RE: A thing about religious (and other) people and the illusion of free will
November 10, 2023 at 10:46 am
(This post was last modified: November 10, 2023 at 10:50 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Just a cursory look at Sapolsky - I found an interesting quote that seems to sum up what you're mentioning.
I doubt, though, that Sapolsky means for us to infer that he could not tell you who took the candy out of the candy jar. I strongly suspect that part of his conclusion there with respect to blame boils down to the mountain of blame we traditionally lay on this or that which, like whether or not retribution is acceptable as a response to crime, may be indefensible regardless of whether the people who engage in the behaviors we shame freely will to do so.
It seems to me that we can say that someone is an arsonist, and say that they are responsible for the fire, and say that we are going to prevent them from lighting any more fires, and say that they may not be responsible for -the way they are- but they will be responsible for repairing the damage that they've done to whatever extent they can. Better outcome than any other animal could expect. We'd just shoot em and not worry about whether they freely willed to burn down the zoo.
Quote:there can be no such thing as blame, and that punishment as retribution is indefensible.I think we can still assign responsibility for an act to the actor. We do that even when we think the behavior is compulsive. Still their compulsions. The second part I can't disagree with, though. I don't think it's defensible whether we have free will or not.
I doubt, though, that Sapolsky means for us to infer that he could not tell you who took the candy out of the candy jar. I strongly suspect that part of his conclusion there with respect to blame boils down to the mountain of blame we traditionally lay on this or that which, like whether or not retribution is acceptable as a response to crime, may be indefensible regardless of whether the people who engage in the behaviors we shame freely will to do so.
It seems to me that we can say that someone is an arsonist, and say that they are responsible for the fire, and say that we are going to prevent them from lighting any more fires, and say that they may not be responsible for -the way they are- but they will be responsible for repairing the damage that they've done to whatever extent they can. Better outcome than any other animal could expect. We'd just shoot em and not worry about whether they freely willed to burn down the zoo.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
