RE: Free will/evil/punishment
June 19, 2015 at 10:20 pm
(This post was last modified: June 19, 2015 at 10:26 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I wouldn't know if it would make you better off, but perhaps understanding the alternatives would -at the very least- isolate the most important portions of the framework to which you currently hold and to which we both give value, even if we don't both give it -truth value-. Truth be told.....and I'm hoping to see just one more head pop up in this joint because the best comments on the matter always come from that corner (imo) the only "difference that makes a difference" between our current framework and it's attendant infrastructures (like prison systems) and one that does not contain the idea of free will, are those issues of morality and personal responsibility - and even there.....the effect isn't always so pronounced. The difference, largely, is desert. Getting what we deserve is just, and not getting what we deserve, is not.
What, however, is the practical difference between incarcerating a criminal because it's "the punishment he deserves", and incarcerating a criminal so that he is not capable of repeating the offense with a new victim? To my mind, very little....but to a person with a deep-seated adherence to the idea of desert (not that you're such a person, only as an example)...I understand that the difference seems a -fair bit larger-. Because I value preventing a repeat of the crime more than I value ensuring that some one "gets what they deserve"...and because I see how wrong we can go, and how often we go that route when we really sit down and ferment in our juices about what some "bad guy" deserves......again, provided that I have an alternative structure which can -at least- provide the effect valuable to me and present in the current system...I start to wonder (and I've got a utilitarian streak myself you'll notice) whether or not it might be a better idea to structure our prison systems in a way that does not not defer to the notion of notion of desert...even if we do have free will and hard moral responsibility. I see it as erring on the side of caution, in a situation where an error would cost me/us nothing, practically speaking.
It's not all doom and gloom, of course. Susie deserves praise because she applied herself, of her own free will, to her history exam and aced it. Now, without desert (and free will, responsibility, volition, etc) it may seem strange...what are we praising? Oddly enough, I would ask a similar question. -Why- are we praising? Recognition, encouragement? I don't have to refer to her free will or her volition to recognize that she has done -precisely what she did. She aced that test. Similarly, it doesn't actually matter whether or not Susie is a freely acting agent or simply happens to be a "historobot" model of human being...I'm going to want to encourage that application of her talents. She isn't -just- a historobot, after all.....and if we want to see her achieve (and potential enrich herself and the rest of us immeasurably with her ability someday) -something- has to keep applying her to that task...rather than some other one. Praising a person -works- to keep them achieving, to keep -them- working, even if some of the underpinning concepts have been misidentified or misapprehended (not saying they have been...just noticing that it;s efficacy is not necessarily tied to it's justification).
Just for starters.
(I think that people seem entirely reasonable when they make these distinctions because our brains are reasoning organs, biological universal machines....what else would we be -but- reasonable, insomuch as our architecture allows? Couldn't help but insert myself here, lol. Just because something -isn't- inevitable, that doesn't mean that we have a say in how events play out, so no, I wouldn't insert anything there - though an empty space accomodates just about anything, so I'm sure we could -fit- free will there.)
What, however, is the practical difference between incarcerating a criminal because it's "the punishment he deserves", and incarcerating a criminal so that he is not capable of repeating the offense with a new victim? To my mind, very little....but to a person with a deep-seated adherence to the idea of desert (not that you're such a person, only as an example)...I understand that the difference seems a -fair bit larger-. Because I value preventing a repeat of the crime more than I value ensuring that some one "gets what they deserve"...and because I see how wrong we can go, and how often we go that route when we really sit down and ferment in our juices about what some "bad guy" deserves......again, provided that I have an alternative structure which can -at least- provide the effect valuable to me and present in the current system...I start to wonder (and I've got a utilitarian streak myself you'll notice) whether or not it might be a better idea to structure our prison systems in a way that does not not defer to the notion of notion of desert...even if we do have free will and hard moral responsibility. I see it as erring on the side of caution, in a situation where an error would cost me/us nothing, practically speaking.
It's not all doom and gloom, of course. Susie deserves praise because she applied herself, of her own free will, to her history exam and aced it. Now, without desert (and free will, responsibility, volition, etc) it may seem strange...what are we praising? Oddly enough, I would ask a similar question. -Why- are we praising? Recognition, encouragement? I don't have to refer to her free will or her volition to recognize that she has done -precisely what she did. She aced that test. Similarly, it doesn't actually matter whether or not Susie is a freely acting agent or simply happens to be a "historobot" model of human being...I'm going to want to encourage that application of her talents. She isn't -just- a historobot, after all.....and if we want to see her achieve (and potential enrich herself and the rest of us immeasurably with her ability someday) -something- has to keep applying her to that task...rather than some other one. Praising a person -works- to keep them achieving, to keep -them- working, even if some of the underpinning concepts have been misidentified or misapprehended (not saying they have been...just noticing that it;s efficacy is not necessarily tied to it's justification).
Just for starters.
(I think that people seem entirely reasonable when they make these distinctions because our brains are reasoning organs, biological universal machines....what else would we be -but- reasonable, insomuch as our architecture allows? Couldn't help but insert myself here, lol. Just because something -isn't- inevitable, that doesn't mean that we have a say in how events play out, so no, I wouldn't insert anything there - though an empty space accomodates just about anything, so I'm sure we could -fit- free will there.)
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!
