Free Will

[Neogaia777]

We shouldn't necessarily aproportion blame in our hearts, because that leads to hate and malice in our hearts, etc, but we do still have to sometimes punish with the hopes to correct for the good (and protection) of others, and for the good (and protection) of our societies, etc...

We do what we have to do and what we must do in that area, but we quote/unquote "choose" how we feel about it in our hearts, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps we don't have the free will to other than to punish members of our society as if they had free will.

It seems, perhaps, a bit glib. But two posts (#559) above you imply environment can affect one's actions. Well, if we blame and punish, aren't we creating/changing an environment that might change one's behavior? If we do it right, might that one's new behavior patterns positively affect the survival of the society?

As determined beings, one could say we don't have a choice but to blame/punish.

Punishment serves as a deterrent, as retribution and as incarceration as a means to to protect society. The first, as you say, forms part of the conditions under which we make decisions. We might still want to steal the car but the punishment if caught is too high. So maybe I won't risk it. It could be classed as a preventative measure.

Incarceration works if those you incarcerate are actually a danger to society. The multiple murderer who would certainly kill again is locked up and we're all a little safer. And that is justifiable even if it could be proved that the person was not responsible for his acts.

But retribution? I guess that you could argue that it's deterrent taken to the logical conclusion: We don't just promise to punish you, we will punish you as a deterrent to others.

Maybe that's the answer. Justice is the means whereby we structure the conditions to ensure people don't break the rules. But...the severity of the punishment might not then be just in each case. It's like the millionaire who parks his car wherever he wants because the fines are loose change to him. And a year's jail would certainly deter me from most things but the alternate me from the slum? I might shrug my shoulders and take it in my stride.

So perhaps the question is not whether justice itself needs to be addressed in repect to conditions outside of our control, but the individual severity of that justice.

 

[Neogaia777]

Punishment serves as a deterrent, as retribution and as incarceration as a means to to protect society. The first, as you say, forms part of the conditions under which we make decisions. We might still want to steal the car but the punishment if caught is too high. So maybe I won't risk it. It could be classed as a preventative measure.

Incarceration works if those you incarcerate are actually a danger to society. The multiple murderer who would certainly kill again is locked up and we're all a little safer. And that is justifiable even if it could be proved that the person was not responsible for his acts.

But retribution? I guess that you could argue that it's deterrent taken to the logical conclusion: We don't just promise to punish you, we will punish you as a deterrent to others.

Maybe that's the answer. Justice is the means whereby we structure the conditions to ensure people don't break the rules. But...the severity of the punishment might not then be just in each case. It's like the millionaire who parks his car wherever he wants because the fines are loose change to him. And a year's jail would certainly deter me from most things but the alternate me from the slum? I might shrug my shoulders and take it in my stride.

So perhaps the question is not whether justice itself needs to be addressed in repect to conditions outside of our control, but the individual severity of that justice.

Custom tailoring justice to each one's upbringing or individual circumstances might be beyond our capabilities to do totally 100% justly or correctly right now, etc...?

I do think it is how God judges in the end though...

I am talking about the God who didn't always know it in this instance though, etc...

He finds/found it out first to reveal to the rest of us in the judgement, etc...

Why certain people were the way they were, or had to go here or there, etc, etc, etc...

I suspect that the ultimate judgement for those who go there (or are only for forever here, etc) is that they they were just never ever meant to go beyond here, and there is no malice or because's beyond that they were just never made to go beyond here, etc...

But we will find out what made each one "different", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Tinker Grey]

So perhaps the question is not whether justice itself needs to be addressed in repect to conditions outside of our control, but the individual severity of that justice.

Sure. Perhaps, I interjected myself and missed some context. But, it seemed to me that the original question (probably I intuited it since it so often is) was whether one can punish (or should, whatever 'should' may mean) if we infer that there is no free will.

So, my answer us that we must in order to shape a society that contributes to the survival of the species. So, of course I agree with you that society needs to make decisions that in and of themselves don't cause society to break down.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't disagree with any of that. But how do we apportion blame when the circumstances often dictate our actions? See my post above for example.

ISTM that you don't need to apportion blame; i.e. there is only (physical) responsibility. Whatever the causes of the transgression, the deed is done and there are then two objectives: to repair the harm and to prevent a recurrence as far as reasonably possible - hopefully in a humane way. Having the transgressor involved in repairing the harm might, in itself, help prevent a recurrence.

Of course, trying to introduce such a system into a typical Western society would be a generationally slow and incremental process... I wouldn't start from here

ETA: AIUI, the statistics seem to show that punishment is not a very effective deterrent for serious crime; in general, positive reinforcement seems more effective than negative reinforcement.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

I am going to spin this off as another thread, because this topic might have a mind of its own.


Regarding free will, it is molecules that do the thinking. Since those molecules together make up a person, Daniel Dennet says that we, that is, the physical collection of matter that makes up our brains, choose to do things and are free to do what "we" want. Sam Harris, for instance, would not call that free will. But I think both are essentially saying the same thing: Molecules form our brains, and that mind that comes as a result of that mass of matter between our ears is free to do what it chooses. Whether we should call that free will is a question of semantics.

Regardless, our molecules are running the show. They create the illusion after the fact that there is a consciousness in charge. But that consciousness actually occurs a split second after the fact, so that consciousness is not in charge.

None of that removes responsibility. I am still the same me, regardless of whether I am made up of atom-stuff, consciousness-stuff, or soul-stuff. Either way, if that stuff inside me were to choose to act in unacceptable ways, then the resulting me would need to take responsibility for that decision.

Do other animals have free will? Ask my dog. It is clear to me that he had a mind of his own and choose to do what he wanted to do when he wanted to.

It depends on what you view as in control of them. If it's just the physical brain and not the soul or the mind behind it, I believe the mind behind the brain is in control of our actions and some Christians might call that your soul. Regardless of if you think it's only the physical brain and there is no spirit or the spirit behind the person making the decisions, would you argue that it is not the engine that moves the car but rather the wheels? To separate a car into only the parts and try to define what part actually does the moving I think you should acknowledge the person behind the wheel as making the decision to turn the car on, the car just does what the driver directs it to do.

 

[Bradskii]

Custom tailoring justice to each one's upbringing or individual circumstances might be beyond our capabilities to do totally 100% justly or correctly right now, etc...?

I do think it is how God judges in the end though...

Heaven or hell? I'd say that must be the worst possible case of an unjust system. The adulterer and the mass murderer get the same (eternal) punishment?

 

[Bradskii]

It depends on what you view as in control of them. If it's just the physical brain and not the soul or the mind behind it, I believe the mind behind the brain is in control of our actions and some Christians might call that your soul. Regardless of if you think it's only the physical brain and there is no spirit or the spirit behind the person making the decisions, would you argue that it is not the engine that moves the car but rather the wheels? To separate a car into only the parts and try to define what part actually does the moving I think you should acknowledge the person behind the wheel as making the decision to turn the car on, the car just does what the driver directs it to do.

If the car is the body and the person driving it is the brain, then that seems reasonable. But certainly not if the car is the whole body (including the brain) and the person is the mind or soul.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

If the car is the body and the person driving it is the brain, then that seems reasonable. But certainly not if the car is the whole body (including the brain) and the person is the mind or soul.

Do you believe we have a mind or soul?

 

[Bradskii]

Do you believe we have a mind or soul?

The mind is the conscious operation of the brain. If you define the soul as something separate from either the brain itself or the processes that it runs, then no, we don't have a soul.

 

[Neogaia777]

Heaven or hell? I'd say that must be the worst possible case of an unjust system. The adulterer and the mass murderer get the same (eternal) punishment?

You didn't understand my post #548, did you...

I already expected that not many would, etc...

Where you got that the adulterer and the murderer always get the same punishment in what I said, I do not know, etc...

People will either go to heaven or else quote/unquote "hell" due to the way they were predestined by God the Father from before the beginning of this time here, etc...

Certain people were necessary, and a certain kind of creation/reality was needed, in order for those going beyond here to go beyond here when they are supposed to or when their time is done here, etc...

Those others that were necessary for this only have a limited existence, and unfortunately is only for these kinds of realities here, etc...

I'm a very hard lined determinist to the point that I think everything just repeats itself here much the exact same way as it did (and always does) before here, etc...

So some of us, may be asleep for tens or hundreds of billions of years maybe, but at some point will be brought back into existence here, etc, to repeat the almost same exact, or maybe exactly exact, same kinds of lives that they did before here, etc, and this goes on forever from here, etc, just as it did in other creations from forever prior to here, etc, the main purpose and point being for those who will get to go beyond here, etc...

Those ones who do get to go beyond here, will be united with all their true families, which were all their prior selves prior to here, and when there, will eventually be united with all their other selves (families) that came or would come after them, when they get to there from here, etc...

Don't know if this will make any sense at all to anybody, but there it is, etc...

I don't yet know what the difference will be between those staying here, or those getting to go beyond here, etc, but it will not be anything of their own will or making while they were here, etc...

God Bless!

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

The mind is the conscious operation of the brain. If you define the soul as something separate from either the brain itself or the processes that it runs, then no, we don't have a soul.

I always thought of the mind and soul as the same thing like the consiousness you describe, I guess the only difference is i view the soul as some essence that fill the body, but then you have the spirit as well, it's not something i'm an expert in rather i just always thought we had a mind/soul, spirit and body.

 

[Neogaia777]

You didn't understand my post #548, did you...

I already expected that not many would, etc...

Where you got that the adulterer and the murderer always get the same punishment in what I said, I do not know, etc...

People will either go to heaven or else quote/unquote "hell" due to the way they were predestined by God the Father from before the beginning of this time here, etc...

Certain people were necessary, and a certain kind of creation/reality was needed, in order for those going beyond here to go beyond here when they are supposed to or when their time is done here, etc...

Those others that were necessary for this only have a limited existence, and unfortunately is only for these kinds of realities here, etc...

I'm a very hard lined determinist to the point that I think everything just repeats itself here much the exact same way as it did (and always does) before here, etc...

So some of us, may be asleep for tens or hundreds of billions of years maybe, but at some point will be brought back into existence here, etc, to repeat the almost same exact, or maybe exactly exact, same kinds of lives that they did before here, etc, and this goes on forever from here, etc, just as it did in other creations from forever prior to here, etc, the main purpose and point being for those who will get to go beyond here, etc...

Those ones who do get to go beyond here, will be united with all their true families, which were all their prior selves prior to here, and when there, will eventually be united with all their other selves (families) that came or would come after them, when they get to there from here, etc...

Don't know if this will make any sense at all to anybody, but there it is, etc...

I don't yet know what the difference will be between those staying here, or those getting to go beyond here, etc, but it will not be anything of their own will or making while they were here, etc...

God Bless!

Those ones not getting to go beyond here are not conscious of this each time they repeat an existence here, etc, but only the ones going beyond here get to continue retaining or having a conscious memory that continues on, or continues to be able to be built upon, after getting to go beyond this here, etc...

The others never do, or never get to, etc, like I said, their programs were limited to begin with, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Where you got that the adulterer and the murderer always get the same punishment in what I said, I do not know, etc...

If you sin and you are unrepentant, you go to hell. Whether you have committed adultry or mass murder. I'd say that the majority of Christians believe that.

 

[Neogaia777]

If you sin and you are unrepentant, you go to hell. Whether you have committed adultry or mass murder. I'd say that the majority of Christians believe that.

I'm not among the majority of Christians, I see true justice still be meted out in and throughout most or much of the Bible, etc.

I also think that for any human being to claim to know exactly how God will judge each one absolutely and in every single individual case, to be the very height or epitome of absolute evil, and very great arrogance, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

If you sin and you are unrepentant, you go to hell. Whether you have committed adultry or mass murder. I'd say that the majority of Christians believe that.

And to be fair to other members of Christianity, the majority of them will not most usually say that you have to be absolutely flawless and sinlessly perfect to get into heaven, and will say that those among them who think that, are very much misled, and are greatly missing the point, and are not believing in the one and only true gospel, or what it is you need to truly believe in that saves you, etc...

God Bless!

 

[childeye 2]

This may get a little wooly as I don't accept the term sin to mean anything other than doing something that has negative consequences (and that determination will depend on your relative position when the act is commited).

We're dealing with semantics here. So, the problem I'm going to have in using the definition of sin above to reason upon is that, in the determination, sin can be a positive in the subjective view of one who commits an action that has negative consequences for another, but a positive consequence for themselves. Without an objective meaning for sin such as not loving others as yourself, the term sin cannot be objectively seen as a negative in that it's hypocritical.

Generally, someone will do something that we'd consider wrong - stealing for example, for selfish reasons. I could work harder to earn more money to buy what I want, but stealing it means I personally don't have to put in the effort.

Now if I had been brought up in a loving family, taught how to behave in life (to act 'like a good Christian' as my mother used to say) and I'd hung around with peers that also had been brought up that way then stealing would generally be something I wouldn't do. But if I had been the son of an abusive father, raised by a drug addled single mother in a slum somewhere, then that combo of genes and environment would have me turnout quite differently.

The question is, how much blame or praise can we apportion to the genetic inheritance and environmental conditions of each of those versions of me?

That's a well-formed question, and I liked the binary generalizations. As generalizations I'd think that it's more than fifty percent the environmental conditions that is attributable to behavior, otherwise there wouldn't be any binary generalization. And I would even include the part of the human gene pool we inherit as a part of that environment because those characteristics are in our parents who raise us.

Generally, someone will do something that we'd consider wrong - stealing for example, for selfish reasons. I could work harder to earn more money to buy what I want, but stealing it means I personally don't have to put in the effort.

That is the rationale of the selfish. What is the rationale of the unselfish?

 

[Neogaia777]

And to be fair to other members of Christianity, the majority of them will not most usually say that you have to be absolutely flawless and sinlessly perfect to get into heaven, and will say that those among them who think that, are very much misled, and are greatly missing the point, and are not believing in the one and only true gospel, or what it is you need to truly believe in that saves you, etc...

God Bless!

@Bradskii

The True Gospel (good news/saving knowledge) is only all about what you think about Jesus Christ, and actually does not mention not even one thing about sin, or repentance, in the original Gospel message that all were supposed to originally preach, etc...

I tell people, all people, no matter who they are, or what their sin is, etc, known to them, or not fully known to them at the time, etc, that all and any kind of sin could maybe be a possible risk to your salvation, etc, and I put it just exactly this way, because I do not think anyone absolutely knows for sure just how for sure God is going to judge each one individually absolutely in any kind of future judging, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Chriliman]

I don't disagree with any of that. But how do we apportion blame when the circumstances often dictate our actions? See my post above for example.

By understanding that our own will contributed to said circumstances.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Bradskii

The True Gospel (good news/saving knowledge) is only all about what you think about Jesus Christ, and actually does not mention not even one thing about sin, or repentance, in the original Gospel message that all were supposed to originally preach, etc...

I tell people, all people, no matter who they are, or what their sin is, etc, known to them, or not fully known to them at the time, etc, that all and any kind of sin could maybe be a possible risk to your salvation, etc, and I put it just exactly this way, because I do not think anyone absolutely knows for sure just how for sure God is going to judge each one individually absolutely in any kind of future judging, etc...

God Bless!

@Bradskii

For example, even an atheist who still dies an atheist, for example, his judgement might greatly depend on his exact reasons for why he said all his life that he didn't believe, just as much as it might almost anything else, etc, because nobody knows that one's background, or his upbringing in life, or what he has been through, or maybe what he didn't go through in life, etc, or any other number of innumerable factors, etc, that only God and God alone, can only fully know, and can only 100% truly and justly judge completely, etc...

Way, way too many people think they fully know about this, when they really don't, etc...

In my opinion, they are the ones the most in danger of quote/unquote "hell", etc...

I think a lot of people are going to be very, very shocked, and very, very surprised when that time comes, etc...

I make it my goal and aim in life, not to be counted in among them though...

God Bless!