Even if it’s true that criminals lack free will, they deterministically respond to incentives. By punishing criminals, we affect the incentives that potential criminals face.
Plus, I want to punish killers and child molesters harshly. I can’t help it!
The new determinists have become a priestly class wishing their cultured forgiveness can be generalized by the insight of determinism, and that is what gets them in logistic trouble. We actually find them arguing that different outcomes are possible taking different paths, something akin to a - choice?
We are privileged to live in societies where agency can be discussed endlessly, so we can acknowledge that social conditions matter, but it so happens that the kind of societies motivated to accept arguments of impaired or trapped agency- in certain conditions - are exactly the ones that take it for granted that the majority can be held responsible and act accordingly.
In Scandinavia, my original base, I observe that the connected values of personal and social responsibility have been in play, and it is because of this that the treatment of criminals can appear mild and compassionate to other societies. Because the vast majority of people do not want even the mild treatment and are not incentivized by it. We also observe how that system responded when immigrant populations did not play by the rules and were unfazed by the mild treatment. Struggles ensued, practices had to change. When a sufficient amount of individuals did not act socially responsible, the whole system was threatened. Forgiveness was not the solution.
In a high functioning culture, there are both consequences to face and forgiveness to earn, and both have to be perceived as fair by the community at large. If you move away from that in one direction or the other, social tension and dysfunction will arise.
The determinists face the logical problem that it is best if most people remain persuaded that they can be held responsible. I think that we have to arrive at the conclusion that the determinist belief structure sucks as a guideline for social action. And if that is where it gets us, what good is the belief structure?
“Consequently we have only to discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer have to answer for his actions and life will become exceedingly easy for him”
This reminds me of the people defending Lindsay Clancy. It makes me sick to my stomach. Her defenders not only deny an adult woman's responsibility to her children, but also exposes the unconscious bias that children are the property of their parents. Cora, Dawson, and Callan were full human beings deserving of full human rights, yet so many people are treating them as if they were disposable objects. CHILDREN'S LIVES MATTER
I don't see how free will, yes or no, changes how society should be structured. Though in some cases we soften punishment based on what we perceive to be intent, those judgements are all based on external actions of the accused. If we get to the point where a robot is considered a citizen, would we change the rules that constrain society? Purpose of the rules are to protect society from malfunctioning people or robots regardless of how they arrived at that state. Interestingly, there was a Outer Limits episode exactly on this topic some 60 years ago -- a robot on trial for murder.
It seems like your main issues with determinists are their elimination of moral culpability and their exclusion of themselves from their own theories. Btw, I didn’t see any examples of the latter in your article and would be interested to see you “catch” one of these determinists in this inconsistency.
I’m not sure you have steel-manned the determinist position. Reality, at least superficially, looks the same, whether there is free will or not. It’s a question of what’s happening underneath. Determinists don’t propose limited exceptions where some people act with free will, as you seem to imply.
But addressing your issue with moral culpability, free will is a scientific i.e. a falsifiable hypothesis. Consider Libet’s readiness potential experiments. We exercise some level of free will or we don’t. If it’s real, accurate discussions of it it will separate people from their actions. But that does not mean we should eliminate consequences, including the criminal justice system, for those actions. Perhaps it sounds extreme or ignorant, but it doesn’t matter if free will exists or not—we should continue to treat people as if it does.
But we don’t necessarily have to believe or not believe in it while the jury is out. If free will does not exist, and you urge us to believe in it so that our language adequately condemns behavior, doesn’t this fall into the same anti-epistemology that plagues the left? Should we disregard objectivity to pursue a political goal like the 1619 Project or Katherine Maher’s “reverence for truth” as a distraction?
Even if it’s true that criminals lack free will, they deterministically respond to incentives. By punishing criminals, we affect the incentives that potential criminals face.
Plus, I want to punish killers and child molesters harshly. I can’t help it!
If a murderer can't help what he did because he lacks free will,
then I can't help but want to see him swing at the end of the rope because the universe has made me this way.
The new determinists have become a priestly class wishing their cultured forgiveness can be generalized by the insight of determinism, and that is what gets them in logistic trouble. We actually find them arguing that different outcomes are possible taking different paths, something akin to a - choice?
We are privileged to live in societies where agency can be discussed endlessly, so we can acknowledge that social conditions matter, but it so happens that the kind of societies motivated to accept arguments of impaired or trapped agency- in certain conditions - are exactly the ones that take it for granted that the majority can be held responsible and act accordingly.
In Scandinavia, my original base, I observe that the connected values of personal and social responsibility have been in play, and it is because of this that the treatment of criminals can appear mild and compassionate to other societies. Because the vast majority of people do not want even the mild treatment and are not incentivized by it. We also observe how that system responded when immigrant populations did not play by the rules and were unfazed by the mild treatment. Struggles ensued, practices had to change. When a sufficient amount of individuals did not act socially responsible, the whole system was threatened. Forgiveness was not the solution.
In a high functioning culture, there are both consequences to face and forgiveness to earn, and both have to be perceived as fair by the community at large. If you move away from that in one direction or the other, social tension and dysfunction will arise.
The determinists face the logical problem that it is best if most people remain persuaded that they can be held responsible. I think that we have to arrive at the conclusion that the determinist belief structure sucks as a guideline for social action. And if that is where it gets us, what good is the belief structure?
“Consequently we have only to discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer have to answer for his actions and life will become exceedingly easy for him”
This reminds me of the people defending Lindsay Clancy. It makes me sick to my stomach. Her defenders not only deny an adult woman's responsibility to her children, but also exposes the unconscious bias that children are the property of their parents. Cora, Dawson, and Callan were full human beings deserving of full human rights, yet so many people are treating them as if they were disposable objects. CHILDREN'S LIVES MATTER
I don't see how free will, yes or no, changes how society should be structured. Though in some cases we soften punishment based on what we perceive to be intent, those judgements are all based on external actions of the accused. If we get to the point where a robot is considered a citizen, would we change the rules that constrain society? Purpose of the rules are to protect society from malfunctioning people or robots regardless of how they arrived at that state. Interestingly, there was a Outer Limits episode exactly on this topic some 60 years ago -- a robot on trial for murder.
It seems like your main issues with determinists are their elimination of moral culpability and their exclusion of themselves from their own theories. Btw, I didn’t see any examples of the latter in your article and would be interested to see you “catch” one of these determinists in this inconsistency.
I’m not sure you have steel-manned the determinist position. Reality, at least superficially, looks the same, whether there is free will or not. It’s a question of what’s happening underneath. Determinists don’t propose limited exceptions where some people act with free will, as you seem to imply.
But addressing your issue with moral culpability, free will is a scientific i.e. a falsifiable hypothesis. Consider Libet’s readiness potential experiments. We exercise some level of free will or we don’t. If it’s real, accurate discussions of it it will separate people from their actions. But that does not mean we should eliminate consequences, including the criminal justice system, for those actions. Perhaps it sounds extreme or ignorant, but it doesn’t matter if free will exists or not—we should continue to treat people as if it does.
But we don’t necessarily have to believe or not believe in it while the jury is out. If free will does not exist, and you urge us to believe in it so that our language adequately condemns behavior, doesn’t this fall into the same anti-epistemology that plagues the left? Should we disregard objectivity to pursue a political goal like the 1619 Project or Katherine Maher’s “reverence for truth” as a distraction?