I think "holding someone responsible" is as much an illusion as free
will itself. Free will is not a necessary justification for punishment
of crime. We usually don't want crime, and punishment serves as
deterrent of crime. Also, the current kind of justice system seems to be
fairly accepted among commoners, in that it does not usually cause them
to protest or otherwise lessen their trust in society. On the contrary,
people find the justice system, generally, to increase their trust in
society. The question on how to reduce crime while minimizing the damage
our crime reduction efforts do to static and Dynamic Quality is
completely valid without a concept of free will. A separate question is
what kind of punishments the general public perceives as just (=useful,
economic, not wasteful, increases safety, not cruel, etc.) and what kind
of punishments feel unjust. The general public might be wrong, but it's
able to change its mind, ecspecially if a better alternative is offered.
Again, no free will required.
I just don't understand what the general fuss about free will is about.
Not yet, at least. Has it ever been proposed as necessary for some other
major question except theological questions and the question of
punishing crime?
-Tuukka
8.8.2011 17:57, MarshaV kirjoitti:
Is there a difference between the law holding someone responsible& protecting citizens
from further harm and a individual being "morally responsible"? Just a question...
On Aug 8, 2011, at 10:36 AM, david buchanan wrote:
Ian says he is "not getting what [Steve's] disagreement actually is [with dmb]":
So let's come back to your [Steve's] statement "moral (responsibility) and free will
are not linked (as a logical necessity)" ... I am at a loss to understand how you
are separating free-will from responsibility (at any level, common sense, science, MoQ or
metaphysical in general).
dmb says:
As I understand it, the nature of the disagreement is very simple. Steve says
they are not linked and I say that his denial defies logic and overwhelming
evidence to the contrary.
I tried, unsuccessfully, to get Steve to put every other factor aside and just
focus on the sheer logic of it. I thought if you looked at that single brick
with fresh eyes he'd see for himself what I mean. And so I asked just one
question.
If our actions are determined, then how can we be held responsible for those
actions?
I think that Steve cannot answer that question because it is logically
impossible. NOBODY can answer that question because you cannot be held
responsible for actions over which you have no control. Who says you aren't
responsible unless you have a choice? Mr. Pirsig, Mr. Logic, Mr. dictionary and
her highness, Princess encyclopedia, that's who.
At one point, if memory serves, Steve even went so far as to say that Pirsig
doesn't talk about moral responsibility and otherwise suggested it plays no
important role in the MOQ. As far as I can figure, this odd stance is a result
of trying to make the MOQ accommodate Sam Harris's neurological determinism
wherein persons are as morally culpable as tornadoes.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
