determinism, whatever the logic of its premise, it intellectually bankrupt.

kaibee 3y ago
> If free will doesn't exist, we can't not punish people. By definition. What? You can still change your mind/update beliefs after being presented with new evidence, in fact if you're being rational, you actually have no choice but to do so. I suppose in some sense, the most 'free will' action is to choose to ignore evidence that would change your beliefs.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > in fact if you're being rational, Rationality implies free will. I am a clockwork robot, and even if the cogs and gearsprings mechanically approximate rationality, it is really only the affectation of such. For irrationality would also just be obeying the same mechanical pathways encoded in my brain, thus neither is superior, or preferable. I can't even really have preferences, in a meaningful sense. Also, the encoding of my personality is quite strong, and easily able to ignore the absurd snickerings of your arguments, so you won't win and change my mind, or enough minds of others to make it the dominant paradigm. Punishment for wickedness remains. You lose.
lern_too_spel 3y ago
I had no choice but to conclude based on evidence that the threat of punishment causes a change in the behavior of others, and since I had no choice in deriving a goal of self preservation, I have no choice but to support laws that punish others for risking that. Believing these things is no more intellectually bankrupt than believing that the Moon has no choice but to revolve around the Earth.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Even if free will doesnt exist, we can punish people for moral enforcement. Morality doesnt disappear if you remove free will. You still have humans with a diverse set of values, and a diverse set of responses when confronted with decisions. If you have values and morals, you can compete to force compliance from others, and punish deviation.