Assume there is no free will. Now, suppose someone committed murder. If there is no free will, is it morally justifiable to prosecute this person? Why or why not?
Is any punishment of any kind justifiable?
If free will cannot be proven, is it morally right to allow government to prosecute criminals, as their actions could be predicted, and thus, they did not actually have a choice to commit the act they did? Isn't the government imposing free will's existence if they prosecute?
Please not this is not a thread to debate the existence of free will. Please do not respond by saying, "I think; therefore I have free will" or "My ability to commit suicide or not to shows that I have free will." Why wouldn't an automaton say the same thing?
Assume there is no free will. Now, suppose someone committed murder. If there is no free will, is it morally justifiable to prosecute this person? Why or why not?
Yes it is. Because actions are still chosen by one's own volition even if all events are predetermined. The person DOES have control over the situation. Your actions are a product of your nature as a person, even if all events are predetermined. Humans make choices. Some make good choices, some make evil choices. Determinism does not alter this situation in any way.
Is any punishment of any kind justifiable?
No. Determinism doesn't alter this situation either. Punishment is never morally justified, whether events are predetermined or not.
as their actions could be predicted, and thus, they did not actually have a choice to commit the act they did?
A person still commits the deed. You are prosecuting the nature of a person. Whether that nature is predetermined does not change the situation. Afterall, even with determinism, people aren't somehow trapped in robot-brains that make them do things against their will. You ARE the robot brain. Everything you think and feel is you.
That's my take on it. Interested to hear what others make of the situation.
This is no excuse for performing a moral injustice (if that's indeed how one sees it.
Your actions are a product of your nature as a person, even if all events are predetermined.
Interesting take. Now - suppose we had a dangerous animal biting people. Should this person be prosecuted in the same way as humans? If determinism, then they are both, in a way, automata.
What I'm trying to pose is - if determinism, then what gives humans any rights?
This is no excuse for performing a moral injustice (if that's indeed how one sees it.
If that's no excuse, then that's no excuse for the person committing the murder.
You see, if it was already determined that he would kill the man, it was not his fault, and he should not be punished.
However, if he's punished, it is because it was already determined, and it was not the fault of those who made the decision or carried out the punishment.
I'll counter with another question:
If there is no free will, then how could something be a moral or immoral action?
Assume there is no free will. Now, suppose someone committed murder. If there is no free will, is it morally justifiable to prosecute this person? Why or why not?
Yes, because the fear of punishment and instilling the value of morals has an effect on people free will or no free will.
Is any punishment of any kind justifiable?
By your logic, punishing someone or not doesn't matter because there is no free will.
Please not this is not a thread to debate the existence of free will. Please do not respond by saying, "I think; therefore I have free will" or "My ability to commit suicide or not to shows that I have free will." Why wouldn't an automaton say the same thing?
I'm glad you stated this so I can go on with my statement without unnecessary attacks on my views about the existence of free will. I believe that if determinsm is correct and we have no free will, then free will itself and the idea of morality is an illusion. Still this does not stop us from harboring such ideas and we can function as if these ideas are true even if they are just illusions. I know that my emotions are a function of my brain, yet I still follow my emotions and others take it into account, so by that logic even if free will is just an illusion, free will can be taken into account.
It's hard for me to justify this view really but I find it better than a nihilistic view where everything is pointless, that life and everything about it is meaningless because every idea is an illusion. I am not a closet nihilist, but rather I believe we can make meaning for ourselves in our otherwise meaningless existence.
However, if he's punished, it is because it was already determined, and it was not the fault of those who made the decision or carried out the punishment.
This is more of a thread about what should happen in a situation - what the most just outcome would be; not if the punishment itself can be predetermined.
If there is no free will, then how could something be a moral or immoral action?
This is a good question. I'm sure if you asked someone else, they'd give you a radically different answer.
Morality itself implies that certain actions are better than others. So this is basically one of the major questions that this thread poses.
Certain actions create a net happiness or a net unhappiness relative to other actions. Morality is determined by the end result that it produces.
From this view, it may only be right to prosecute the criminal if the happiness benefits for people outweigh the unhappiness that it creates relative to all other alternatives (setting him free).
