Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How does this direction relate to the OPIf it was I would have titled the thread accordingly.
Is the justice system superficial? I don't think so. The question is only whether you think it can be improved. Read the article and let me know.
Nope, that won't tell us much. Here's a better design:The experiment is this: Get as many people together as you consider worthwhile. Use whatever controls you think necessary.
1. Ask them to give an example of an event without a cause.
2. Ask them for a decision they made that wasn't determined by anything at all.
3. Ask them if deciding to walk to the fridge is an example of free will.
It's a practical extension. If we have no free will then how does it affect our sense of morality and how do we apportion praise and blame. What effect does it have on our system of justice. In fact, what effect does it have on our sense of justice.How does this direction relate to the OP
I thought you were leaving the thread. At least the last three times you said so (or is it 4?).Nope, that won't tell us much.
there are no practical extensions of determinism. You're just rebranding utilitarianism (and now trying to pull back). In a deterministic worldview morality, praise, blame, justice, etc... have the same fate as free will. The only way to inject purpose where things like justice and morality make sense is through theistic determinism. theistic determinism differs because an outsider may disrupt the natural order to allow for better outcomes because only an outsider is immune to deterministic paradoxes and can alter the outcomes. So rather than one cause begetting all causes it is a continuous interaction that allows causes to go in guided directions and is the only logical source of purpose. The whole premise of the Christian concept of being "born-again" is dying to self and being resurrected or "born again" with new purpose and guidance. This describes a disruption event where a cause's trajectory is altered and would be impossible with natural determinism as causes are locked in place and no insider can alter their direction even with a utilitarian outlook. only theistic determinism would allow for such a change. Failing this, in a deterministic vacuum, it is arbitrary to discuss things like justice and morality when they are just illusions.It's a practical extension. If we have no free will then how does it affect our sense of morality and how do we apportion praise and blame. What effect does it have on our system of justice. In fact, what effect does it have on our sense of justice.
See upstream for my views. Comment on them as you see fit.
No it doesn't.It's all relative, sir. See, even science supports theology.
Wrong board, wrong thread.Because once someone acknowledges that the DNA sequence is not random, then it leads to an intelligent design. Which then leads to free-will, creation, morals, reasoning and so forth.
Space is space. Space is not matter. Darkness is not "dark matter". Darkness is a lack of light you can see. You clearly do NOT know what dark matter. It is still the wrong board and wrong thread.Dark matter is not space? What do you see when you look up? All that darkness.
I pounce on wrongness. You were wrong multiple times about science in the same post. It was also off topic.I was having a discussion with someone you jump into this, right?
I fee like I am repeating myself.Same reply to what I wrote above this.
There is no evidence of this.Exactly they exist regardless of us. Because they are not from us or created by us, but created by God the designer of it all. But God gave the faculties to see them; understand some of them, but not all of them. Reasoning and intellect are not random acts, but created and given.
Hawking also thought your god wasn't real. Do you consider *that* opinion to be unbiased? Hawking was not a biologist, you are not, I am not. This board is not for biology discussions. The thread is about Free Will. Are you interested in that at all?Well I do care. Because he is not a Christians so he presents an unbiased conclusion.
I login to see if there's a new thread in this forum that interests me. Finding none, I never tire of pointing out just how this one is nonsense.I thought you were leaving the thread. At least the last three times you said so (or is it 4?).
Reason: it's just a nonsense question; it's not what you claim.... if anyone thinks that they have made a decision with no antecedent conditions ... 700 posts and nobody has done so yet.
there are no practical extensions of determinism. You're just rebranding utilitarianism (and now trying to pull back). In a deterministic worldview morality, praise, blame, justice, etc... have the same fate as free will. The only way to inject purpose where things like justice and morality make sense is through theistic determinism. theistic determinism differs because an outsider may disrupt the natural order to allow for better outcomes because only an outsider is immune to deterministic paradoxes and can alter the outcomes. So rather than one cause begetting all causes it is a continuous interaction that allows causes to go in guided directions and is the only logical source of purpose. The whole premise of the Christian concept of being "born-again" is dying to self and being resurrected or "born again" with new purpose and guidance. This describes a disruption event where a cause's trajectory is altered and would be impossible with natural determinism as causes are locked in place and no insider can alter their direction even with a utilitarian outlook. only theistic determinism would allow for such a change. Failing this, in a deterministic vacuum, it is arbitrary to discuss things like justice and morality when they are just illusions.
To establish deterrents against bad behavior.....
The question is pretty simple for anyone arguing hard determinism....
Why punish anyone at all?
.....
To establish deterrents against bad behavior.
That's exactly the idea. If someone is continually violent then society needs to be protected from him (I'll assume a male). So we both agree with that.
Sure. But we are human and keeping emotions out of it is tough, right? But I'll try.It was a very emotional response. So let's keep emotion out of it and address it rationally.
The person is locked up. Primarily to protect society. And also as a deterrent to others. We're agreeing so far. Now do you think that we should try to rehabilitate the guy? So that when he is eventually released he is less likely to commit a violent act? I'll assume that you agree with that. The question then becomes how much time and effort we put into rehabilitation programs.
Thanks for the receipts. I love researching data to support programs and successes and losses.The recidivism rates in most countries is depressing. But there is one country that leads the world in keeping the percentage of criminals who re-offend as low as possible. From here: Rehabilitation Lessons from Norway's Prison System.
'In the 1990’s, Norway had a problem. Roughly 70% of all released prisoners recommitted crimes within two years of release. That rate is nearly equal to the recidivism rate in the United States today.
At that time, Norway’s prison system was structured similar to the prison system in the United States. It was built on the idea that punishment is a deterrent. Prisoners were often given lengthy sentences in harsh conditions to send a message to others.
However, Norwegian lawmakers realized that the existing system wasn’t working. Crime was high, as was recidivism. Prisons were plagued with assaults, riots, and escapes. The system needed reform.
Sorry, but I don't see it, because the numbers do not reflect the low-level petty crooks with the major monster that should never be let out again.Norway’s government acted boldly, completely overhauling the country’s prison system. Today, Norway's prison system has become a model for the rest of the world, and some states in the U.S. are following Norway’s lead.'
The rate now is around 20%. It's obvious that Norway's citizenry is now a lot safer than it was. I'd like to think that you'd prefer that to be the case in the US. But they treat their prisoners a lot better than you do. So the question for you is: Would you prefer better conditions if it resulted in a safer outcome or harsher conditions as retribution?
Give the article a quick look and let me know what you think.
Someone else might like to discuss that with you. I'm going to excuse myself. But you are still free to comment on whether changes to ours system of justice could be considered.there are no practical extensions of determinism. You're just rebranding utilitarianism (and now trying to pull back). In a deterministic worldview morality, praise, blame, justice, etc... have the same fate as free will. The only way to inject purpose where things like justice and morality make sense is through theistic determinism.
You must have a busy day pointing out all the nonsensical threads and posts in this forum.I login to see if there's a new thread in this forum that interests me. Finding none, I never tire of pointing out just how this one is nonsense.
You can see where the thread is going. See the post following this one (and chip in as you see fit). Free will has a significant affect on our positions on ethics and morality. You shouldn't be surprised about that.Let me try to help here. First, we're in the "Ethics and Morality" forum so choices on one's favorite pastry or flavor of ice cream belong in the "Kitchen Sink" forum.
You keep making the same mistakes. At least this one is slightly different.Secondly, you make the absolute claim that all human moral choices are determined, ie., there is no human agency in the moment, one could not do otherwise. Others claim that while externalities/biology may influence but they do not determine choice.
So, the question you must answer is: Show us a novel moral decision that did not involve reflective thinking. Good luck.
It is a tough gig, isn't it.Sure. But we are human and keeping emotions out of it is tough, right? But I'll try.
Well, by definition you can't rehabilitate someone who refuses to be rehabilitated. And if someone refuses to participate or he does and we are convinced he's not rehabilitated, then we keep them locked up (the question of length of sentence then enters the picture and I have heard an argument that someone stays locked up until we are convinced of that, whatever the crime. But there should be a reasonable deterrent. So you get a few months for stealing a car, and a few years for causing a death).I disagree, here's why. First, you can't rehab someone who doesn't want to. And Second, habitual career criminals who lived a life time doing crimes, drugs, rapes, murders, child molesters will say they want to, but will not change.
Criminals must be punished as I've already agreed. It's what we do while they are incarcerated is the question. How is that time best utilised? And we often do take mitigating circumstances into account for crimes. That's part of the justice system already. I don't want to change that.Actions must have consequences. Criminals who prey on victims must be punished, correct? Or what message is being sent? Is it okay to commit crimes and only face being rehabilitation? Is a slap the hand the answer because they had a rough childhood?
What we could do is look at systems that spend minimal amounts of time and effort and money at rehabilitation and ones that do. Luckily we have those examples. And we can see the results. It definitely appears to work in Norway. You do seem to be taking an emotional position on this - which I agree is difficult not to do. So what we could do is ask the victims themselves what they think. See here: https://www.allianceforsafetyandjus...ds/documents/Crime Survivors Speak Report.pdfBut should we not be tough on pedophiles, murders, rapists and the such? Should prison life be as pleasant as possible for them? Because if we are tough on them they can't be rehabilitated?
Under a deterministic vacuum it's arbitrary to consider justice. It is an illusion like every other purpose driven choice. Call it what you will and we can zoom out to more abstract levels if you're uncomfortable with specifics but you must conceed the only possibility of purpose to be injected into derterminism, where we can consider things like justice, is by way of outside influence.Someone else might like to discuss that with you. I'm going to excuse myself. But you are still free to comment on whether changes to ours system of justice could be considered.
We still have choices. I'll assume that you'd be the type of guy that would want things to improve. That doesn't change whether you have free will or not. If you do, then you'll make decisions to try to improve the justice system (assuming that you'd want to). And the same would happen if you had no free will.Under a deterministic vacuum it's arbitrary to consider justice. It is an illusion like every other purpose driven choice. Call it what you will and we can zoom out to more abstract levels if you're uncomfortable with specifics but you must conceed the only possibility of purpose to be injected into derterminism, where we can consider things like justice, is by way of outside influence.
We still have choices.
Free will is the ability to make a choice. Under determinism choice is an illusion and is just a harmony of causes that lead to a given direction that we call "choice". How we feel about it however is arbratary to the outcome regardless what terminology you use.We still have choices. I'll assume that you'd be the type of guy that would want things to improve. That doesn't change whether you have free will or not. If you do, then you'll make decisions to try to improve the justice system (assuming that you'd want to). And the same would happen if you had no free will.
People run around suggesting all manner of dire consequences should we think (or realise in my case) that we don't have free will. But very little changes. Except with our views on blame and praise. And how that impacts, for example, justice.
Thanks for agreeing with me here.It is a tough gig, isn't it.
Well, by definition you can't rehabilitate someone who refuses to be rehabilitated. And if someone refuses to participate or he does and we are convinced he's not rehabilitated, then we keep them locked up (the question of length of sentence then enters the picture and I have heard an argument that someone stays locked up until we are convinced of that, whatever the crime. But there should be a reasonable deterrent. So you get a few months for stealing a car, and a few years for causing a death).
Anyways, thanks for hearing me out. We both have opposing views and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to one. It's what makes America great. To believe what you believe in.Criminals must be punished as I've already agreed. It's what we do while they are incarcerated is the question. How is that time best utilised? And we often do take mitigating circumstances into account for crimes. That's part of the justice system already. I don't want to change that.
What we could do is look at systems that spend minimal amounts of time and effort and money at rehabilitation and ones that do. Luckily we have those examples. And we can see the results. It definitely appears to work in Norway. You do seem to be taking an emotional position on this - which I agree is difficult not to do. So what we could do is ask the victims themselves what they think. See here: https://www.allianceforsafetyandjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/Crime Survivors Speak Report.pdf
Page 5 is an eye opener. I'll just quote some of the findings, but please check them all out. It'll only take a couple of minutes:
6 in 10 victims prefer shorter prison sentences and more spending on prevention and rehabilitation to prison sentences that keep people incarcerated for as long as possible.
By a margin of nearly 3 to 1, victims believe that prison makes people more likely to commit crimes than to rehabilitate them.
Seven in 10 victims prefer that prosecutors focus on solving neighborhood problems and stopping repeat crimes through rehabilitation, even if it means fewer convictions and prison sentences.
It's seems obvious that the majority of victims themselves would prefer the time and effort and money be redirected to preventing crime and reducing recidivism rather than simply punishing offenders.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?