| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
On May 19 2012 23:44 kamkerx wrote: You're not allowed to make statements that are based on bullshit. 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. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
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. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
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. Punishment is really only the goal in misdemeanors and minor offenses. Rehabilitation and Removal from Society is supposed to be the main goal for serious crimes. Or at least that's the way it should be imo. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
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. 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? 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). 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? 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. You're speaking in hypothetical terms about an imaginary situation, when we're trying to base ourselves on the reality of the legal system. Yes, free will does matter. | ||
|
fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi
Israel157 Posts
| ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
Society should consider looking at deviants as people who have no free will and behave as a result of their environments. Then it should try to change the penal system into one that shapes the environments of the deviants in a way that can rehabilitate them towards social norms. The current penal system does not do enough for rehabilitation and only tries to punish and prevent further disruption of the deviants by locking them up. | ||
|
AUFKLARUNG
Germany245 Posts
| ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
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? If putting some small % of water in a glass would prevent flood then we should do so. 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). So how is that a punishment? You had described yourself how sentence can be prevention without punishing the offender. 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? 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 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. 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. 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. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
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. But why social order is good? I would say that it is good because it is better for general well being, no matter how you frame it you still have to give reasons on why social order or anything else that you try to promote by law is good. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
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. First: Deterrents don't work for major crimes. You are ignoring the reasons why people do serious crimes in the first place (desperation, insanity, or doesn't believe he would ever be caught). The best deterrents might do is get people to confess. But by that time they've already committed the crime. Second: Uh... once again no. That only works for minor crimes and misdemeanors. It's not like if you punch a rapist in the face he'll reconsider or whatever. Third: Retribution is not an acceptable reason to do anything. Fourth: That is the primary reason. Removal from Society. That's why we have prisons. You can argue that we suck at rehabilitation, but if rehabilitation isn't practical for whatever reason, then the very least we can do remove them from society. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. | ||
|
KungKras
Sweden484 Posts
| ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
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. Its still *possible* that one can be completely aware of oneself and their own conditioning, and try to be concious of it while trying to be as open minded as possible. Bonifaceviii's statement is pretty controversial and pessimistic in my opinion, without explaining why he feels that way. I dare myself to call it ignorant. | ||
|
JacobShock
Denmark2485 Posts
| ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
| ||
|
Ace.Xile
United States286 Posts
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. To your last point, yes and no. Punishment exists in at least a proper sense to elicit change, not necessarily be a source of retribution. Punishment doesn't require one to have free will because the goal of the punishment is to change deviant behavior period. Also with the lack of free will it doesn't mean you are not responsible for your actions. They are after all your actions, just because you didn't have a choice doesn't change the fact that you committed them and in the grander scheme it is entirely okay to punish someone so that they do not in the future make these actions. It's a very tricky line because you'd be hard pressed to find anyone sane say that because we don't have free will we can't be held responsible for our actions, but we should because they affect others and we can potentially change people's future actions with punishment. | ||
| ||
|
|
HomeStory Cup
Korean StarCraft League
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
