c0rd said:
I think free will probably doesn't exist, but I don't think it's all that bad. For example, many people seem to believe animals - take dogs for instance - aren't entirely responsible for what they do, and blame the owners when they behave badly. That's almost insinuating that dogs don't have free will. Regarding murderers and thieves, the question of free will (if they're responsible or not) shouldn't be so important. The real question is if they're a threat to society, and this is discernible without knowing if free will exists. Somewhat off topic, but this is why I'm a bit unsettled when I see stuff like, "I hope Hitler burns in hell for all eternity." It's entirely possible that, if born in a different time, Hitler could have turned out to be a decent person. Ideally I think all people deserve happiness, though I know it isn't possible, so some must be sacrificed (throw em' in prison).
|
In case of dogs, it's an animal (albeit an extremely intelligent one), and you can't possible expect it to be as smart as a human; if it does something bad, it's because it doesn't know any better. Kind of like a mentally ill person. And that brings me to my next point. If a mentally ill person kills someone, they won't be sent to jail; they'll end up in a mental hospital, where they won't be forced to do hard labor and they'll always be well fed and taken care of. That's because they weren't responsible for their actions. Going by this explanation (that there is no free will), however, mentally stable murderers aren't responsible for their actions either. Why should they have to work their asses off and be in such a worse environment?
And I disagree with you and CrazyHorse when you say that free will doesn't exist. If you think about it, if there is no free will, then our whole lives are pre-determined. We may have illusions of choices and options, but which one we'll pick is already chosen for us. Your explanation makes sense to me, but I don't think the outcome would always be the same for the twins scenario.
