CrazyHorse said:
ultima said:
CrazyHorse said:
On the issue of crime, people should still be held responsible for their actions simply for the fact that they are a danger to the rest of society and perhaps more importantly because the threat of punishment acts as a deterrent and so will affect their decision to commit a crime. Just to be completely clear on that point, in a set of circumstances 'A' in which no punishment exists a person will always make a given decision (to commit a crime or not). In another set of circumstances 'B' in which everything is identical except a punishment does exist that same person will always make another given decision on whether to commit the crime. So the person has no free will in what in decision may arrive out of either set of circumstances but the fact that the circumstances are different means that the decision may also be (in respect of set B to set A).
The last point depends on too many factors that I don't really know much about. It makes sense that if free will doesn't exist everything must therefore be pre-determined but I think physics may come into play here. Our decisions are pre-determined in as much as a particular choice is inevitable in a given set of conditions (hence lack of free will in my opinion), however, whether these conditions are pre-determined is still widely open to debate. For example, there are a number of theories in physics which suggest the universe has an element of 'randomness' or chaos to it. If that were true then our decisions are only pre-determined at any one exact moment in time but are not completely pre-determined in respect to the future.
|
I still don't get your point about criminals. Mentally ill people go to a mental hospital when they murder, because they weren't responsible for their action. A normal person will go to jail, because he is responsible. But if there is no free will, that person didn't choose to murder, it was chosen for him; therefore he isn't responsible. Should he be sent to a mental hospital as well?
If we don't have free will, then the conditions are pre-determined for us as well. The conditions are a direct result of the choices you must've made (or were made for you) earlier. Cause and effect. And this would mean that our future decisions are pre-determined as well. I hope that makes sense.
|
I suppose given my opinions, criminals, like the mentally ill are not responsible for their actions. However, as ManusJustus said, that is almost irrelevant as they are still a threat to society (whether ultimately responsible or not) and therefore must be dealt with. I would argue that criminals are able to comprehend the risk factor in undertaking a crime and so the threat of jail acts as a deterrent to their decision on whether to commit the crime or not. The same would not be true of a mentally ill person who may not understand the crime/punishment system of jail and so it is not factored into their decision making process. Therefore they should not be submitted to the same level of punishment.
On the pre-determined issue I would say that many of my views lead me to believe that everything may be pre-determined but there are other factors which I don't fully understand that could affect this. This is where randomness, if i exists, comes in. If there is a degree of chaos in physics (and I would tend to believe there isnt but im not well read on the subject) then there are cause and effects that will happen in the future that are by the definition of random, impossible to predict thus making nothing completely pre-determined.
|
I can be wrong, but mentally ill aren't thrown in jail not because they wouldn't understand that they're being punished, but because it's not fair to punish them if they can't be held responsible.
As for randomness, how exactly would it factor into something like this? I mean, you're born because your parents decided on it, you're on the computer because you decided on it, etc. And if all of these decisions were pre-determined, there's no room for randomness.
