Philosophy Discussion Forums

Forgive the interjection here that may be a little off slant. Personally, I think this realization is an evolutionary step ahead in refining our humanity. I realized something was wrong before I was convinced of the illusion of free will by the persecution of people of who had their humanity removed through their life experience and the justice system topped it off with their capital punishment. There is much fear in accepting the reality of this illusion due to the immense restructuring of society that would be necessary and just perhaps, impossible. Just imagine a realistic perception of the plight of innocence brought into the world thought to be, despite circumstances, totally responsible for his/her success or failure. It is a shift away from barbarity. It would deliver also a death blow to the continued worship of the sacred ignorance of most archaic religions. It is an evolutionary challenge we dare not say no to.

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:48 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 12:54 pm Every event is a caused event therefore there is no such thing as FreeWill. There are people, most of us actually, whose sense of personal responsibility is caused by both reason and empathy. Together these faculties stop mature adults committing crimes. If these faculties fail, most mature adults will not break the law because they do not want to feel ashamed when they are found out.

The way to get people to be law abiding is not to blame and punish those who fail, but to remove as far as possible the causes of moral immaturity and social desperation. This not too tender hearted, as what would be removed in some instances is power and wealth from crime, so there is an an element of deterrence.

I suppose there is a place for psychiatrists to judge whether or not a criminal is responsible in law for their crime. But it would be fairer if criminals were not regarded as evil devils some of whom are given the benefit of a psychiatric diagnosis.It would be fairer if every criminal were regarded as in need of care and training .

The downside of 'care and training' however is that criminals might prefer to do two years of prison to two years of care and training.

Many would disagree that your premise leads to your conclusion.

Free Will proposes that the same antecedent state can lead to different subsequent states (decisions). We all agree that if this was true, those decisions would be the cause of the subsequent state, yet Free Will would be present.

Determinism proposes that the same antecedent state will always lead to the same subsequent state and what superficially appears as decision making is actually the fact that there are subtle differences in the antecedent state, thus explaining the inability to predict the behavior of animals.

As to the impact of this on the justice system, I find it better to not pursue trying to determine "blame" and "responsibility", when viewed philosophically, rather to use outcomes of past behavior to categorize individuals to protect society from the statistical likely future risk from those individuals.

Determinism does not imply prediction.
The FreeWill debate boils down to "is nature an ordered affair or not?" If nature is an ordered affair then it is impossible for there to be any uncaused event such as a so-called Freewill event. You may as well believe in ghosts as believe in uncaused events.

I think there is a presumption that determinism is the same as sequential causal chains , but this is not so. Determinism includes also simultaneous causal circumstances , and laws of nature/science.Laws of nature/science are such that a phenomenon is not isolated but is a necessary part of a larger system.

True, human behaviours can often be hard to explain but social psychology has advanced mightily.

to use outcomes of past behavior to categorize individuals to protect society from the statistical likely future risk from those individuals.

[/quote] But if a criminal has been punished for a past crime ought their past crime weigh against the criminal for a subsequent crime? It seems harsh to label someone a permanent criminal. Is a criminal personality permanent? Even if so, perhaps the criminal should be taken off the streets but as far as possible not tortured or deliberately deprived.

I tend toward agnosticism on determinism and libertarian free will. My intuition favors the latter, but I have trouble getting my head around whether it's actually a coherent concept. Maybe the problem is that language isn't perfect for dealing with such things.

But whenever I see a discussion of determinism and morality, I'm struck by how (some? many?, most?) avowed determinists use language that (at least it seems to me) is impliedly non-deterministic, if not contradictory.

Consider Gregg Caruso in Just Deserts, a book which has already been quoted in this thread. He says "For the free will skeptic, it is never fair to treat anyone as morally responsible..." That seems to fit well with the Netherlands approach to criminal justice, at least as described in the initial post.

But "fair"? What does that mean divorced from the concept of moral responsibility?

Caruso's definition of determinism is pretty much the accepted one. "The thesis that at any given time only one future is physically possible [citation]. Or put differently, it's the thesis that facts about the remote past in conjunction with the laws of nature entail that there is only one unique future."

This puts me in mind of Plotinus's famous (ok, maybe not so famous) criticism of the Stoics, who were determinists: that they "reduce humans to being mere rolling stones."

Consider a rolling stone, set on its path by events inevitably put in motion by the Big Bang. It heads down a hill into a garden, crushing the gardener's prized flower. In a fit of rage, of course also inevitably brought about by the Big Bang, the gardener takes a hammer and smashes the stone to smithereens. Ignore the fact that the guy's a goofball. What about the stone. Was he unfair to it?

How to distinguish from that stone the human actor, who's every thought and action has ever been and ever will be the inevitable result of the Big Bang? True, he has consciousness and feelings, but according to Caruso, he has no moral responsibility. But anyone who treats him as having moral responsibility isn't being unfair; he's simply doing what the Big Bang made him do.

BobS wrote: ↑June 27th, 2021, 12:10 am I tend toward agnosticism on determinism and libertarian free will. My intuition favors the latter, but I have trouble getting my head around whether it's actually a coherent concept. Maybe the problem is that language isn't perfect for dealing with such things.

But whenever I see a discussion of determinism and morality, I'm struck by how (some? many?, most?) avowed determinists use language that (at least it seems to me) is impliedly non-deterministic, if not contradictory.

Consider Gregg Caruso in Just Deserts, a book which has already been quoted in this thread. He says "For the free will skeptic, it is never fair to treat anyone as morally responsible..." That seems to fit well with the Netherlands approach to criminal justice, at least as described in the initial post.

But "fair"? What does that mean divorced from the concept of moral responsibility?

Caruso's definition of determinism is pretty much the accepted one. "The thesis that at any given time only one future is physically possible [citation]. Or put differently, it's the thesis that facts about the remote past in conjunction with the laws of nature entail that there is only one unique future."

This puts me in mind of Plotinus's famous (ok, maybe not so famous) criticism of the Stoics, who were determinists: that they "reduce humans to being mere rolling stones."

Consider a rolling stone, set on its path by events inevitably put in motion by the Big Bang. It heads down a hill into a garden, crushing the gardener's prized flower. In a fit of rage, of course also inevitably brought about by the Big Bang, the gardener takes a hammer and smashes the stone to smithereens. Ignore the fact that the guy's a goofball. What about the stone. Was he unfair to it?

How to distinguish from that stone the human actor, who's every thought and action has ever been and ever will be the inevitable result of the Big Bang? True, he has consciousness and feelings, but according to Caruso, he has no moral responsibility. But anyone who treats him as having moral responsibility isn't being unfair; he's simply doing what the Big Bang made him do.

#
My comment on your Caruso quote is that necessity and possibility are the same. Thus every event is a necessary event. Each and every event necessarily happened or will happen. Any man's interpretation of causes is subjective to some degree. Reason and knowledge tend towards less subjective, more impartial, judgements.

Men are not "rolling stones" . Unlike stones men can reason and acquire knowledge. However empirical knowledge is limited to subjects' experiences, and logical knowledge depends upon axioms. So we can be more responsible than stones but less responsible than hypothetical omniscient beings. The degree to which an individual is morally responsible for their actions is set by their reason and knowledge, and even social laws agree ,to a degree depending on the regime, with that.

Therefore human will is relatively free compared with the will of a rolling stone or even the will of a trotting wolf. But human will is not absolutely free in the libertarian sense.

Social laws , at a stage in their evolution, are embedded in religious myth and morality.This fact does not mean the laws are bad. What it means is that religious myth and morality is founded upon the individual as originator of their own actions. I believe Buddhism and perhaps Hinduism and Taoism also are exceptions to that. Certainly the Abrahamic religions depend for their moral codes upon libertarian Free Will and that is why the earlier versions of the Biblical God are punitive. Later versions are more liberal taking into account the intentions of the sinner, and Jesus is the most liberal.

In modern times the scientific enlightenment has given such a boost to determinism that libertarian Free Will as a basis for punishing crimes, lacking an omniscient judge,is nothing but an unfortunate necessity .

Belindi wrote: ↑June 27th, 2021, 4:33 am Each and every event necessarily happened or will happen....

Unlike stones men can reason and acquire knowledge....

So we can be more responsible than stones but less responsible than hypothetical omniscient beings.

Without further explanation, I find it impossible to reconcile these statements.

If everything necessarily happens, and everything that doesn't happen necessarily doesn't happen, then the reasoning that men employ and the knowledge that they acquire, and the reasoning that they don't employ and the knowledge that they don't acquire, is "set in stone," if you will.

How can anyone be "responsible" if everything he thinks and does, everything he is capable or incapable of thinking and doing, is inevitable? If everything that he thinks and does was already determined before he was born? What does "responsibility" mean in that view of things?

BobS wrote: ↑June 27th, 2021, 10:30 am How can anyone be "responsible" if everything he thinks and does, everything he is capable or incapable of thinking and doing, is inevitable? If everything that he thinks and does was already determined before he was born? What does "responsibility" mean in that view of things?

This last comment, by the way, is fully consistent with Caruso's (and the Netherlands legislature's?) position, since he explicitly states that no one has any moral responsibility.

What I meant to add, in order to complete the circle, was this:

Likewise, how does it make sense to speak of "fairness", if anything anyone thinks or does, if anything he is capable or incapable of thinking or doing, is inevitable? It seems to me that for the very reason that he scorns moral responsibility, the committed determinist should also abandon the concept of "fairness."

As indicated in my initial message on this topic, I'm always struck by how many determinists attack the idea of basing a criminal justice system on, among other things, the concept of moral responsibility, and then propose, as an alternative, what they consider a (more) "moral" system. I have yet to see an even remotely persuasive demonstration that that's in any way consistent.

BobS wrote: ↑June 27th, 2021, 10:30 am

Belindi wrote: ↑June 27th, 2021, 4:33 am Each and every event necessarily happened or will happen....

Unlike stones men can reason and acquire knowledge....

So we can be more responsible than stones but less responsible than hypothetical omniscient beings.

Without further explanation, I find it impossible to reconcile these statements.

If everything necessarily happens, and everything that doesn't happen necessarily doesn't happen, then the reasoning that men employ and the knowledge that they acquire, and the reasoning that they don't employ and the knowledge that they don't acquire, is "set in stone," if you will.

How can anyone be "responsible" if everything he thinks and does, everything he is capable or incapable of thinking and doing, is inevitable? If everything that he thinks and does was already determined before he was born? What does "responsibility" mean in that view of things?

It would be impossible to be responsible if we knew everything about the past and the future. Fortunately we don't. We know only a few of the effects of our choices. It is our responsibility to know as many as we possibly can know of the effects of our choices. However even the most respected choices of the most respected individuals may be bad choices if the whole of reality be known. We can only do our best when we choose and choose we must until we die. Our best never implies omniscience.

Belindi wrote: ↑June 28th, 2021, 5:00 am It would be impossible to be responsible if we knew everything about the past and the future. Fortunately we don't. We know only a few of the effects of our choices. It is our responsibility to know as many as we possibly can know of the effects of our choices. However even the most respected choices of the most respected individuals may be bad choices if the whole of reality be known. We can only do our best when we choose and choose we must until we die. Our best never implies omniscience.

Two points here.

First, Caruso and you obviously are not on the same page, since he rejects the concept of moral responsibility¹ and you don't. Thus your position lies outside my original observation: that it was striking how many determinists attack the idea of retributive justice that is based on moral responsibility, but then use the language of morality by supporting their position on the ground of "fairness."

Second, moving on to whatever your concept of moral responsibility may be (you haven't said), I'm not seeing how omniscience or lack of it enters into the picture.

Consider again Caruso's statement of determinism (if you disagree with it, please say so): "The thesis that at any given time only one future is physically possible." Now, it surely is true that, from a subjective standpoint, things that we call "choices" go on in people's brains. That is, it does seem to us that we make choices. But the determinist viewpoint is that "at any given time only one ['choice'] is physically possible," and that's true regardless of whether the "chooser" has incomplete information or is omniscient. In either case, where's the "moral responsibility" behind a "choice" that has been inevitable since the beginning of time?


¹I don't want to be unfair to Caruso. I haven't read anything of his other that Just Deserts, so for all I know he believes in moral responsibility when he's not talking about the justice system. But if he does, then I'd find it rather odd, if not contradictory, that he rejects the concept only when talking about criminals.

Belindi wrote: ↑June 28th, 2021, 5:00 am

BobS wrote: ↑June 27th, 2021, 10:30 am

Belindi wrote: ↑June 27th, 2021, 4:33 am Each and every event necessarily happened or will happen....

Unlike stones men can reason and acquire knowledge....

So we can be more responsible than stones but less responsible than hypothetical omniscient beings.

Without further explanation, I find it impossible to reconcile these statements.

If everything necessarily happens, and everything that doesn't happen necessarily doesn't happen, then the reasoning that men employ and the knowledge that they acquire, and the reasoning that they don't employ and the knowledge that they don't acquire, is "set in stone," if you will.

How can anyone be "responsible" if everything he thinks and does, everything he is capable or incapable of thinking and doing, is inevitable? If everything that he thinks and does was already determined before he was born? What does "responsibility" mean in that view of things?

It would be impossible to be responsible if we knew everything about the past and the future. Fortunately we don't. We know only a few of the effects of our choices. It is our responsibility to know as many as we possibly can know of the effects of our choices. However even the most respected choices of the most respected individuals may be bad choices if the whole of reality be known. We can only do our best when we choose and choose we must until we die. Our best never implies omniscience.

I completely agree that choices lead to responsibility. Not the illusion of choice in a determined or pre-determined universe, but true choice.

LuckyR wrote:

I completely agree that choices lead to responsibility. Not the illusion of choice in a determined or pre-determined universe, but true choice.

But choosing is what animals do so there is no such thing as "true choice". However I know what you mean .

1.Let's aside my minor objection. I think what you are calling "true choice" I call "Free Will".True, the capital letters are eccentric but I use those because Free Will was originally a religious doctrine.The religious doctrine of Free Will is needed for the administration of justice. Unless an individual can be blamed he, she, or it cannot be blamed and hence punished . Unless he, she, or it can be blamed and punished there can be no deterrent.

In modern times we know from science that human moral development goes through the stage of obedience through fear of reprisals. Obviously some individuals never progress beyond this stage, never attain the stage of autonomously caring for all others. Political regimes vary between helping all individuals towards moral autonomy , and remaining at the stage of obedience through fear of blame.

2. Free Will can't exist because we know people cannot help their involuntary behaviours. We also know that so-called mental or emotional illnesses are caused behaviours i.e. these illnesses are involuntary.
So we know that immoral and/or criminal behaviour is caused by preceding and contemporary events. Unless a behaviour is involuntary e.g. digestion , or so-so such as tardive dyskinaesia, the behaviour is voluntary. It's unsafe to claim volition (choosing)is proof of the existence of Free Will, as there are causes of voluntary behaviours . These are causes that are outwith the subject's control such as early years training and education, material poverty, emotional poverty, and subsequent life events that impact on learning. Willed behaviour is willed due to predisposing or contemporaneous causes and even laws of nature.There is no minute gap in the vast chaos of events where ghostly Free Will can exist and exert power.

Belindi wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 5:21 am LuckyR wrote:

I completely agree that choices lead to responsibility. Not the illusion of choice in a determined or pre-determined universe, but true choice.

But choosing is what animals do so there is no such thing as "true choice". However I know what you mean .

1.Let's aside my minor objection. I think what you are calling "true choice" I call "Free Will".True, the capital letters are eccentric but I use those because Free Will was originally a religious doctrine.The religious doctrine of Free Will is needed for the administration of justice. Unless an individual can be blamed he, she, or it cannot be blamed and hence punished . Unless he, she, or it can be blamed and punished there can be no deterrent.

In modern times we know from science that human moral development goes through the stage of obedience through fear of reprisals. Obviously some individuals never progress beyond this stage, never attain the stage of autonomously caring for all others. Political regimes vary between helping all individuals towards moral autonomy , and remaining at the stage of obedience through fear of blame.

2. Free Will can't exist because we know people cannot help their involuntary behaviours. We also know that so-called mental or emotional illnesses are caused behaviours i.e. these illnesses are involuntary.
So we know that immoral and/or criminal behaviour is caused by preceding and contemporary events. Unless a behaviour is involuntary e.g. digestion , or so-so such as tardive dyskinaesia, the behaviour is voluntary. It's unsafe to claim volition (choosing)is proof of the existence of Free Will, as there are causes of voluntary behaviours . These are causes that are outwith the subject's control such as early years training and education, material poverty, emotional poverty, and subsequent life events that impact on learning. Willed behaviour is willed due to predisposing or contemporaneous causes and even laws of nature.There is no minute gap in the vast chaos of events where ghostly Free Will can exist and exert power.

A couple of things:

You cite the role of science in understanding the influence of known factors on behavior, which is true... for groups, not for individuals.

Bottom line, are folks (criminally) responsible for their actions? I am asking philosophically, not legally.

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 2:59 am

Belindi wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 5:21 am LuckyR wrote:

I completely agree that choices lead to responsibility. Not the illusion of choice in a determined or pre-determined universe, but true choice.

But choosing is what animals do so there is no such thing as "true choice". However I know what you mean .

1.Let's aside my minor objection. I think what you are calling "true choice" I call "Free Will".True, the capital letters are eccentric but I use those because Free Will was originally a religious doctrine.The religious doctrine of Free Will is needed for the administration of justice. Unless an individual can be blamed he, she, or it cannot be blamed and hence punished . Unless he, she, or it can be blamed and punished there can be no deterrent.

In modern times we know from science that human moral development goes through the stage of obedience through fear of reprisals. Obviously some individuals never progress beyond this stage, never attain the stage of autonomously caring for all others. Political regimes vary between helping all individuals towards moral autonomy , and remaining at the stage of obedience through fear of blame.

2. Free Will can't exist because we know people cannot help their involuntary behaviours. We also know that so-called mental or emotional illnesses are caused behaviours i.e. these illnesses are involuntary.
So we know that immoral and/or criminal behaviour is caused by preceding and contemporary events. Unless a behaviour is involuntary e.g. digestion , or so-so such as tardive dyskinaesia, the behaviour is voluntary. It's unsafe to claim volition (choosing)is proof of the existence of Free Will, as there are causes of voluntary behaviours . These are causes that are outwith the subject's control such as early years training and education, material poverty, emotional poverty, and subsequent life events that impact on learning. Willed behaviour is willed due to predisposing or contemporaneous causes and even laws of nature.There is no minute gap in the vast chaos of events where ghostly Free Will can exist and exert power.

A couple of things:

You cite the role of science in understanding the influence of known factors on behavior, which is true... for groups, not for individuals.

Bottom line, are folks (criminally) responsible for their actions? I am asking philosophically, not legally.

I've never understood the objection about responsibility.
You can happily eject free will and still prosecute and punish, for the simply reason that the mechanisms of the law are designed to change behaviour. That is why prisons were called "correctional" since it was thought that incarceration would CAUSE a change in behaviour.
When you punish a person, you are punishing them for who they are, and not so much what they have done.
Free will or determinism, the mind makes a choice. A mind that does not ignore the consequences, does not do the crime.
If the world were really a free will world then punishment would not make a difference; it would be useless if, despite the threat of punishment people were free to commit crime.
Personally I think that the penal system would work much better if policy makers were determinists since they would be likely to make more efforts to rehabilitate.
Perhaps the reason why American prisons are the worst in the western world is because the US seems to fetishise free will and think that nothing good can every come of a person who freely choose to commit crime.
The Scandinavian model works much better because prisons are more than just a cage.

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 2:59 am

Belindi wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 5:21 am LuckyR wrote:

I completely agree that choices lead to responsibility. Not the illusion of choice in a determined or pre-determined universe, but true choice.

But choosing is what animals do so there is no such thing as "true choice". However I know what you mean .

1.Let's aside my minor objection. I think what you are calling "true choice" I call "Free Will".True, the capital letters are eccentric but I use those because Free Will was originally a religious doctrine.The religious doctrine of Free Will is needed for the administration of justice. Unless an individual can be blamed he, she, or it cannot be blamed and hence punished . Unless he, she, or it can be blamed and punished there can be no deterrent.

In modern times we know from science that human moral development goes through the stage of obedience through fear of reprisals. Obviously some individuals never progress beyond this stage, never attain the stage of autonomously caring for all others. Political regimes vary between helping all individuals towards moral autonomy , and remaining at the stage of obedience through fear of blame.

2. Free Will can't exist because we know people cannot help their involuntary behaviours. We also know that so-called mental or emotional illnesses are caused behaviours i.e. these illnesses are involuntary.
So we know that immoral and/or criminal behaviour is caused by preceding and contemporary events. Unless a behaviour is involuntary e.g. digestion , or so-so such as tardive dyskinaesia, the behaviour is voluntary. It's unsafe to claim volition (choosing)is proof of the existence of Free Will, as there are causes of voluntary behaviours . These are causes that are outwith the subject's control such as early years training and education, material poverty, emotional poverty, and subsequent life events that impact on learning. Willed behaviour is willed due to predisposing or contemporaneous causes and even laws of nature.There is no minute gap in the vast chaos of events where ghostly Free Will can exist and exert power.

A couple of things:

You cite the role of science in understanding the influence of known factors on behavior, which is true... for groups, not for individuals.

Bottom line, are folks (criminally) responsible for their actions? I am asking philosophically, not legally.

What I cited was actually findings of science which are true for individuals. An individual child may be examined by an educational psychologist who finds her lack of progress in the school system is due to her mother's alcoholism while pregnant; plus the unkindness of parents ;plus poor provision for homework in an overcrowded slum.There's nothing to be discovered that the individual child is responsible for and plenty of causes for her behaviours none of which are attributable to her putative 'Free Will'. A causally -linked narrative may be told about any criminal, hero, or saint.

Your second question does not make enough sense for me to answer it. I'd rather you had asked "Bottom line, ought folks to be held to be (criminally) responsible for their actions?"Sadly they ought to be held to be criminally responsible: social control is good: we seem to be unable to get rid of the causes of crime .

Getting rid of the causes of crime is causally linked to reduction of criminality in individuals and in a society.
That claim applies to a liberal democracy. The American prison system shows that the USA is not a liberal democracy. I hope that President Biden will get rid of many causes of crime.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 4:44 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 2:59 am

Belindi wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 5:21 am LuckyR wrote:

I completely agree that choices lead to responsibility. Not the illusion of choice in a determined or pre-determined universe, but true choice.

But choosing is what animals do so there is no such thing as "true choice". However I know what you mean .

1.Let's aside my minor objection. I think what you are calling "true choice" I call "Free Will".True, the capital letters are eccentric but I use those because Free Will was originally a religious doctrine.The religious doctrine of Free Will is needed for the administration of justice. Unless an individual can be blamed he, she, or it cannot be blamed and hence punished . Unless he, she, or it can be blamed and punished there can be no deterrent.

In modern times we know from science that human moral development goes through the stage of obedience through fear of reprisals. Obviously some individuals never progress beyond this stage, never attain the stage of autonomously caring for all others. Political regimes vary between helping all individuals towards moral autonomy , and remaining at the stage of obedience through fear of blame.

2. Free Will can't exist because we know people cannot help their involuntary behaviours. We also know that so-called mental or emotional illnesses are caused behaviours i.e. these illnesses are involuntary.
So we know that immoral and/or criminal behaviour is caused by preceding and contemporary events. Unless a behaviour is involuntary e.g. digestion , or so-so such as tardive dyskinaesia, the behaviour is voluntary. It's unsafe to claim volition (choosing)is proof of the existence of Free Will, as there are causes of voluntary behaviours . These are causes that are outwith the subject's control such as early years training and education, material poverty, emotional poverty, and subsequent life events that impact on learning. Willed behaviour is willed due to predisposing or contemporaneous causes and even laws of nature.There is no minute gap in the vast chaos of events where ghostly Free Will can exist and exert power.

A couple of things:

You cite the role of science in understanding the influence of known factors on behavior, which is true... for groups, not for individuals.

Bottom line, are folks (criminally) responsible for their actions? I am asking philosophically, not legally.

I've never understood the objection about responsibility.
You can happily eject free will and still prosecute and punish, for the simply reason that the mechanisms of the law are designed to change behaviour. That is why prisons were called "correctional" since it was thought that incarceration would CAUSE a change in behaviour.
When you punish a person, you are punishing them for who they are, and not so much what they have done.
Free will or determinism, the mind makes a choice. A mind that does not ignore the consequences, does not do the crime.
If the world were really a free will world then punishment would not make a difference; it would be useless if, despite the threat of punishment people were free to commit crime.
Personally I think that the penal system would work much better if policy makers were determinists since they would be likely to make more efforts to rehabilitate.
Perhaps the reason why American prisons are the worst in the western world is because the US seems to fetishise free will and think that nothing good can every come of a person who freely choose to commit crime.
The Scandinavian model works much better because prisons are more than just a cage.

You accurately point out one true thing: the US penal system is an extremely easy punching bag to hit.

Scandinavian prisons have the advantage of being full of scandanavians. Apples and oranges.

I whole-heartedly agree with you that we all and for the purposes of this thread, criminals (or potential criminals) make choices, thus I believe in responsibility and punishment.

I am glad to hear you believe in choices as well as changing future behavior since that too involves decision making (choice).

Belindi wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 5:44 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 30th, 2021, 2:59 am

Belindi wrote: ↑June 29th, 2021, 5:21 am LuckyR wrote:

I completely agree that choices lead to responsibility. Not the illusion of choice in a determined or pre-determined universe, but true choice.

But choosing is what animals do so there is no such thing as "true choice". However I know what you mean .

1.Let's aside my minor objection. I think what you are calling "true choice" I call "Free Will".True, the capital letters are eccentric but I use those because Free Will was originally a religious doctrine.The religious doctrine of Free Will is needed for the administration of justice. Unless an individual can be blamed he, she, or it cannot be blamed and hence punished . Unless he, she, or it can be blamed and punished there can be no deterrent.

In modern times we know from science that human moral development goes through the stage of obedience through fear of reprisals. Obviously some individuals never progress beyond this stage, never attain the stage of autonomously caring for all others. Political regimes vary between helping all individuals towards moral autonomy , and remaining at the stage of obedience through fear of blame.

2. Free Will can't exist because we know people cannot help their involuntary behaviours. We also know that so-called mental or emotional illnesses are caused behaviours i.e. these illnesses are involuntary.
So we know that immoral and/or criminal behaviour is caused by preceding and contemporary events. Unless a behaviour is involuntary e.g. digestion , or so-so such as tardive dyskinaesia, the behaviour is voluntary. It's unsafe to claim volition (choosing)is proof of the existence of Free Will, as there are causes of voluntary behaviours . These are causes that are outwith the subject's control such as early years training and education, material poverty, emotional poverty, and subsequent life events that impact on learning. Willed behaviour is willed due to predisposing or contemporaneous causes and even laws of nature.There is no minute gap in the vast chaos of events where ghostly Free Will can exist and exert power.

A couple of things:

You cite the role of science in understanding the influence of known factors on behavior, which is true... for groups, not for individuals.

Bottom line, are folks (criminally) responsible for their actions? I am asking philosophically, not legally.

What I cited was actually findings of science which are true for individuals. An individual child may be examined by an educational psychologist who finds her lack of progress in the school system is due to her mother's alcoholism while pregnant; plus the unkindness of parents ;plus poor provision for homework in an overcrowded slum.There's nothing to be discovered that the individual child is responsible for and plenty of causes for her behaviours none of which are attributable to her putative 'Free Will'. A causally -linked narrative may be told about any criminal, hero, or saint.

Your second question does not make enough sense for me to answer it. I'd rather you had asked "Bottom line, ought folks to be held to be (criminally) responsible for their actions?"Sadly they ought to be held to be criminally responsible: social control is good: we seem to be unable to get rid of the causes of crime .

Getting rid of the causes of crime is causally linked to reduction of criminality in individuals and in a society.
That claim applies to a liberal democracy. The American prison system shows that the USA is not a liberal democracy. I hope that President Biden will get rid of many causes of crime.

Well the reason I mentioned groups and not individuals is that while psychologist A can evaluate a child and list maternal alcoholism, psychologist B might cite lead paint on the walls of the apartment. Who's correct? No one knows. That is not science determining the cause, that is science describing what is. However if you repeat the exercise thousands of times a statistician can accurately tell you the relative influence of alcoholism vs lead pain vs genetics for the group.

I agree with you that folks ought to be criminally responsible. As we all know no one can eliminate sociopathy, which is a major contributor to criminal behavior.