Free will

[brimstoneSalad]

If you're not free, it doesn't matter how complex your cognitive abilities are, it doesn't make you free.

This has nothing to do with it.

The fact that you know you will be punished fur murder reduces slightly the chances of engaging it- and that's useless if society doesn't follow through on that punishment (because then people learn they will not be punished for it).

It's as simple as the consequences. This whole "free will" argument is meaningless.

The fact that humans understand the legal consequences means that is taken into consideration before acting.

That's all that matters, and that's already taken into consideration. Severely retarded individuals, insane, etc. are usually exempted, because that knowledge didn't factor in.

It's no accident that younger people with a prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed are higher represented in the crime rates.

Does murder being illegal for them reduce the frequency of their murdering people?
If so, then they should be punished for murder to maintain that pressure to reduce its frequency.

It doesn't matter whether someone 1) has a brain tumor, 2) is born a psychopath, 3) has continually been abused as a child, or anything else, the fact is that it all led to the same action—murder in this instance—without having anything to say about it.

No, it doesn't matter. It only matters that people know that if they murder somebody, they'll be punished, and on average that reduces the likelihood of people murdering, generally.

For some people, that knowledge will affect them less than others, but that's irrelevant unless the vast majority of people can understand very clearly why that is, and exempt them from the punishment without expecting exemption themselves.

Look: The average person on the street who might at some point contemplate murder doesn't care about or understand neuroscience.
All that matters is that the letter and execution of the law reduce crime rates on average.

We're all punished for things we "couldn't help", but those actions are a part of who we are, they are faults, and they are our faults to be punished for.
It's irrelevant. What's relevant is effect of those laws on crime rates.

That's the reason why free will is sometimes defined as the ability to make a decision without internal or external restrictions that lead to the decision.

Lawyers do whatever they need to in order to get their clients off. That kind of sophistry isn't going to fly here.

The more we know in the fields of neuroscience, the vaguer the line between healthy brains with bad connections and brains with tumors becomes in the context of explaining behavior.

That's fine for neuroscience, but it's irrelevant to the 'should' of law, which deals only with the consequences of laws and their consistent application.

If you want to exempt certain people from punishment for murder, you need to make sure that category of people as far as you can define it and differentiate it really isn't deterred by laws, and moreover that people outside of that category can understand the category well enough not to lead themselves to believe they are IN that category, or that they could unfalsifiably claim to be, thus giving themselves permission to murder.

None of that has anything to do with philosophical or metaphysical concepts of free will.

All I'm saying is that punishment doesn't make sense in certain area's. You shouldn't punish someone for performing a crime in a deep sleep, because in that instance the factor of punishment couldn't be taken in consideration.

Of course you should. See the latter points above.

Judges look at the consequences of laws, and their rulings, as they well should. So does the prosecution do a pretty good job of explaining that to juries.

Rare conditions and extraordinary cases are more likely to be fabricated than to be true.

It makes more sense to hold on to psychopaths longer (or even take them off the street beforehand) than people that are no danger to society anymore.

Oh, are you going to develop a psychopath test, and administer it to people and then lock them up?
Are you going to keep a person in prison his or her entire life for not paying a parking ticket because they failed the test?

Who makes the test? Who says who is a psychopath and who isn't? And who says high functioning psychopaths can't live as law abiding citizens? How probable does it have to be for you to commit a crime before you're locked up without due process of law?

It makes more sense to help pedophiles to prevent them from abusing a child instead of punishing them blindly, because we know that a small percentage of them is going to abuse a child.

This has nothing to do with free will. This has to do with the efficacy of our current laws on the subject.
And the shaming and lack of public outreach to help people who suffer from sexual urges towards children.

It makes more sense to extend our criminal law concerning minors to 25 years instead of 18 (because of the unripe prefrontal cortex).

Not unless doing so would reduce crime.

There are definitely things that can change in our current system if we grant free will as an illusion.

No, there are just some things that can change, period. Free will has nothing to do with it.

[Volenta]

This has nothing to do with it.

The fact that you know you will be punished fur murder reduces slightly the chances of engaging it- and that's useless if society doesn't follow through on that punishment (because then people learn they will not be punished for it).

It's as simple as the consequences. This whole "free will" argument is meaningless.

You said my analogy didn't hold up, which had nothing to do with punishment but everything with free will.

That's all that matters, and that's already taken into consideration. Severely retarded individuals, insane, etc. are usually exempted, because that knowledge didn't factor in.

Yes, it is all that matters, in the light of not having free will at least. What you don't seem to recognize is that people that think free will exist go a step further then that. The do not only care about reducing crime rates, but also see the punishment itself as useful. That's what I mean with societal justice/satisfaction. When someone is free in his choices and yet murders someone, this person is evil for making that decision. No matter if locking him up helps in reducing crime rates, as long as he pays for his deeds. And what I see in the current legal system is exactly this kind of 'righteousness'.

Does murder being illegal for them reduce the frequency of their murdering people?
If so, then they should be punished for murder to maintain that pressure to reduce its frequency.

Most of this people don't take the punishment very seriously or think about it. I'm not saying you should make crimes legal for this people, but punishing harder to try to reduce it even further (which is going on here in the Netherlands) is also not useful. Most of these people don't even know their punishment before committing a crime.

No, it doesn't matter. It only matters that people know that if they murder somebody, they'll be punished, and on average that reduces the likelihood of people murdering, generally.

For some people, that knowledge will affect them less than others, but that's irrelevant unless the vast majority of people can understand very clearly why that is, and exempt them from the punishment without expecting exemption themselves.

Look: The average person on the street who might at some point contemplate murder doesn't care about or understand neuroscience.
All that matters is that the letter and execution of the law reduce crime rates on average.

We're all punished for things we "couldn't help", but those actions are a part of who we are, they are faults, and they are our faults to be punished for.
It's irrelevant. What's relevant is effect of those laws on crime rates.

Wow... Putting aside whether it works in practice or not (because of the informing problems), but are you really saying you should punish somebody no matter the what caused it? When I said that it doesn't matter, I did not mean to say that their punishment has to be the same. Locking up someone with a brain tumor just because it reduces crime rates on average is inhumane. You have to evaluate each individual, not only to make it more humane, but also to make it more productive. It's not the punishment itself that is worthy, it's the prevention and consequences.

That's fine for neuroscience, but it's irrelevant to the 'should' of law, which deals only with the consequences of laws and their consistent application.

If you want to exempt certain people from punishment for murder, you need to make sure that category of people as far as you can define it and differentiate it really isn't deterred by laws, and moreover that people outside of that category can understand the category well enough not to lead themselves to believe they are IN that category, or that they could unfalsifiably claim to be, thus giving themselves permission to murder.

Those are just practical problems, but that doesn't take away it is the most just system. And it should be placed in practice if it where practically possible.

Of course you should. See the latter points above.

Judges look at the consequences of laws, and their rulings, as they well should. So does the prosecution do a pretty good job of explaining that to juries.

Rare conditions and extraordinary cases are more likely to be fabricated than to be true.

Of course you shouldn't, come on... That's not decreasing crime rates anymore. If there is evidence that someone did it in his sleep, how could you even think about punishing him? If there is not any evidence, than it's a different case, but these scenario's can and do happen from time to time.

Oh, are you going to develop a psychopath test, and administer it to people and then lock them up?
Are you going to keep a person in prison his or her entire life for not paying a parking ticket because they failed the test?

Who makes the test? Who says who is a psychopath and who isn't? And who says high functioning psychopaths can't live as law abiding citizens? How probable does it have to be for you to commit a crime before you're locked up without due process of law?

No true scotsman...? Those are all just practical and political questions I'm not qualified to answer. What I can say is that I wouldn't lock them up, I would help them in the best possible manner that's also in favor for them. And that's also the case for psychopaths that already committed a crime; lifelong prison is not the most humane solution if you recognize that he had no choice in it. But if you're so concerned about reducing crimes as much as possible, you definitely shouldn't let go of extreme psychopaths where it's just waiting for him to come back again.

This has nothing to do with free will. This has to do with the efficacy of our current laws on the subject.
And the shaming and lack of public outreach to help people who suffer from sexual urges towards children.

I agree, all I'm saying is that if free will is false, we should help them instead of punishing them for being evil.

Putting legal systems aside, I talked about this issue with someone before and he stated that if he were locked up with a pedosexual in prison he would probably kill him (that's why pedosexuals are currently separated from the rest in prison). That's something that would only make sense if there is free will. But I'm happy to say that our legal systems are more humane than that.

No, there are just some things that can change, period. Free will has nothing to do with it.

Well, it seems you don't even think that some things need to change, do you? All I think that needs to be done is taking all punishment specifically for societal justice and evil out of the legal systems. And that rests on the free will question.

[brimstoneSalad]

You said my analogy didn't hold up, which had nothing to do with punishment but everything with free will.

Do you want to reword your analogy? I read it again, still seeing it being relevant to punishment.

What you don't seem to recognize is that people that think free will exist go a step further then that. The do not only care about reducing crime rates, but also see the punishment itself as useful. That's what I mean with societal justice/satisfaction.

That has nothing to do with free will either.

Justice is about "balancing the scales"- the notion that "somebody or something has to pay for this wrong done to me".
This is not in itself the root of law, but law accommodates the human hunger for this kind of justice, while limiting its application.

Law dictates that a person be relieved of responsibility in certain cases, and that the victim is not always entitled to justice.

People go after wild animals all the time for "justice", even when believing they lack free will. Even inanimate objects can bear the burden.
Have you ever hit an inanimate object after it hurt you in some way?

Justice functions on a more primitive psychological level, and has more to do with making the victims feel better than anything else.

When someone is free in his choices and yet murders someone, this person is evil for making that decision. No matter if locking him up helps in reducing crime rates, as long as he pays for his deeds. And what I see in the current legal system is exactly this kind of 'righteousness'.

The person doesn't need to be "free" in his or her choices to do that. Even death by accident demands retribution.
Law steps in to limit retribution, and says that there's no always somebody to pay for a wrong with another wrong.

Justice has nothing to do with free will, it has to do with balance.
Law steps in with a societal notion of free will, which is based on the more or less average participant and social contract (the desire to oneself be free from paying for accidents) to limit it.

Most of this people don't take the punishment very seriously or think about it. I'm not saying you should make crimes legal for this people, but punishing harder to try to reduce it even further (which is going on here in the Netherlands) is also not useful. Most of these people don't even know their punishment before committing a crime.

This is one of the areas where law needs to change. But that doesn't have anything to do with free will, it has to do with people seeking justice due to human psychology.

Wow... Putting aside whether it works in practice or not (because of the informing problems), but are you really saying you should punish somebody no matter the what caused it? [...] You have to evaluate each individual, not only to make it more humane, but also to make it more productive. It's not the punishment itself that is worthy, it's the prevention and consequences.

You can't evaluate each individual. Not only does that threaten civil rights, but it's immensely impractical. Law has to approximate sometimes to be functional.

Those are just practical problems, but that doesn't take away it is the most just system.

What you think is ideologically just is irrelevant (although I think you're confused about what justice is).

Law is a system of practice. So, there's no such thing as something "just" being a practical problem. That's all law is- practical. If it's not practical, it's not happening.

If there is evidence that someone did it in his sleep, how could you even think about punishing him? If there is not any evidence, than it's a different case, but these scenario's can and do happen from time to time.

What kind of evidence do you think would reasonably prove that it happened in the person's sleep?

When something is proven, and people can understand why and how, and that it can be excused without affecting crime rates, then it can be excused.
Which is what I said.

No true scotsman...?

No, a very real slippery slope, and why we have certain civil rights.

Those are all just practical and political questions I'm not qualified to answer.

That's all law is- a practical system, and one that by political necessity must preserve civil rights.
If you're not qualified to answer them, why make the assertion?

There are lots of things that seem like great ideas, until you look at the consequences of those actions or policies.

I agree, all I'm saying is that if free will is false, we should help them instead of punishing them for being evil.

And I'm saying that's irrelevant. People are glad to render punishment for retribution, to make somebody or something pay for harm done to them or theirs, regardless of any notion of "free will".
Somebody may superficially use "free will" to justify it, but that is only because law has taught him or her that certain acts of accident and extreme situation are excused from retribution. This is more of a learned behavior due to social standards.

That's something that would only make sense if there is free will. But I'm happy to say that our legal systems are more humane than that.

No, it makes perfect sense outside the context of "free will". It's in the person's nature to be 'evil'- whether he or she has a choice to be evil or not- the person acting out of righteousness is simply destroying an evil thing. Not that I condone the action or necessarily agree on that point, but it isn't at all hampered by the lack of the theistic or metaphysical notion of "free will".

No, there are just some things that can change, period. Free will has nothing to do with it.

Well, it seems you don't even think that some things need to change, do you?

If you will read what I said, you will see that's not even remotely what I said.
I said the opposite of that.

Law is always improving, and progress is being made over time. It has nothing to do with the philosophical or metaphysical concept of "free will" though.

The common legal concept isn't metaphysical; it's practical.

I think you need to read Dennett again; he doesn't reject hard determinism, he rejects the semantic practice of defining free will into uselessness based on absurd metaphysical assumptions.

All I think that needs to be done is taking all punishment specifically for societal justice and evil out of the legal systems. And that rests on the free will question.

You're seeing this in an overly simplistic way, and attributing a false cause to the problem. It would be nice if it were all that simple, but it isn't.

[Volenta]

Do you want to reword your analogy? I read it again, still seeing it being relevant to punishment.

My analogy was just that it wouldn't make sense to condemn or hate a human for an act, just like it doesn't make sense to condemn a bear. I didn't meant to say this in the context of legal systems. I first stated it in the same paragraph as the law issue, which might have caused some confusion.

You can't evaluate each individual. Not only does that threaten civil rights, but it's immensely impractical. Law has to approximate sometimes to be functional.

As far as I know it's possible to make a case for each individual (act). You can always object to the default verdict to make them reconsider their position. And there already are situations where the law is open for exceptions (I'm giving an example below). I don't think these are things that only the Netherlands has?

although I think you're confused about what justice is

I think the reason why I might look confused about justice is because I applied it to the psychological urges and ethics interchangeably here—I'll try to be more careful.

I think you need to read Dennett again; he doesn't reject hard determinism, he rejects the semantic practice of defining free will into uselessness based on absurd metaphysical assumptions.

So I'm kind of wondering whether you accept Dennett's position/definition, because it would at least clear things up a bit. You're saying he doesn't reject hard determinism but a particular definition of free will. I think that because he's using a different definition, he's rejecting hard determinism by that standard—making him a compatibilist.

I'm also wondering whether you have read the actual book of Harris, because he also talks about questions of punishment. It might be that I'm doing his views injustice with my understanding of legal systems (because I generally agree with him on free will), but it is a subject that regularly comes up with discussions on free will. And it's funny, because I even heard Dennett talking about punishment. But you're saying here it's irrelevant, so I'm not sure I understand where you come from. (I don't want to make an appeal to authority, but maybe it might clean up some confusion)


Their are some underlying disagreements here I want to lay out each to make it a bit more structured (I'll try to address the details you mentioned).


On the issue of being practical/theoretical about the law:
It's not hard to acknowledge for me that the law is ultimately only interested in practical impact and solutions. The reason I gave examples was not because I think they were perfect or even practical (at this moment)—which is not to say that they aren't practical, I just don't know. I did it because it lays a foundation from where you can work it out further. I think it's useful to first see the problems from a theoretical standpoint, and then work out what is practical. If you start with practice, it's easy to forget the motivation behind it. Now it's true that somethings might be hard to implement, or maybe even not possible. That's why I honestly admitted that I'm in no position to know what can change practically (or even should, because it wouldn't make sense if not practically possible). I'm just not a law maker. But that's not to say that their is nothing to say about. To give an example, at the moment we don't have any sophisticated and trustworthy lie detector available. That doesn't mean that we should dismiss the theoretical basis for installing lie detectors in are legal system because we not yet evaluated the practical possibilities and implications. Now, I don't want to argue about the specifics of the law, because neither of us is getting anywhere because we are talking about the consequences of free will here.


On the possibility of not punishing people that couldn't evaluate the law while committing a crime:
There are instances already where the law is being applied very flexible. I'm regularly reading about acquittal of people with brain damage/tumor. So instead of discussing the practical possibilities, I hope we can come to an agreement on a theoretical level that the necessity of punishment is not a black and white thing. The examples of wild animals and inanimate objects bearing a burden is something irrational that only makes sense on a primitive psychological level, and therefore shouldn't infiltrate our legal systems. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that we should if it would satisfy this primitive psychological need of some people.


On whether our current law cares only about reducing crime rates:
If it is the case that all that the law cares about is reducing crime rates, I'm fine with the setup. I'm just not sure whether it is the case (and you can certainly see this in religious legal systems that are certainly not based on reducing crime rates but on primitive moral notions) and you seem to think the same to some extend, so let's talk about it independent of our current established system to address the connection with free will. The question is really about whether we need the philosophical concept of free will in order to arrange our legal system. And I think that it does matter, because if I would believe in free will, I would want people to be punished no matter it would effect crime reduction. You're basically saying that punishment would still be necessary because of retribution, but that again goes into the practical/theoretical issue again. And like I said above, it would only be done to satisfy primitive psychological needs of some people (I'm not saying it has no practical impact, but we should recognize it is not more than that).

[brimstoneSalad]

As far as I know it's possible to make a case for each individual (act).

Only in the most vague way. You can only get the most general impression of a scenario or individual. It is only those general impressions we can go by.

And due to the grey area of those general impressions, there's a lot of room for what Dennett might call free will.
Call it Schrödinger's Will if you want. It's in the unknown, or un-measurable.

When the issue is clear enough that measurement can reliably occur (that is to say, ALL people with this condition do X) then the will collapses from the free and unknown into the deterministic -- but only when this is the case, which is to say, very rarely.

So I'm kind of wondering whether you accept Dennett's position/definition, because it would at least clear things up a bit. You're saying he doesn't reject hard determinism but a particular definition of free will. I think that because he's using a different definition, he's rejecting hard determinism by that standard—making him a compatibilist.

He's using a different definition, yes. I'm indifferent. Dennett and Harris don't really disagree on much beyond definition, except that Harris might be confused about some things.

I'm also wondering whether you have read the actual book of Harris, because he also talks about questions of punishment.

No, but I know what you're talking about. From what I've read and heard of his position, you're representing it well enough.

And it's funny, because I even heard Dennett talking about punishment. But you're saying here it's irrelevant, so I'm not sure I understand where you come from. (I don't want to make an appeal to authority, but maybe it might clean up some confusion)

Based on Dennett's definition, free will is NOT irrelevant, but it's also not false (because his definition is very liberal, imprecise, and even subjective- as is the situation of our legal observations).
Based on Harris' definition, free will is irrelevant, and also can not exist (because his definition is very literal, rigid, and precise-- but also, as Dennett criticizes, basically useless because it's inherently absurd as a supernatural concept).

I think it's useful to first see the problems from a theoretical standpoint, and then work out what is practical. If you start with practice, it's easy to forget the motivation behind it.

I may not find it as useful as you do. You can very much get bogged down in idealism; and where consequentialism is concerned, it's the outcome that matters (and that's something that you don't lose sight of). If new technologies come into being, we can examine their potential application, and if they're useful, at that time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that we should if it would satisfy this primitive psychological need of some people.

I'm saying that's what JUSTICE is. I don't necessarily believe that our law should be focused on justice; it should be focused on making society better, or even better yet on making the world better, not revenge or punishment for its own sake.

Free will is irrelevant to justice. It's equally applicable to a man, a bear, an insect, etc. Anything that can do harm and can be harmed in return is subject.

If you want Justice, that's what you're asking for. The notion is incoherent when you try to bring free will into it; it is inherently an emotional, and largely irrational, proposition.

If it is the case that all that the law cares about is reducing crime rates, I'm fine with the setup.

That is the main concern. However, you can't neglect the psychological well being of victims. Do victims benefit psychologically by justice being exacted against their attackers? Does society as a whole?

Consequentially, if you look at the well being of just society (rather than the well being of all), then there's a strong argument for it -- and this is chiefly what law is concerned with.

The question is really about whether we need the philosophical concept of free will in order to arrange our legal system.

No. It's irrelevant to policies designed to reduce crime, and it's irrelevant to Justice and its being exacted to make victims feel better.

Unless you're talking about Dennett's notion of free will; which is relevant to both, because it affects human perception of justice, and it reflects smart policy. "Real" free will is irrelevant to any of them.

If Harris says it is relevant, he is at best confused.

And I think that it does matter, because if I would believe in free will, I would want people to be punished no matter it would effect crime reduction.

Why?
And how does not believing in free will change that?

You're basically saying that punishment would still be necessary because of retribution, but that again goes into the practical/theoretical issue again.

No, punishment can be useful because it makes the victims feel better. It makes the criminals feel worse, of course, but by that time they've already broken social contract so law is substantially less concerned for their well being.

And like I said above, it would only be done to satisfy primitive psychological needs of some people (I'm not saying it has no practical impact, but we should recognize it is not more than that).

Of course it's not more than that. But not believing in free will doesn't change that.

If somebody rapes my child, I'm probably going to feel better if they get the electric chair either way. Should I overcome that irrational impulse? Maybe. Is it realistic to expect people to? Probably not.