(May 17, 2017 at 11:54 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: This goes here somewhere....

(August 31, 2013 at 4:01 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I've made the argument before, but to my mind, punishment serves one of 5 possible goals:  (I just added one)

1. Insuring the safety of innocents by isolating offenders from the community and depriving them of the opportunity to re-offend;
2. Deterrence;
3. Rehabilitation;
4. Compensation - the redistributing of the fruits of the offender's resources to compensate society;
5. Retribution - making someone "pay" for what they have done because they are morally deserving of punishment.

As noted, deterrence is generally not regarded as effective.  And retribution is probably, from a moral and practical standpoint, one of the least compelling justifications for punishment.  I'm not going to elaborate further where this suggests we head with criminal punishment except to point out two key points.

In Michel Foucault's landmark study of the history of punishment, Discipline and Punish, he points out how, with the reforms in punishment that have occurred in Europe since the 16th century, the focus of punishment has shifted away from punishing the individual for an act to one in which we largely punish and attempt to correct the person as someone who has a mind capable of committing such acts.  Thus we allow insanity as a defense, because the person's inclination to commit crime is not amenable to the treatment, punishment.  We adjust the punishment dependent on the goal of fixing the criminality of the mind, not on addressing the severity of the crime; three strikes and you're out is aimed at minds that can't be fixed, not crimes that have been committed.  Child molesters can be given chemical or surgical castration in exchange for reduction of sentence and leniency.  Prisoners are monitored for progress and paroled earlier if they "show signs of good character" — it's not the crime that determines punishment anymore, it's the predisposition to offend which is the focus of punishment.  Retribution, perhaps, is a return to focus on the crime rather than on fixing the criminal mind, but I'd be hesitant to take that step without serious consideration as to whether doing so serves any legitimate purpose.

The second point is, that as a hard determinist, I don't believe in free will.  The moral justification for using punishment as retribution for a crime is that the person is morally deserving of the punishment, and that requires moral culpability which doesn't exist in the required sense if free will doesn't exist.  The other four aims of punishment — deterrence, isolation from society, compensation, and rehabilitation — all can be justified without recourse to the assumption of free will; retribution alone cannot.  Now I recognize that relative to my peers, I hold an extreme view with regard to free will, yet I think many of us realize that, regardless of where on the continuum regarding the existence of free will you stand, most of us recognize that most crimes and criminal behavior is a consequence of both factors within the individual's control, as well as a large measure of factors totally outside their control, ranging from social class, education, intelligence, all the way to things like being born in a society or culture that encouraged certain values and not others, to being genetically fated to the development of temperament which leaves one at increased risk of criminal or violent behavior.  As a personal matter, I try to remove free will from any justification for punishment; but even someone more moderate could well be persuaded to minimize the impact that situational factors such as being born black, being poor, and such have on the fairness and equity with which we address criminal behavior; I think, arguably, retribution results in unfairness because it treats moral culpability and the resources to act morally as evenly distributed resources, and they are not.

(May 17, 2017 at 11:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 10:55 am)Shell B Wrote: I don't know why. Most of us don't spend hours debating free will and morality, so you've only got a small sample.

Haha, true but I've started a few threads in the past that took the direction of touching on both of those things. I guess it is still true that most here do think morality is subjective, though only a few don't believe we have free will.

(May 17, 2017 at 12:06 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 11:54 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: This goes here somewhere....

bold mine

This, thanks Jor, couldn't have said it better.

(May 17, 2017 at 12:02 pm)Aroura Wrote: Atheists have a wide range of beliefs and ideas, herding cats. Lol

(May 17, 2017 at 12:06 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 11:54 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: This goes here somewhere....

behavior is a consequence of both factors within the individual's control, as well as a large measure of factors totally outside their control

bold mine

This, thanks Jor, couldn't have said it better.

(May 17, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 11:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Haha, true but I've started a few threads in the past that took the direction of touching on both of those things. I guess it is still true that most here do think morality is subjective, though only a few don't believe we have free will.

You are basing an observation off a really small sample.  Many people even in this very thread haven't stated their position.  I actually only see 2 non-theists who have stated they believe in free-will in this thread.  The rest have stated determinism or have not said either way.

(May 17, 2017 at 10:30 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Wouldn't you be offended too though if another person called someone you cared about deeply names? Like your mom or dad?

(May 17, 2017 at 12:49 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I agree.  However, this is where the determined determinist is likely to answer - yes but but those factors inside their control were put there by factors outside their control in the past.  So the illusion of internal control is just delayed external control.  To which I go look at some flowers or start tidying up the kitchen.

(May 17, 2017 at 10:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 10:34 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Not if they were the all powerful creators of the universe.

I don't see why that makes a difference. If it's someone you care about being made fun of, you're going to be offended on their behalf. Regardless of how powerful they are, it doesn't change your human feelings of protectiveness for those you care about.

(May 17, 2017 at 12:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 11:37 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I endorse both viewpoints, but my reply appears to have gone unnoticed.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-48959-p...pid1553154

Oh, sorry.

So it's the 2 of you, not just Aroura. Unless there's someone else I've missed.

(May 17, 2017 at 10:16 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 12:10 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: If gawd knows without error what you will freely choose, then you are helpless to make a different choice.

If gawd knows without error you're going to wear a red shirt tomorrow, you cannot wear the blue one. What you're left with, under the auspices of an omnipotent, omniscient gawd, is merely the illusion of free will.

I was going to answer but hit backspace until it was deleted. Using "gawd" is obnoxious and I don't discuss things with obnoxious people.

(May 17, 2017 at 10:30 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Wouldn't you be offended too though if another person called someone you cared about deeply names? Like your mom or dad?