On 15.04.2011 21:16 Rex Allen said the following:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be>


I think it is a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a
social tendency to dissolve responsibility among those taking

Rewarding bad behavior will get you more bad behavior - but this is
a consequence of human nature, and has nothing to do with free will.

Even if we take a purely deterministic, mechanistic view of human
nature, the question remains:  "What works best in promoting a
well-ordered society?"

Society, in that crime is only an issue when you have more than one
person involved.

Is more criminal behavior due to correctable conditions that can be
alleviated through education programs or by a more optimal
distribution of the wealth that is generated by society as a whole?
In other words, can criminal behavior be minimized proactively?

Or is most criminal behavior an unavoidable consequence of human
nature, and thus deterrence by threat of punishment is the most
effective means of minimizing that behavior?  In other words, can
criminal behavior only be addressed reactively?

The question is:  As a practical matter, what works best?

What results in the greatest good for the greatest number?  Whatever
it is, I vote we do that.

It seems that your question "As a practical matter, what works best?" implies that there is still some choice. Could you please comment on how such a questions corresponds to your position in respect on free will?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to