3 ms·
I have never understood why people are eager to jump to the conclusion that a supposed lack of free will or the presence of some biological reason should absolv
by andreasvc 12y ago
I have never understood why people are eager to jump to the conclusion that a supposed lack of free will or the presence of some biological reason should absolve a perpetrator of moral responsibility. I believe the laws in society are arbitrary, just as the assignment of responsibility. By arbitrary I mean that laws are not based on some natural foundation that gives them legitimacy, but on how we want society to be.
- nicklolsen 12y agoMaybe my understanding of the "free will" concept is inaccurate, but it seems that a lack of free will means you cannot control your own thoughts, decisions, etc. If that is true, then how would it make sense to hold somebody responsible for something they cannot control?
- andreasvc 12y agoIf we're talking about someone who obviously cannot take care of himself then I'd agree, but in that case the law assigns responsibility to some legal guardian. For the rest, note that getting drunk will also mean you'll have less control over your own thoughts, decisions, etc., but this shouldn't affect the responsibility we assign to any consequences of that. I'm arguing against the idea that a philosophical argument for the complete non-existence of free will should affect our social construction of responsibility. Similarly, even if there is a biological or psychological cause to a crime, if someone cooks up some elaborate psychopathic plan, the law should assign responsibility regardless.
- paradoxofcourt 12y agoI blame Euathlus.