morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[brewer]

This goes here somewhere....

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.

bold mine

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

[Aroura]

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.

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.

There was a poll a while back, here and it only had 14 respondents total (still pretty small), but you can see that free-will and hard determinism are tied. And every theist who responded chose free-will, making determinism the more common, though certainly not universal, position in atheists who responded to that poll, at least.

---

This goes here somewhere....

bold mine

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

Factors in your control does not mean you freely chose them.  Just that you control them.  Control =/= choice.

[The Grand Nudger]

If our "choice" is similar to the sort of control a person might have as they float down a river...to drift ever so slightly towards the right or left bank, than our choice is no functionally different than the control of a rudder...which will make that same boat drift to the left or right bank regardless of whether or not anyone is actively turning it.

Ultimately, if free will is a thing and we have it, it's functionally no different from not having it..it's certainly not required to do whatever we do with our free will, whatever that's supposed to be.

[Whateverist]

Atheists have a wide range of beliefs and ideas, herding cats. Lol

Yeah, if I'm getting herded there is very likely some pussy in it.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

Well of course I stated I was down with free will (in some wholesome, watered down version).  What choice did I have?

[Ravenshire]

Wouldn't you be offended too though if another person called someone you cared about deeply names? Like your mom or dad?

I certainly wasn't offended when National Lampoon called Frodo and Bilbo Frito and Dildo respectively in their "Bored of the Rings."

[emjay]

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.

All of this is above my pay grade... so I'll join you in the kitchen All I know is I'm a hard determinist, but discussions like this, with so many different meanings for 'free will' and 'choice' just go right over my head. And as a general rule, it is very confusing to think about determinism on the one hand vs the subjective experience of choice on the other, and tends to lead to a lot of seeming paradoxes, fatalism being one such confusion/paradox that people can get into. So the most I ever apply it is looking backward... not forward, but even then... although it is a comfort to say 'meh, it couldn't have been any other way'... that is still in a way following fatalist thinking in the sense that any inclusion of apathy as a result of considering the clockwork universe, is a different response than it would have been without it.

[Ravenshire]

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.

Honestly, I find it laughable that people have to get protective of the alleged all-powerful creator of the universe. Can't it protect itself? Or, get offended on behalf of itself?

[Jackalope]

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.

I'm personally undecided on the issue of free will. However, I am of the school of thought that compatibilism is bunk - I don't think free will can exist simultaneously with omniscience / perfect precognition.

[Ravenshire]

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.

So, you expect to come to an atheist site and have us all walk on eggshells around your sensibilities? Get bent.

[Whateverist]

Wouldn't you be offended too though if another person called someone you cared about deeply names? Like your mom or dad?

Probably not if I knew they couldn't see, hear, touch or smell them.  Then again, if they thought it was my secret friend and they made fun of it anyway I might think they were intending to hurt my feelings.  At that point I might insult their mother or their pets just to get even.  Pretty sure that's in the ten commandments somewhere .. something about an eye for an eye, right?