Quote:If there is no such thing as free will, then all action and reaction can be, to soem extent, predicted. Wouldn't this suggest that if we have suitable means of predicting a person's actions before they happen, we are obligated to prevent those actions, if they are a crime in the eyes of the law? This denies people the ability, capacity, and fundamental right to make split-second decisions based entirely on internal changes.
Ah, Watson....this must be your lucky day. You've made a good point.
Consider that this was exactly what Dubya ( and his English lap dog Blair) did in Iraq. They asserted (falsely) that Iraq had the capability to attack the West and therefore moved to prevent such an attack before it was made.
To put this in a more personal context let us suppose that a cop answers a call to a home and finds you standing there with a bloody baseball bat and nearby are a man, his wife, and children with their heads bashed in. You tell the cop that you had a dispute with the fellow a few years before and recently became concerned that he might get a gun and shoot you. Therefore, you brought your baseball bat and took care of the matter yourself.
I ( and I suspect you ) would expect the cop to instantly arrest you as a mass murderer. There do seem to be some people around who think the cop should pat you on the back and say "good thinking."
