4 ms·

>> My take is that free will is, 90% of the time, a necessary lie. Because if we didn’t believe it, everything would get far far worse. Why? Would people choos

>> My take is that free will is, 90% of the time, a necessary lie. Because if we didn’t believe it, everything would get far far worse. Why? Would people choose to do bad things because they don't have a choice?

lazide 2y ago
If people can argue they should not be held accountable for doing something bad, because they defacto had no choice (due to nature/nurture) - and people will take that seriously - then exactly the worse kind of people will never be held accountable. And folks on the fence will hop over it onto that side. Because consequences do matter for preventing most behavior (weighed by the rational and non-rational part of the mind), but punishing someone for something they can’t control seems cruel - and that will stop many people from applying them. Resulting in more damage and more bad behavior. So regardless of if it’s true or not, treating it as true is fundamental for a functioning society.
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  This is conjecture. Why are the people on the fence choosing the dark side? Why does a lack of free will preclude the possibility of any kind of consequences?
  - lazide 2y ago
    Regarding your first point - usually because the 'dark side' is easier (short term), and life periodically gets hard. So it's often inevitable. Especially in the face of others doing bad acts to you. Regarding the second - see my comment. At least in the western world, most crimes require fault and mens rea. Those require someone being able to make a informed choice, which means having free will. If there is (actually) no choice, or the choice was based on faulty information processing (aka actual insanity), then therefore there is no fault and no mens rea. The underlying belief (philosophically) is one cannot be good or evil if one cannot comprehend a choice or it's ramifications, or in fact actually effectively choose between options due to a lack of knowledge and independent agency. Interestingly, this is why the 'original sin' in Christian mythology was eating the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. [https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-71802-6_480#:~:text=Original%20sin%20is%20the%20Christian,Eve%20(CCC%3A%20404) https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-3....] So philosophically, before that point, there was no 'good' or 'evil' because humans didn't know of such things, therefore were just acting. Regardless of what they did, they were innocent, because they were incapable of being anything else. After that, everything they did had such knowledge as a factor, and were no longer innocent - because they could choose. So, for example, if I murder someone in cold blood (aka rational/thinking/choosing), that is 1st degree murder. One of the most serious crimes in any society. However, if I murder my spouse because I found they betrayed me right in front of me and lose my mind (literally can't think straight, and react instinctively without being able to think or plan anything), most locations will consider me not guilty by reason of insanity, and let me go. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/temporary_insanity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/temporary_insanity] This is already a great example of the problem, as MANY folks try to claim insanity already after getting caught when they are not actually insane. Another example is if I accidentally kill someone without knowing such a thing was a possibility. For example, I'm out hunting in the woods. I see a deer, and (as far as I know) legally shoot it. However, it turns out that was actually a human dressed in a very convincing deer costume, and I had no way of knowing this was the case. Most of the time, I would be charged with no crime, or worst case likely negligent homicide. As per the Supreme Court of Iowa, "In order to be an excuse and defense for a criminal act, the person accused, and who claims [temporary] insanity as a defense, must prove that the crime charged was caused by mental disease or unsoundness which dethroned, overcame, or swayed her reason and judgment with respect to that act, which destroyed her power rationally to comprehend the nature and consequences of that act.” If we assert that people actually act based on their nature/upbringing and have little to no rational control over their actions in fact (aka no free will), then does it not follow that no one actually has a choice, and therefore it makes no sense to actually punish anyone for anything they do? Since philosophically, without the ability to rationally actually choose their actions, they cannot be good or bad - they just are. And if we punish people based on who they 'just are', that opens another can of very nasty worms, and likely a lot of serious evil will result.
    - kipchak 2y ago
      Would removing the punitive aspect of punishment be enough to keep things making sense? For example with temporary insanity someone isn't considered deserving of retribution without real fault, but incapacitation and rehabilitation might still be justifiable if there was a risk of reoccurrence. Deterrence seems like it could also still be justifiable, for example if you thought someone could be aware of such a punishment while temporarily insane and less likely to commit murder as a result. My understanding is the focus on punitive punishment has been higher than average since roughly the 1970s beginning with the war on drugs and is arguably not working very well measured in incarceration rates (US is #6th worldwide) so a shift seems away from culpability seems like it could potentially be a positive change. That being said like you say it's potentially it's own can of worms overcorrecting the other way.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        There is a feedback loop and moral hazard, so you need some fixed punishment as deterrent. If a unique situation not likely to reoccur is an defense for criminal behavior, Then this rule provides the unique situation. Imagine a rule that rehabilitation is the punishment for a first murder. For a rational person, this is a free pass to commit exactly one murder, because as soon as they do, they have every reason to avoid the 2nd and require no rehabilitation for compliance.
        kipchak 2y ago
        This would fall under the deterrence category no? Assuming free will does not exist the only types of punishment that seem by and large unjustifiable without the capacity to be at fault or culpability are retributive and restitutive punishment, for the same reasons we wouldn't consider it justifiable for someone not of sound mind.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Yes, my example can be framed in terms of deterrence. However, I think punishment can fill many purposes. Retribution is largely in the eyes of victim, so the need is subjective and depends on their emotional desire for revenge. I'm not convinced that victims will be emotionally satisfied with the explanation of causal chain that goes back to the big bang. To be honest, I dont really understand how the concept of restitution differs from deterrence and retribution. the cost is a deterrent, and paying it to the victim partially mitigates the desire for revenge. I posted this elsewhere in this thread, but I think free will is entirely irrelevant to assessments of responsibility, fault, and culpability. Why should it matter if someone is a robot with bad programing, or a puppet animated with a bad spirit. In both case, they a black box which took an action in a given situation. It seems like the game theory, emotion, and economics around punishment is the same in either case. Maybe I simply understand the argument/theory why free will is a justification for harsher/additional punishment in the first place.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

lazide 2y ago

If people can argue they should not be held accountable for doing something bad, because they defacto had no choice (due to nature/nurture) - and people will take that seriously - then exactly the worse kind of people will never be held accountable. And folks on the fence will hop over it onto that side. Because consequences do matter for preventing most behavior (weighed by the rational and non-rational part of the mind), but punishing someone for something they can’t control seems cruel - and that will stop many people from applying them. Resulting in more damage and more bad behavior. So regardless of if it’s true or not, treating it as true is fundamental for a functioning society.

steve_adams_86 2y ago
This is conjecture. Why are the people on the fence choosing the dark side? Why does a lack of free will preclude the possibility of any kind of consequences?
- lazide 2y ago
  Regarding your first point - usually because the 'dark side' is easier (short term), and life periodically gets hard. So it's often inevitable. Especially in the face of others doing bad acts to you. Regarding the second - see my comment. At least in the western world, most crimes require fault and mens rea. Those require someone being able to make a informed choice, which means having free will. If there is (actually) no choice, or the choice was based on faulty information processing (aka actual insanity), then therefore there is no fault and no mens rea. The underlying belief (philosophically) is one cannot be good or evil if one cannot comprehend a choice or it's ramifications, or in fact actually effectively choose between options due to a lack of knowledge and independent agency. Interestingly, this is why the 'original sin' in Christian mythology was eating the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. [https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-71802-6_480#:~:text=Original%20sin%20is%20the%20Christian,Eve%20(CCC%3A%20404) https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-3....] So philosophically, before that point, there was no 'good' or 'evil' because humans didn't know of such things, therefore were just acting. Regardless of what they did, they were innocent, because they were incapable of being anything else. After that, everything they did had such knowledge as a factor, and were no longer innocent - because they could choose. So, for example, if I murder someone in cold blood (aka rational/thinking/choosing), that is 1st degree murder. One of the most serious crimes in any society. However, if I murder my spouse because I found they betrayed me right in front of me and lose my mind (literally can't think straight, and react instinctively without being able to think or plan anything), most locations will consider me not guilty by reason of insanity, and let me go. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/temporary_insanity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/temporary_insanity] This is already a great example of the problem, as MANY folks try to claim insanity already after getting caught when they are not actually insane. Another example is if I accidentally kill someone without knowing such a thing was a possibility. For example, I'm out hunting in the woods. I see a deer, and (as far as I know) legally shoot it. However, it turns out that was actually a human dressed in a very convincing deer costume, and I had no way of knowing this was the case. Most of the time, I would be charged with no crime, or worst case likely negligent homicide. As per the Supreme Court of Iowa, "In order to be an excuse and defense for a criminal act, the person accused, and who claims [temporary] insanity as a defense, must prove that the crime charged was caused by mental disease or unsoundness which dethroned, overcame, or swayed her reason and judgment with respect to that act, which destroyed her power rationally to comprehend the nature and consequences of that act.” If we assert that people actually act based on their nature/upbringing and have little to no rational control over their actions in fact (aka no free will), then does it not follow that no one actually has a choice, and therefore it makes no sense to actually punish anyone for anything they do? Since philosophically, without the ability to rationally actually choose their actions, they cannot be good or bad - they just are. And if we punish people based on who they 'just are', that opens another can of very nasty worms, and likely a lot of serious evil will result.
  - kipchak 2y ago
    Would removing the punitive aspect of punishment be enough to keep things making sense? For example with temporary insanity someone isn't considered deserving of retribution without real fault, but incapacitation and rehabilitation might still be justifiable if there was a risk of reoccurrence. Deterrence seems like it could also still be justifiable, for example if you thought someone could be aware of such a punishment while temporarily insane and less likely to commit murder as a result. My understanding is the focus on punitive punishment has been higher than average since roughly the 1970s beginning with the war on drugs and is arguably not working very well measured in incarceration rates (US is #6th worldwide) so a shift seems away from culpability seems like it could potentially be a positive change. That being said like you say it's potentially it's own can of worms overcorrecting the other way.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      There is a feedback loop and moral hazard, so you need some fixed punishment as deterrent. If a unique situation not likely to reoccur is an defense for criminal behavior, Then this rule provides the unique situation. Imagine a rule that rehabilitation is the punishment for a first murder. For a rational person, this is a free pass to commit exactly one murder, because as soon as they do, they have every reason to avoid the 2nd and require no rehabilitation for compliance.
      - kipchak 2y ago
        This would fall under the deterrence category no? Assuming free will does not exist the only types of punishment that seem by and large unjustifiable without the capacity to be at fault or culpability are retributive and restitutive punishment, for the same reasons we wouldn't consider it justifiable for someone not of sound mind.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Yes, my example can be framed in terms of deterrence. However, I think punishment can fill many purposes. Retribution is largely in the eyes of victim, so the need is subjective and depends on their emotional desire for revenge. I'm not convinced that victims will be emotionally satisfied with the explanation of causal chain that goes back to the big bang. To be honest, I dont really understand how the concept of restitution differs from deterrence and retribution. the cost is a deterrent, and paying it to the victim partially mitigates the desire for revenge. I posted this elsewhere in this thread, but I think free will is entirely irrelevant to assessments of responsibility, fault, and culpability. Why should it matter if someone is a robot with bad programing, or a puppet animated with a bad spirit. In both case, they a black box which took an action in a given situation. It seems like the game theory, emotion, and economics around punishment is the same in either case. Maybe I simply understand the argument/theory why free will is a justification for harsher/additional punishment in the first place.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]