Justice and Punishment in a World Without Free Will

Neuroscientists are increasingly arguing that free will does not exist and that we are all biologically determined in all our actions. They tell us dispensing with free will should yield a more compassionate society, but is that really the case?
#philosophy #christianphilosophy #traditionalcatholic #westerncivilization

[@franktoyou]

This is already happening with regards to addictions no longer seen as vice but a disease.

[@Giganfan2k1]

Which is helping a lot. For treatment, and outcomes.

[@Sever3dHead]

​@@Giganfan2k1 lmao, distributing safe c rack pipes sure helps. How the issues with fent going in us of a?

[@Giganfan2k1]

@@Sever3dHead I still don't know why the Sacklers got a mansion in a yacht.
Make them start paying for every addict's treatment until they run out of money.

[@Doctor-Box]

You lost me at the dog analogy. The reason we put down dangerous dogs is not because they "cannot be fixed", but because they are "just a dog" and so we do not spare the requisite time and resources required to rehabilitate them.
Recognising we do not ultimately have free will, but can be influenced to change out wants and behaviors is not an elimination of personhood, it is simply recognizing the root cause of behavior and trying to reform rather than punish.
The demolition man example is interesting because the movie showed that their method enabled a far better society that ended up being so peaceful they had lost the ability to effectively deal with a criminal violent as Wesley Snipes' character. That's not exactly an argument against it, only raises a reminder around preparing for the worst when when things are good.

[@zeenohaquo7970]

I didn't have the free will to not be conceived unto human existence.

[@sebathadah1559]

Denial of free will, or its suppression, requires free will. Also, this "doctor's" assertions feel more like giving license to vice and a prelude totalitarianism to me.

[@Tokisamright]

free will may be an illusion, but we still have choices and we still make decisions from our mechanism and we are able to decipher good, bad and consequences .
so the person is liable for their actions .

[@huyup123456]

Can you explain what you mean by this? I know a young man who gets himself into a great deal of trouble because he lacks the ability to feel empathy, and the thought of negative consequences does not seem to produce a healthy level of anxiety that would normally make a person want to avoid those consequences. It's like he's unable to feel the pain of consequences until the consequences are there. He is actually the reason I began to seriously doubt free will because I just can't imagine why he would stop choosing to take selfish and risky actions when he simply lacks the emotions that prevent most people from doing so.
I believe that people must be held accountable for their actions regardless of how deserving they are, but I can't convince myself that anyone truly deserves it. It seems that while we do, in a sense, make our own choices, we don't get to choose what choices we feel most motivated to make. Even making the choice to attempt to change where your motivation lies requires that you feel motivated to do so.

[@Tokisamright]

yes you are right, but there is still right and wrong , and there are special circumstances where the person may have physiological or any other reasons, where court will take consideration but they will still have to be in a process to rehabilate or in extreme cases put in asylum. at the end was the person doing harm to himself and to others, if it is then "arrangement" will be made

[@MyContext]

We don't assume material cause. We infer material cause due to observing material causes.
-
I will go one step further and point out that one can understand material as that which can have interactivity capacities such that anything that can do anything is material. So, I would suggest you work to understand that being able to establish a linkage between whatever Xs and whatever Ys is the point as opposed to a commitment to materialism.
The moment one can't establish a linkage, then anything claimed when there is no linkage shown is assertion. This is the reason why God claims are worthless when one is actually attempting to determine what is the case.
I don't think any really think the observation of reality being deterministic will actually address those committed to fictional (unsubstantiated) notions. Most believers don't seem to really think about whether their position is substantiated. They assume it is due to all the people around them that also believe. The atheist is largely seen as an odd ball who might get it at some point in the future with "God's grace".
It is a stretch to claim that you know any of what you claim to know given that your claims aren't substantiated, but are rather components of belief in your theological notions as opposed to being knowledge of reality.
Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world and it seems that is due working on the people so they can be decent members of society.
www.firststepalliance.org/post/norway-prison-system-lessons
---
Our cognitive tapestries are a product of a neural network as are every emotional capacity or lack thereof.

[@TudorGeorgescuNL]

If free will does not exist, it does not exist since eternity past. And your arguments are highly hypocritical: the US justice system does see certain criminals as irredeemable animals. Yup, even people fully convinced there is free will do that.

[@ziad_jkhan]

I'm not sure I understand. What does this even have do with eternity?
Anyway, the views of the justice system does reflect his views in any way so your argument about hypocrisy holds no ground.
He encourages us to be non-judgemental actually. How's this hypocritical?

[@RJ-bu6es]

This is such a waste of time and energy