While I agree about the judicial system, any system worth having should not
hinge upon metaphysical conclusions regarding free will. It's bizarre (and
somewhat anti-democratic) to say that we can or should argue for/against
some political issue on this basis.
The underlying assumption seems to be that the judicial system is somehow
"just" in the event that we really do have free will, which is hilariously
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> My friend Vic Stenger has written a blog on free will, mostly in
> response to Sam Harris
> (don't bother to read the comments)
> Vic suggests dropping the term 'free will' and using the term 'autonomy'
> to refer to the social/legal concept of acting free of coercion.
> And Jerry Coyne has also commented.
> (do read the comments)
> He is strictly a determinist and denies the implication of compatibilism
> that there some 'free will' (or autonomy) worth having. But interestingly
> both he and Vic conclude that this implies we need to overhaul our judicial
> system, while Harris is not so sure.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at