Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KBSMilk t1_jd67bam wrote

Reply to comment by Beepboopbob1 in In-depth interview with Gregg Caruso, free-will skeptic by fatsosis

>Here's the problem - this lack of free will implies none of us have true moral responsibility for our actions, as mentioned in the interview, and operating according to this assumption is detrimental to both individuals and society.

It is not wholly detrimental. It grants us the liberating power to forgive anyone, for anything. Why hate anyone for their actions, when they are just an automaton, like I am? And you do not need hatred to take pragmatic actions, to protect yourself from bad people.

There already are serious moral dilemmas with punishing criminals. Meaning that lack of free will is just another reason to not punish them.

We always should have been jailing, rehabilitating, or otherwise handling criminals solely for the protection of others. That belief is not in conflict with lack of free will's moral implications.

14

hardman52 t1_jd6ez9x wrote

Well if there's no free will then we can't help but choose to punish criminals. And since they have no free will but continue to be anti-social, then we have no choice but to lock them up or execute them.

See the kind of problems you get into when you discuss free will on this shallow basis?

3

KBSMilk t1_jd6jvw6 wrote

What problem? What shallowness? You have described reality. The criminal's fate was to do harm and be harmed. They are helpless. They are to be both pitied and guarded against, but not hated. Not punished further for the poor hand they were dealt.

3

hardman52 t1_jd6ot6q wrote

But we can't help but punish him. It's our fate, right?

2

KBSMilk t1_jd6pbwb wrote

Ok, I should clarify that I mean punishment in a vindictive manner. I see it as separate from results-based methods of handling criminals. We should lock someone up until we think they're not going to hurt anyone again, and no longer. As opposed to locking someone up forever because they hurt someone in the past, or executing them for it. Pragmatism or punishment is a matter of intent.

1

TheGoodFight2015 t1_jd6haik wrote

Carrot vs stick. Punishment can act as a deterrent to some (many!). If I know police are running radar on the highway ahead, I slow down to avoid them punishing me with a ticket or permanent mark on my driving record.

If I think no one else is watching and I won’t hurt anyone else, I don’t stop at stop signs, because I don’t foresee the punishment (though this may ultimately be foolish of me).

I don’t go around physically fighting people I don’t like or people who antagonize me. I have been trained in society to know this is wrong. My moral compass does not want to hurt other people for perceived slights; rather I’d only fight to defend against grave and imminent danger. I also fear the repercussion of escalated violence, such as a knife or gun being pulled, which is an instant form of personal punishment. I fear hurting someone else so badly I kill them or permanently damage them. I fear their harm, and I fear my own punishment.

I do not want to go to jail and be separate from society. I want to conform to the good parts of society happy to discuss further, but I think punishment has its validity.

3

ViolinistDrummer t1_jd78v74 wrote

>Punishment can act as a deterrent to some

Yes, and notably this neither implies nor requires free will. Even punishment for the sake of revenge can be valid* without free will. Fear and catharsis are just biological responses to stimuli... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

* I do not advocate for this, but it is a consideration

2

KBSMilk t1_jd6kvwg wrote

I'd say punishment, as I meant it, arises from a combination of intent and results.

Speeding tickets? Are intended to keep roadways safer, and are effective at deterring speeding. Not a punishment.

Now look at the death penalty. It's not really deterring people from murder more than a life sentence. In America, it's wasteful. Based on those two points and the death penalty's continued usage, I can infer that there is vindictive intent propping it up. That is a punishment.

1

TheGoodFight2015 t1_jdl2cdj wrote

I want to take a step back and hear your definition of punishment (of “law breakers”); I apologize if I misinterpreted.

Do you more so mean punishment as far as “society getting revenge on an individual for a bad act they committed”? Because I believe that concept is definitely worse than the rehabilitative approach. I know this sort of contradicts my previous post, but I understand that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement, so punishment should be more of a last resort, and reward should be a more helpful frame to work off of.

I do not agree with the death penalty in many cases; I’d say I’m 30-70 in favor of it (or 7/10 disfavor). Once I heard the argument that a death sentence should only be given in a situation proven “beyond the shadow of a doubt”, which is nearly impossible to achieve (some say fully impossible because minute doubt can always exist), then I was swayed to disfavor the death penalty all around.

Still, I have to wonder if there are certain cases where we might feel obligated to go further than a life sentence, such as when [warning, they will be harsh] a rapist would receive a life sentence, but if they killed their victim, they would receive the death penalty.

I’d say I am a rational actor and a reasonable person, so my motives for not hurting others, stealing, killing, etc come from a personal moral compass of “doing the right thing” or “do unto others as you’d have done to yourself”. Even so, I know there are some absolute animalistic people who just do not think that same way, and are entirely out for their own benefit, fuck everyone else. They would just as easily hurt you severely as I might run a stop sign, EXCEPT for the thought of their own self preservation: a person who is “sane” but violent will not act with extreme violence toward somebody they perceive as a massive threat to their existence (in a way this is a very instinctual level of “respect” toward the superior force, where they know they would be vested and do not act with violence unless they think they can get away with it).

Aha, there it is in my mind: getting away with it. The lack of perception of punishment! That’s my definition: punishment is the imposition of something unpleasant or unwanted as a result of someone’s actions. A speeding ticket is a monetary punishment. A jail sentence is a punishment restricting your freedom. Solitary confinement punishes further (not sure if it’s ethical!) Would love to discuss more.

1

KBSMilk t1_jdl640o wrote

From the perspective of the punished, it may be unpleasant, unwanted. But as a society, we should never take action against someone with the aim of inflicting those feelings. They may be a side effect of whatever method is required, but never should it be the goal to do more harm. Even if someone thinks it is deserved.

Because it is never deserved. Because we're all here unwillingly. Because under determinism, even the worst murderers and tyrants didn't choose to be pitiful, terrible creatures that will never know our happiness. In a sense, they are the lowest of us, and even if all we're capable of giving them is pity, then we should still give.

1

TheGoodFight2015 t1_jdpx0mn wrote

This is going to get brutal, but I believe that if a person’s entire existence on earth harms other people, then the world would be better off without that person existing (i.e. life imprisonment or death).

In my opinion, a tyrant should be assassinated if they perpetrate crimes against humanity, crimes against their own people, and show no ability to ever step back from such horrific acts. It would have been wonderful if someone could have killed Hitler earlier on in his mad run of power.

This then gets to the utilitarian realm of discussion: does the well-being of many outweigh the death of one? If some world leader was about to launch a nuclear weapon, I would be happy to hear their life was immediately put to an end. I would “celebrate” that day for the rest of my life, and teach my kids about the moment.

At some point, we get to this notion of self defense. The individual has the right to self defense, and society has the right to “self defense”, essentially now through the justice systems of the world.

What I wonder is, what is the net value to society when people believe they "got revenge" on a criminal / "they got what they deserved" / some notion of "we are happy the wrongdoers are suffering"

I truly wonder myself if that type of thinking promotes a safer society with less harmful criminal acts. Of course we MUST balance this with the sense of rehabilitation and reduction in recidivism.

Personally I believe the justice system should strive to fully rehabilitate and integrate offenders into society whenever possible, but still punish those who committed atrocious acts like rape, murder, violent robbery or home invasion.

1

scrollbreak t1_jd69e1y wrote

I'm not sure why you'd keep referring to someone as 'they' or acknowledge their reference to 'I' if you forgive them for anything. If the thing seen is just a puppet, you can forgive what occurred but would you go and refer to the puppet as it's own entity that is worthy of 'they' or using 'I'? Would seem odd.

1

KBSMilk t1_jd69vf2 wrote

I, too, am a puppet, using the language of puppets, referring to other puppets as they wish to be referred to, because otherwise they would be hurt.

Besides that, I don't really understand what you're saying.

3

scrollbreak t1_jd6bvlq wrote

Just seems to pass the buck on the inconsistency - how can puppets be hurt? And who/what at the strings has decided they ought not to be?

I really don't think the whole puppet idea and also using 'I' are at all consistent with each other. It's like pretending to be puppeteer AND puppet, whichever is most convenient at any given moment.

5

ThePantsParty t1_jd6cp3s wrote

> Just seems to pass the buck on the inconsistency - how can puppets be hurt?

I don't really see how the question is coherently connected with the topic. Even just granting a fully deterministic world, why do you think that somehow contains an implication that an individual could not be hurt? You could say they were determined to be hurt, but how would it make sense to say they cannot be hurt? Causation and "ability to feel" are not remotely the same question.

4

Newbie4Hire t1_jd6ruv4 wrote

Because it's all irrelevant, because you have zero control over any of it. So who cares if they are hurt or not hurt. How can you even argue whether people should be punished or not? They either will be or they won't be. There is no choice here, everything is just happening, and it will happen however it was going to happen. At least that would be the case if there was no free will.

1

ThePantsParty t1_jd94yig wrote

I think the question of "importance" is one thing, and there's certainly differing opinions there, but the person I was replying to seemed to be making a much more particular claim that under determinism people cannot be hurt, which seems far stranger.

Your point is understandable enough that if they're hurt they were determined to be and so it could not be otherwise so maybe worrying about it is a waste of time, but while that's all very relevant to the free will debate, I'm still just hung up on claiming that "hurt" isn't possible outside of any of that.

1

TheBeardofGilgamesh t1_jd6lujb wrote

Free will or not. I still think we should punish people who do bad things. Also the very concept of “now we can forgive those who do bad things” seems like a decision to me.

I personally am 50/50 on whether free will is real or not. Since QM means there is no determinism in the universe there is a possibility that conscious beings could have some influence over the probabilities. Not saying that is the case but it’s not 100% case closed on free will. If the universe was completely deterministic then yes, but the universe is inherently random

1

Paltenburg t1_jd75hf2 wrote

>Why hate anyone for their actions, when they are just an automaton, like I am?

You might not have free will. But the fact that you have a will, can be enough to make you responsible for your actions.

1

Sveitsilainen t1_jd7657q wrote

> It is not wholly detrimental. It grants us the liberating power to forgive anyone, for anything. Why hate anyone for their actions, when they are just an automaton, like I am? And you do not need hatred to take pragmatic actions, to protect yourself from bad people.

A rifle is way closer to an automaton, and I hated having to hold and use one. Automaton can be badly automated.

1