Blame the Brain - Page 4

On May 19 2012 23:44 kamkerx wrote:

You're not allowed to make statements that are based on bullshit.

On May 18 2012 23:15 bonifaceviii wrote:
Free will doesn't really exist, but society functions better when it's assumed that it does.

On May 20 2012 01:08 Polis wrote:


No it doesn't, it just creates prejuces.

The idea that belief in free will is good, is just a belief it has no real basis.

Law system doesn't require free will, the person who commits the crime isn't responsible for the crimes, but neither is the person who did suffer due to his acction is, dealing with criminals increases overal well being. The concept of punishing causing unecessery hardship on the criminal is lost but that is a good thing.

If you think that burning kittens is bad, and helping somebody is good then not beliving in free will doesn't change that, it is irrelevant. You stop somebody from buring kittens becouse you think that it is wrong not becouse you think that he could act otherwise.

It can only harper part of your motivation as you lost the bragging rights, but this motivation cause more harm then good.

On May 20 2012 01:26 Miyoshino wrote:
The law system completely ignored everything that science did the last 50 or so years.

The law system doesn't even know what it tries to do. Punishing someone because he 'broke the law' and punish him with the penalty according to 'the law' is dogmatic and useless. There has to be a goal here. And once people go back and think over the goal of punishing people, there will be a revolution.

On May 20 2012 01:24 Kukaracha wrote:


If there is no free will then why deal with the criminal in the first place? He has no responsability in what he did. Removal is too imperfect to affect society in any way, unless you imagine a conspiracy scenario where evey criminal is terminated after a certain limit (which limit?) is reached.

On May 20 2012 02:29 Polis wrote:
It is less imperfect then not having any legal system, and no I wasn't suggesting to kill for breaking the law. And he has no free will but he is responsible in the same sense that flood is responsible for the damage that it did, you want to prevent flood if the flood has free will or not is irrelevant to your judgment of it being good or bad. I don't see why human behavior should be judge based on some another criteria that is not needed for judgment of anything else it seems arbitrary, and irrelevant to me.

You only want to take into account how likely he is to do it again, if somebody had killed by accident then that is very different then killing on purpose.

And you might send schizophrenic who had committed crime to treatment rather then to jail, again it should be based on practicality, and in many cases on what is best for the offender as well. You don't judge people in the same sense, you judge behavior, and how to correct it, not punish people when it isn't necessary, you don't punish for the sake of it.

On May 20 2012 01:26 Miyoshino wrote:
The law system completely ignored everything that science did the last 50 or so years.

The law system doesn't even know what it tries to do. Punishing someone because he 'broke the law' and punish him with the penalty according to 'the law' is dogmatic and useless. There has to be a goal here. And once people go back and think over the goal of punishing people, there will be a revolution.

On May 20 2012 03:25 Kukaracha wrote:


Well do you punish flood? Do you actually put water in a very small glass with a lot of very other aggressive, stinky types of water?

On May 20 2012 03:25 Kukaracha wrote:Because prison and jails are designed as places for punishment, with little to no rehabilitation and temporary sentences (so the individual is, in fact, not removed from society).

On May 20 2012 03:25 Kukaracha wrote:The history of law mostly relies on the concept of punishment and, well, justice. And it does so for the sake of it, only minor crimes benefit from any sort of rehabilitation process.
What benefit is there if we "remove" an individual for a short time, only to release him hardened and almost trained in professional thuggery?

On May 20 2012 03:25 Kukaracha wrote:There is also no difference between an accident and a murder if there is free will, unless you take the case of someone who could kill again. Say I kill my wife because I found out she was cheating on me, should I go to prison? I probably won't kill again and did not clearly intent to kill. If I have no will of my own, then there is no reason to remove me from society.

On May 20 2012 03:58 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
There is a huge misunderstanding here on the philosophy of the penal system. It is not primarily about a primordial right or wrong action, and even the legal parlance is never framed as such, but only on the actual violation of the legal requirements of society. It is therefore merely to control and regulate social relations, as those who have demonstrated tendency and capability of violating socially agreed upon contracts (laws) are isolated to prevent further incidents and to restore social order. Free will is only an operational term in this respect, as it boils down to what the individual did or did not do and how it relates to the whole social context.

On May 20 2012 03:56 KaasZerg wrote:


Punishment is meant to be a detterent. Not only lost years by being in jail but also the social stigma and lost oppertunities.
The second goal is to teach the criminal a lesson so he/she wont stay again.
The third goal is retribution for the vicims or the survivors if the victim is dead. They will get some measure of peace of mind when the criminal gets punished.
Fourth the criminal is at least not capable to do damage to the community outside the jail while he is locked up so society and victims feel more save.

Unless there will be a system that prevents future crimes or alters criminals in a scientific and humane way we are still stuck with our old system.
It is better then it used to be. There was banishment, torture, chopping of hands or fingers, penal colonies, dungeons, being completely drugged out of your mind in a psychiatric hospital.
There were convictions without trial. Judge, jury and executioner in one person or body and more travesties of the like.

I think the legal system is failing in preventing crime and rehabilitating criminals. In retribution or keeping the criminal away from society it only partially succeeds. Overal a poor outcome but better then anarchy or ancient justice systems.

On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
If putting some small % of water in a glass would prevent flood then we should do so.

On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
So how is that a punishment? You had described yourself how sentence can be prevention without punishing the offender.
[...]
What punishment exactly would be good is hard to say but it isn't any easier when you claim free will, you only can come up with a justification easier, but that is a bad thing if you base it on a bogus claim.

On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
One benefit would be prevention, it discourages to commit crime, and it discourages from revenge. As for the justice system the ones in Scandinavian countries that aren't focused on punishment work much better then any other.

On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
So you would legalize wife killing when they had cheated? You don't see how that could cause problems for society? In the examples that you are giving it is actually quite obvious on why there should be a punishment even if there is no free will. Ultimately it would be best if you wouldn't had to punish anybody but it isn't practically possible, and again we don't need to assume free will to state that.

On May 20 2012 00:59 AdamBanks wrote:


If you accept cause and effect as something that exists then the concept of freewill can be quickly deconstructed as the individuals subjective experience of a causal chain.

On May 20 2012 07:19 Kukaracha wrote:


But what if it doesn't, mh? Why do we still put water in that glass? Why do we believe it can stop the river?



Well, is jail time a punishment or a way to remove an individual for society? Because if it's a punishment, then it's to punish a choice in the first place. Thus free will.



Norwegian prisons are known exceptions. Now, how do our traditional prisons - and I stress the term traditional as in what we inherited from our past - discourage anyone if wannabe thugs go in and gangsters come out?



You didn't understand. The whole point is that I'm not a dangerous individual per se. There is consequently no reason to remove me from society. If any sort of action is taken, it's to punish me, which implies that I'm responsible for my deeds, which requires the existence of free will.