A thing about religious (and other) people and the illusion of free will

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, I mean - we could go all the way down the tree of why a legal system would have a compelling interest in preventing arson but at the end of it all, as with any other thing - we'll arrive at some just so statements.

We do restrict the practices of smoking and drinking. Heavily. You have to be the right age, in the right place, at the right time, not doing the wrong thing...and you're gonna pay. Pay pay pay. Pay the sin tax. Pay the revenue trap tax. Pay the premium increases.

[Angrboda]

Sure, I mean - we could go all the way down the tree of why a legal system would have a compelling interest in preventing arson but at the end of it all, as with any other thing - we'll arrive at some just so statements.  

We do restrict the practices of smoking and drinking.  Heavily.  You have to be the right age, in the right place, at the right time, not doing the wrong thing...and you're gonna pay.  Pay pay pay.  Pay the sin tax.  Pay the revenue trap tax.  Pay the premium increases.

Yes, and I think when you get down to those just so statements they will be of the form X wants Y, which isn't a rational, objective justification.

Restrict was a poor word choice on my part, but you know better. We don't deny smokers and drinkers their liberty. So you've made a false equivalence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^Yup. A free society includes the right to be stupid, and stupid appears to be immune from legislation.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

This doesn't follow. Nobody is forcing people to worship these entities/people/deities. Not unless you want to imagine these entities/people/deities are not only real but also have special powers that allow them to influence or control people's behavior against their will.

It's almost like you haven't heard of brainwashing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, I mean - we could go all the way down the tree of why a legal system would have a compelling interest in preventing arson but at the end of it all, as with any other thing - we'll arrive at some just so statements.  

We do restrict the practices of smoking and drinking.  Heavily.  You have to be the right age, in the right place, at the right time, not doing the wrong thing...and you're gonna pay.  Pay pay pay.  Pay the sin tax.  Pay the revenue trap tax.  Pay the premium increases.

Yes, and I think when you get down to those just so statements they will be of the form X wants Y, which isn't a rational, objective justification.

Restrict was a poor word choice on my part, but you know better.  We don't deny smokers and drinkers their liberty.  So you've made a false equivalence.

We do imprison people for smoking, full stop.  We also imprison people for any number of alcohol related activities.  I'm not interested in creating an equivalence between them.  Maybe, maybe drunk driving and arson are close in alot of peoples minds?  Just pointing out that we do these things - it's not like our legal system is only picking on the arsonists.  If we're not making equivalences then there's little sense in asking why this one but not the other.  Because they are not equivalent.   We've gone the other way with it, arson I mean....too.  We've legitimized and sanctioned arson.   Arson has at times been believed to be a civic duty.  

Sure though, at the bottom of every legal system is someone or something that wants x.  A king, a council, a people, a state. I'm not convinced that because something is desirable, that means it cannot be rational or objective - though legal systems do try their best to prove me wrong!

[The Grand Nudger]

^Yup. A free society includes the right to be stupid, and stupid appears to be immune from legislation.

Boru

-but not to commit arson, apparently. Something about other people being free to sleep in houses that won't burn down around them.

[Silver]

^Yup. A free society includes the right to be stupid, and stupid appears to be immune from legislation.

Boru

Stupid people never quite had the platform they do today. It is one thing to stand on a literal soap box on a street corner and another entirely to reach other stupid people with high speed internet access.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This doesn't follow. Nobody is forcing people to worship these entities/people/deities. Not unless you want to imagine these entities/people/deities are not only real but also have special powers that allow them to influence or control people's behavior against their will.

It's almost like you haven't heard of brainwashing.

Definitely been blind to propaganda since birth.

[Angrboda]

Yes, and I think when you get down to those just so statements they will be of the form X wants Y, which isn't a rational, objective justification.

Restrict was a poor word choice on my part, but you know better.  We don't deny smokers and drinkers their liberty.  So you've made a false equivalence.

We do imprison people for smoking, full stop.  We also imprison people for any number of alcohol related activities.  I'm not interested in creating an equivalence between them.  Maybe, maybe drunk driving and arson are close in alot of peoples minds?  Just pointing out that we do these things - it's not like our legal system is only picking on the arsonists.  If we're not making equivalences then there's little sense in asking why this one but not the other.  Because they are not equivalent.   We've gone the other way with it, arson I mean....too.  We've legitimized and sanctioned arson.   Arson has at times been believed to be a civic duty.  

Sure though, at the bottom of every legal system is someone or something that wants x.  A king, a council, a people, a state.  I'm not convinced that because something is desirable, that means it cannot be rational or objective - though legal systems do try their best to prove me wrong!

Because desire isn't objective. If you think that something subjective can also be objective, then I'd say you have problems that I can't fix.

Drinking while driving isn't an aspect of the drinking, it's an aspect of the driving, so, no, we don't imprison people for drinking. That's why you snuck the word related in there. You're just engaged in equivocation now.

[Ahriman]

This doesn't follow. Nobody is forcing people to worship these entities/people/deities. Not unless you want to imagine these entities/people/deities are not only real but also have special powers that allow them to influence or control people's behavior against their will.

It's almost like you haven't heard of brainwashing.

Brainwashing can't make a person do something he or she wouldn't be willing to do in the first place. Brainwashing could encourage specific behavior, but it won't be enough to change who a person is, on a more fundamental level.