On 6/1/2012 11:25 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
The fuss is because the concept is thought to be fundamental to
jurisprudence and social policy (it's even cited in some Supreme
Court decisions). The concept of free will has been carried over from
past theological and philosophical ideas. But now the concept is
attacked by scientists and some philosophers as incoherent or
empirically false. If they are right it would seem to imply revision
of the social/legal concepts and laws derived from it. Can existing
practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis?

What about that if you see something working (like a human society) and you do not understand how it is working, then it might be a good idea not to try to change it.

I agree with that. An oddly after spending 60 pages attacking free will as an illusion of an illusion, Sam Harris seems to that we may need retributive punishment anyway.

The drive for change usually comes from people who are not satisfied with their position in the current society. Why the drive for change should come from some metaphysical discussions?

Every successful revolution has its ideology and philosophy though.

"Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in 
    --- John Adams

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