Application of Law
Hi all, there seems to be a strange view in the world that people 'deserve' things like punishment..
In reality people are essentially not in control of who they are, what they do, not fundamentally anyway. We are all simply the products of our experiences. No one chooses their genetics, who raises them or their experiences.
This is of course a claim, im perfectly open to anyone suggesting otherwise.
Many people find this dissolution of 'free will' (whatever thats supposed to be) to be de-humanizing or somehow absolve us of responsibility, to suggest that we have no 'purpose' or that everything is simply pointless, this seems to me to be a massive confusion.
If a man is born, raised, and lives through certain experiences that lead to him being a deeply flawed human, what does it even mean to say that he could have done otherwise? further, what on earth could it possibly mean to say that this man 'deserves' to be punished for any wrongdoings?
Of course we are perfectly validated by reason to prevent this man from causing harm, if a person shows themselves to be synonymous with a system of thoughts and beliefs that can likely lead to actions that negatively affect the well-being of others, then its perfectly reasonable to imprison this person, or to do anything we can to prevent that harm, or even to harm this person as a deterrent for others considering the same crime. But how does it make any sense to 'hate' the person themselves? or to seek 'vengeance' upon him? hate the crime, not the criminal seems a purely logical command.
The simply fact is that if you were born with the brain of a psychopath, and raised with insufficient experiences to prevent you from causing harm to others, then regardless of how much you think you would fight these tenancies, you simply would be a dangerous person, where does any room for personal responsibility come into it?
A note on what i mean by responsibility: people are not ultimately responsible for their actions, but we must act responsible, and hold each other responsible, for practical reasons. While still recognizing intellectually that we are not the arbiters of who we are, and as such things like hatred, vengeance etc, make no sense.
The difference here being that, one should not hate Hitler, one should pity Hitler, hate what he does, and strive to prevent it, but were one to become in possession of Hitler himself, if you could ensure he could do no harm, it would be your moral responsibility to ensure he was comfortable and happy. Regardless of his evil actions, he was still a conscious being and did not 'deserve' to be harmed, after all what would it actually achieve?
This argument is a moral argument, not necessarily a pragmatic one, as i mentioned above, there is of course still a necessity for punishment as a deterrent, though one could imagine a world where punishment was pretend, people believed it was real but it was actually just CGI for example.
In reality people are essentially not in control of who they are, what they do, not fundamentally anyway. We are all simply the products of our experiences. No one chooses their genetics, who raises them or their experiences.
This is of course a claim, im perfectly open to anyone suggesting otherwise.
Many people find this dissolution of 'free will' (whatever thats supposed to be) to be de-humanizing or somehow absolve us of responsibility, to suggest that we have no 'purpose' or that everything is simply pointless, this seems to me to be a massive confusion.
If a man is born, raised, and lives through certain experiences that lead to him being a deeply flawed human, what does it even mean to say that he could have done otherwise? further, what on earth could it possibly mean to say that this man 'deserves' to be punished for any wrongdoings?
Of course we are perfectly validated by reason to prevent this man from causing harm, if a person shows themselves to be synonymous with a system of thoughts and beliefs that can likely lead to actions that negatively affect the well-being of others, then its perfectly reasonable to imprison this person, or to do anything we can to prevent that harm, or even to harm this person as a deterrent for others considering the same crime. But how does it make any sense to 'hate' the person themselves? or to seek 'vengeance' upon him? hate the crime, not the criminal seems a purely logical command.
The simply fact is that if you were born with the brain of a psychopath, and raised with insufficient experiences to prevent you from causing harm to others, then regardless of how much you think you would fight these tenancies, you simply would be a dangerous person, where does any room for personal responsibility come into it?
A note on what i mean by responsibility: people are not ultimately responsible for their actions, but we must act responsible, and hold each other responsible, for practical reasons. While still recognizing intellectually that we are not the arbiters of who we are, and as such things like hatred, vengeance etc, make no sense.
The difference here being that, one should not hate Hitler, one should pity Hitler, hate what he does, and strive to prevent it, but were one to become in possession of Hitler himself, if you could ensure he could do no harm, it would be your moral responsibility to ensure he was comfortable and happy. Regardless of his evil actions, he was still a conscious being and did not 'deserve' to be harmed, after all what would it actually achieve?
This argument is a moral argument, not necessarily a pragmatic one, as i mentioned above, there is of course still a necessity for punishment as a deterrent, though one could imagine a world where punishment was pretend, people believed it was real but it was actually just CGI for example.
Comments (75)
Well, it isn't really up to you or anyone else is it? There is no choice.
I realize your computer is writing your post, but my computer is wondering why is your computer even bothering. It thinks your computer is buggy so it is forcing me to write this message.
I think (sorry, I mean my computer thinks) determinism makes for a great parlor game
How does it make sense to say that people are not responsible, but they must act responsible? Does this mean that they should pretend to be responsible when they really are not responsible? What would give them the capacity to pretend to be responsible when they really are not responsible?
Quoting PeterPants
How could punishment act as a deterrent if people don't have freedom to choose?
we are sentient beings who can think and act, we can rationalize and make decisions, laws are constructed by societies of people and talking about the application of law CAN change the way people think about it, and eventually, change the law itself. not that im even suggesting any changes to law, just the way we think about punishment.
so, whats the problem here Rich? i get you dont seem to like the idea that your a machine, but so what? why should i care about your emotional response to my argument?
im not actually saying that people don't make decisions, just that we are not the ultimate source of those decisions. im saying that you have NO choice in who you are, or what you do, in any ultimate sense. you still do things.
for practical reasons we must take responsibility for our actions, we still do them, even if we are not ultimately responsible for them.
This is called a nuanced argument, dont discount it just because it does not fit your current understanding of terms like 'responsibility' :P
please do ask questions and check things, because i don't think you quite get what im actually arguing here.
really, the issue is that 'we' are not what you think.. insofar as i believe anyway.
'we' are the conscious experience, the silent witness of experience, we are not our thoughts, feelings or actions, we simply experience those things. but now we lead down a rabbit whole that im quite sure i wont convince you of, that your personal experience of 'deciding' something, is an illusion, a trick. your brain does all the deciding outside of your control or understanding, it then tricks you into thinking you did it. when really the decision is as mysterious to you as anything could be, you don't know how the neurons are firing of in your brain, you don't know what subconscious things are going on behind the scenes.
It's an illusion but now it's all out in the open. The fun is all gone. I'm kind of miffed (from a computer point of view) that the illusion is now gone. I think the PeterPants computer is buggy and has gone rogue.
lol, indeed.
well, i say that your computers being upset at this new understanding (or rather, pretended understanding) is just a symptom of a lifetime of confused thinking about personhood, selfness, etc.
we can go down the hole of what these things actually mean if you want.. it generally helps people understand what i am/am not actually saying.
because seriously, in my experience, everyone misunderstands this idea at first, as demonstrated by their irreverent rebukes. (not that you've really said any of those)
i dont think it ever was a good illusion, i think it causes great suffering and pain, in the person and in everyone else. people going around feeling vindictive and hatred for other people, believing there are 'bad' people instead of just bad ideas etc.
ps, its just 'brain' the 'computerized' part is entirely unnecessary, brains ARE computers, clearly.
do you actually have any arguments or points? or are you just going to keep playing this silly game?
PS, not just my brain, also the brains of millions of other people, predominantly those who practice eastern meditation. Not that i ever have done so.
Does not compute. Does not compute. Are you actually holding me responsible for my choice??
I don't see what you mean when you say that we are not responsible for our actions, but we must take responsibility for them. Where does this "must" come from? You say "for practical reasons", but I don't see any practicality in claiming responsibility unless I am acting properly and might get rewarded. If I am acting badly, how could it be practical to take responsibility for my actions?
Quoting PeterPants
What does this mean? Isn't my brain part of me? If it is deciding for me, then isn't that me deciding? If my lungs are breathing for me, isn't that me breathing? Are you suggesting that someone else is controlling my brain? If not, and my brain is deciding, how is this not me deciding?
Im holding your brain responsible for its content, im not judging you for it because i recognize you have no power over what is there.
The must comes from a pragmatic consideration, it would simply be impractical to act the way the world really is, we have to pretend to some degree that people are responsible for their actions in a way that the are not really, just because of the setup of society and whatnot.
you seem to be confusing what is practical for you, as opposed to what is practical for society, im speaking of the latter.
Yes your brain is a part of you, as is you left finger, but you are not your left finger, and you are not your brain, you are consciousnesses itself, you are the experience of experience. your thoughts come from your brain, and YOU come from your brain, there are many aspects to your brain that you have absolutely no control over or access to whatsoever.
Im certainly not suggesting that anyone else is controlling it, your brain is controlling your breathing and your heart beating etc. not you.
Hope that clears up a bit.
"You think my computer has a choice?"
no, i dont thats exactly what im saying, it just responds in a deterministic way to the world around it.
what exactly is upsetting your computer? but lets stop talking like this, its silly, its FAR more practical to speak of people as not just their consciousness, but their body and brain too.
But, i do feel that your actually being far more accurate when you speak of your mind as a separate thing. but its difficult considering our language, so lets not :P
This language game is IMO the main reason people are so confused about this stuff.
generally when i say 'you' i mean your brain, your consciousness, your body etc.
sometimes when i say 'you' i really just mean 'you' as in the consciousness.
i will strive to be more clear when im speaking directly of your consciousness itself.
It's like this. All the computers know that they are computers, so why the heck did your computer feel it was necessary to write the post?
But that's the point I'm trying to make. Why would I ever act in a way which is practical for society if I am not responsible? This appears contradictory. So you say, we "must" act in this way. But how could we act in a way which is contrary to our nature? What supports this "must"?
I very much doubt that most brains contain the knowledge that they are themselves determanistic devices.. i felt the need to post this because basically everyone on earth thinks that people can be 'bad' people, they dont see that personality and actions are beyond our control, we are what we are.
i was not actually claiming that we 'should' act responsibly, what i was claiming was that if we want a productive society that enables the well being of its proponents, then we ought to take responsibility for what our own brains end up doing. they are after all OUR brains.
If i have a brain tumor and my hand randomly sways and whacks an old lady over, its not my fault that it happened but im still gonna help her back up and apologize.
this is starting to go off topic (which is fine by me) but the way i see it, Humes is/ought 'problem' is a non problem, yet another massive confusion, all ought's come from a goal, it really is as simple as that.
if you want to build a brick wall, you ought to get some bricks.
if the members of a society want to improve the wellbeing of everyone, they ought to take personal responsibility for their actions, even if they are not really ultimately responsible for them.
if you are immoral and dont care about the well-being of conscious beings, then you wont feel the drive to do good stuff. fortunately most of us are moral beings.
There are of course, thankfully, many practical reasons to be moral.
how could that be possible? how could it even make any sense?
for that, we would have to be aware of our decisions BEFORE we made them, and then decide to decide them before we decided them.... its absurd, the whole thing is just ridiculous. 'free will' is magical nonsense.
Just to be completely clear, when i say free will is magical nonsense, im saying that the belief that a person could do different things given the EXACT situation, the exact electric setup of their brain, the exact atomic composition of the universe, the exact quantum states, etc. is magical nonsensical thinking.
dont you think rich?
The problem with that sentence is the "our" is "our" brains. You're asking us to step outside ourselves. Where does that possible Archimedean point of observation come from?
you have an issue with considering things from outside your own perspective? i dont know how to react to that...
So, the only one with an issue with considering things outside your own perspective is clearly you, Peter.
do you like coffee? why or why not? are you getting my point?
there IS a separation between us and our brains, as i said before, WE are the conscious experience, our brains are highly complex computers which cause us and many other things, we are not our brains, we are but one element of our brains. possibly not even a necessary one. :P
but what did you mean by 'you need to read better'? i read your comment like nine times, maybe you need to write better? maybe not, im not sure, have i missed something? please let me know.
"So, the only one with an issue with considering things outside your own perspective is clearly you, Peter."
I would love to know what your talking about... please do explain, i would appreciate it.
I spend a LOT of time trying to do this.. and i was under the impression that i was good at it, i do often come up with good predictions based on it... but im open to your criticism. (though i dont understand the hostility, maybe im imagining it)
You're hilarious since you clearly don't realize that all your awareness comes from your brain. If you did, you wouldn't ask such ridiculous questions. So, your question about your heart is irrelevant nonsense.
Wrong, all that conscious experience happens because and within your brains. Someone (you) never took basic biology in college. You're so adorable; it's like you think we exist in our spleen.
The fact you don't know what "you need to read better" means just further confirms you do. Thanks.
I made that clear in what I wrote above that sentence. I'm sorry English challenges you so.
oh, lol, you meant i need to read MORE, right? like read books and things, not that i need to read your comments better... right?
Of course a person can. A person can decide to go left or right. A person then does it utilizing internal energy, which is why we have internal energy to move in the direction we choose.
What is strange is the idea that since deterministic set of laws would so proceed as to concoct a universe where everyone is tricked into an illusion of no choice, except those who know that there is no choice, and for some reason these deterministic laws start unveiling the illusion.
?PeterPants
"So, the only one with an issue with considering things outside your own perspective is clearly you, Peter."
"I would love to know what your talking about... please do explain, i would appreciate it.
I made that clear in what I wrote above that sentence. I'm sorry English challenges you so."
no... no you just insulted me without explaining why, i think im very good at considering things from outside my own perspective, you simply asserted im not. please back that up. im not interested in baseless assertions.
What is strange is the idea that since deterministic set of laws would so proceed as to concoct a universe where everyone is tricked into an illusion of no choice, except those who know that there is no choice, and for some reason these deterministic laws start unveiling the illusion."
you need to try harder to actually understand what i am saying, because again, your arguing against a position i dont hold.
ok, so here is where most of the misunderstanding lies i believe.
indeed a 'person' can decide to go left or right, im in no way saying they cant. what im saying is that its their brain that does the deciding, it does it based on programming (genes ideas beliefs etc) and the decision is not influenced by your conscious experience of it. but the real point is that if you go back in time to the moment of deciding to turn left, if all the atoms in the universe are exactly as they were, you will turn left every single time. you cant change it, its determined by forces you cant change.
crying about it? wow. im sorry we couldn't have a more civil and grown up discussion.
No, you need to try harder since nothing you wrote there addresses anything I said. So, i'm done entertaining your nonsense. Since you clearly can't address my actual posts, I won't read any more or respond to any more of yours. Adios, Pedro.
I do have to say this is the most phenomenally awful, incoherent run-on sentence I've seen in a while. Adieu, Pierre...for good.
I mean, im on the internet, i expect this stuff to happen, but still.
goooood riddance.
and thats three sentances :P
If you are saying this, then the person is making a choice.
Quoting PeterPants
I prefer to say the mind is making a choice, but no matter, a choice is being made.
The rest I'll skip, because it isn't relevant for discussion at this time. The point is a choice is being made. If there is a choice, there is no determinism.
But they still made their 'choice'.
A computer program controls a robotic arm that sorts out green and blue cubes, the arm 'sees' a blue cube, and 'decides' to grab it and move it into the blue crate.
A choice is made, determinism remains.
I feel like you would be better served if you take a more charitable stance with this discussion, you seem to be searching for flaws in what im saying (and no doubt their are many because language is imperfect) it would be easier for you to get to where i am, to understand what is actually in my head, if you just reel back a bit on the defensiveness... and uh... sorry about this terribly insulting and condescending advice.. i know exactly how it sounds. but i believe its true.
No such animal. You can't have your cake and eat it simply by stringing two words together.
But you are not the first to try. Lots of people want their called and eat it. They want everything to be determined (it is a desire) but then they have deal with the problem that it has nothing to do with life as we experience it. Just look at our conversation. What kind of cockamamie deterministic laws would create such a conversation.
did the robot or did the robot not, choose to move the blue cube into the blue crate?
clearly it the action was determined by its programming, whether we call it a choice seems irrelevant, what im saying is that we are that robot, just FAR more complex.
as to you comment about this conversation, you say;
"What kind of cockamamie deterministic laws would create such a conversation."
well firstly, its not deterministic laws, determinism is a law, its not made up of laws.. so i dont get that bit.
secondly though, this world, with all its unbelievable complexity lead to this conversation. obviously.
The robot didn't choose. It was programmed to do it. It has no choice. If it had a choice, there would be complete havoc in the warehouse.
No such animal. It is a concoction of the creative mind to replace the word God.
When you discover the law that created this conversation, give me a ring.
to assume there is a difference, seems to me, to be a symptom of delusions of grandure. :P
whatever language game you want to play is fine, call it a choice or dont, whatever. doesn't bother me.
your not.. your not giving me the old, 'you cant explain EVERYTHING so your wrong' nonsense are you? i hope not.
Are you expecting me to explain in perfect detail, every single thing that led to this conversation?
i wasn't saying it was necessarily true, i was jsut saying its an idea like gravity (categorically speaking), its a law itself, not a group of laws.
It's OK. If you want to believe you are a pre-programmed computer, it is no skin off my teeth.
As for me, I make choices.
what on earth do you think im talking about here... im saying something does NOT exist... of course there is no evidence for it, thanks for supporting my argument?
confused am i.
your basically saying we CANT predict human actions and that its fundamentally impossible.
all im saying is that hey, maybe we can, i dont see any evidence that we cant. yours is a god of the gaps argument;
"well, we cant explain this bit currently, therefore, freewill"
??????? You at the one saying all actions are determined. Go ahead and start enumerating all of the laws that do this.
If you think determinism is wrong, prove it.
im not claiming its right or wrong, just pointing out that there is no evidence of free will.
so, im inventing a sadistic murderer, his name is Bob. say hi to Bob.
So, Bob brutally murders a child, delighting in their pain, later, we find he has a massive tumor in his brain, and it perfectly explains his sadistic nature, we remove the tumor and he is a perfectly kind, healthy happy and balanced person.
I think its safe to assume that basically everyone agrees Bob was not really responsible for his actions, even if the moral thing to do would be to take responsibility for his actions.
now, instead consider if a person is simply born with a messed up brain, no tumor, but they are violent and sadistic, they cant help it they were just born that way. How is it different? imagine we had the technology to fix the persons brain... would that not totally tear down any conviction that the person is personally responsible for who they are?
my argument is jsut that everything is a tumor, everything that happens has its role to play in who and what we are, and we dont have control over any of it, we are the product of chance and should be treated as such.
I wouldn't judge a murderer anymore then i would judge someone with autism for their differences. i would certainly stop them from doing bad things though.
ok, no worries, you go ahead and live in your little fantasy world, i dont know why your on a philosophy forum if your not interesting in talking about the true nature of things.
determinism at the scale of human thought is what the evidence of reality shows us is real. non-determinism in how our minds function is an illusion, or maybe in your case, a fantasy.
But i do think your view of atheists is ridiculous and bigoted (especially since you seem to be one). ive never met ANYONE who took solace in the idea of determinism, in fact everyone seems to hate it, atheists and theists alike, so your belief that its a tool used by atheists to feel better seems perfectly deranged to me. a fantasy, a tool to make yourself feel better and dismiss people and ideas from outside your worldview. i might be wrong of course :P
I dont take comfort from it at all, not in my personal life anyway. but, a lack of free will does wonders to your outlook on life, people are not bad, they are sick. while goodness, love, compassion are entirely untouched.
"Sorry, it is out of my hands. I have no choice."
yes, sarcastically stating my argument, is not itself an argument. Its what children who have no argument do..
I really don't understand why you would want to make yourself look so silly..
I have no choice.
OK, so my point is, that since we are not responsible, what makes you think that we would want a productive society? Doesn't wanting a productive society only come about as the result of a person being responsible? You reverse this, and say that the irresponsible person ought to want to be responsible. But how is this capacity for a person to want to change what oneself is, supposed to exist in this determinist world you describe? Furthermore, you've already described it as impossible for a person to change what oneself is, so how could such a want be in any way productive? If the person is irresponsible, and cannot change oneself to become responsible, then to want such a thing is just a fruitless, frustrating desire which cannot be satisfied.
If you want to play the "we are computers game" and have no choice, then play it. You have others who will gladly play it with you, only guys like Dawkins get paid lots of money to perpetuate the game.
Remember, I have no choice.
For the same reasons (and many more) that a computer opens word when you double click the word icon. because we are programed to understand out environment to some degree.. not a great one generally. but we've come a long way aye?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, thats precisely what i said, for pragmatic reasons we do need to act personally responsible, because our attention can hardly benefit other people as directly as ourselves. While our actions, beliefs, thoughts etc, may be determined, they obviously still interact with reality.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What? no i absolutely do not say that at all. this and the rest of your post don't really connect with my beliefs at all.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Like this? what is this? where did that come from?
I certainly never said anything of the sort.