Free Will - Yes/No?

[Excited Penguin]

Poc: I think we're talking at cross purposes

I'm talking about someone suggesting that a potential scientific discovery that we have "no genuine choices" should morally persuade us to change our protocol about who we put in prison; ie. we put no one in prison.

But the premise of the argument removes any meaningfulness from making a change of protocol, because such a change would be beyond our control anyway, should it happen, due to the correctness of the discovery which is hypothetically assumed. We wouldn't do it because this is an accurate and persuasive argument.

I don't know how else to explain it Like I said, it would be like saying "if we have no money, we should spend it on wine."

It's a problem with the logic, not with the science behind free will and such.

You're arguing in vain. Someone making that suggestion would be someone who thinks we lock people up because we want to punish them, and that right there is the real problem with that kind of argument. We lock people up when they harm others, the illusion of free will doesn't stop one from being violent even if it does completely exculpate them. They're still wired to be violent, presumably, and we can't take the risk of letting that person run amok amongst us, regardless of whether they are to be blamed for their actions or not(which they aren't).


Let me better illustrate this by providing you with a thought experiment. Imagine you have the ability to mind control me and make me do whatever you want and then you make me kill a person. Now then, do you think the police should let me be just because you're the one who's controlling me and it's none of my fault, or should they restrain me until they find you and fix the problem?