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 naive. On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > My friend Vic Stenger has written a blog on free will, mostly in > response to Sam Harris > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/free-will-is-an-illusion_b_1562533.html?ref=science > (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. > > > http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/victor-stenger-and-janna-levin-on-our-lack-of-free-will/ > (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. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- Joseph Knight -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
