Is free will real?

[durangodawood]

But then they would be non-compatibilists and not believe in agency.

Well, yes. I'm talking about how our world could look if we determine that agency is not real.

I think we'd still suffer when we're thwarted in what we want to do or be, even though that desire to do or be would be "fated", or not a free-agent choice.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, yes. I'm talking about how our world could look if we determine that agency is not real.

I think we'd still suffer when we're thwarted in what we want to do or be, even though that desire to do or be would be "fated", or not a free-agent choice.

Yeah, we're talking about different hypotheticals altogether. As I was initially saying, the only way you're going to end up with a society where people don't feel at all wronged by those who commit crimes against them is one where the concept of agency has basically disappeared entirely. We'd still want people punished accordingly, and we'd still probably engage in vendettas if they weren't. A society where none of that is happening would be a very alien one. It's that alien dystopia that I've been discussing.

 

[AvisG]

My will is free so long as my decisions aren't compelled by another will.

Obviously, I am a product of genetics, rearing, education, cultural conditioning, life circumstances and other factors. These factors influence my decisions. In some cases, they may almost guarantee I will make a particular decision.

Free will doesn't require that I approach each decision as though I were a tabula rasa and that I have all possible choices available to me.

My will is free and my choice is mine so long as my decision isn't compelled by another will. Efforts to make the free will discussion more complicated are just smoke and mirrors.

How genetics, rearing, cultural conditioning, circumstances and other factors may play into an individual's decision to accept or reject Christ is for God to worry about.

 

[durangodawood]

My will is free so long as my decisions aren't compelled by another will.

Obviously, I am a product of genetics, rearing, education, cultural conditioning, life circumstances and other factors. These factors influence my decisions. In some cases, they may almost guarantee I will make a particular decision.

Free will doesn't require that I approach each decision as though I were a tabula rasa and that I have all possible choices available to me.

My will is free and my choice is mine so long as my decision isn't compelled by another will. Efforts to make the free will discussion more complicated are just smoke and mirrors.

How genetics, rearing, cultural conditioning, circumstances and other factors may play into an individual's decision to accept or reject Christ is for God to worry about.

So are you an originating agent for any decision?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't really think they speak for themselves in any meaningful sense. If the aim of a particular criminal justice system is primarily to reduce incarceration, then the fact that it does so doesn't prove that the underlying theory of justice is sound.

Now, I never said that I favored incarceration for every form of crime. I wouldn't in situations like drug abuse, prostitution, or other contexts where the criminal has been harmed by society to a greater extent than they have themselves harmed society. What I'm defending is the viability of a partially retributive theory of justice, because I don't think the way we approach the notion of justice makes any sense without it.

How would you explain movements like Black Lives Matter without any notion of retribution? How about white collar crime where there is no danger of actual violence? There's really no reason to ever incarcerate corrupt officials or Ponzi schemers if we don't think they have a debt to repay to society. Let them stay in their mansions and have them attend regular therapy sessions and that ought to suffice.

If the objective is to reduce the likelihood of them reoffending, to get reparation, and to rehabilitate them back into the community, I don't see the advantage of retribution. YMMV.

 

[Silmarien]

If the objective is to reduce the likelihood of them reoffending, to get reparation, and to rehabilitate them back into the community, I don't see the advantage of retribution. YMMV.

That's because you've erased the victim entirely from your calculus. If the fact that there's a victim doesn't matter, then obviously there's no need for retribution.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The concept of free will popped up in a discussion I have with @Sanoy. I think it should have its own thread to keep things a little tidy.

Is free will real? Can it be real, given what we know about natural laws? Is it truly possible, philosophically speaking?

There are different conceptions of what free will means. What I mean by it is something like this: the ability to make a choice (or think of something) without that choice being determined by something else. For example, you can use your will to choose pizza over tacos, but is it a free choice? Do you pick one over the other for no reason? Or is it in fact determined by, say, that you just don't happen to like the taste of one of them (which obviously isn't something you freely chose)?

What would be an example of truly free will being exercised?

(Posted in this subforum because it has implications for how we think about morality.)

The question of free will and determinism strikes me as irrelevant. There are several reasons....but here's the main ones.

1. They're unprovable concepts. I can't prove anyone has free will...nor can I time travel to see if someone makes the same choice over and over.

2. They're irrelevant. Some people think determinism reduces morality and responsibility, but having a reason for doing something doesn't change the fact someone did something.

3. The nature of god. Some people think the question of free will changes the nature of their relationship with god...but it really doesn't. There's always been a contradiction between the two ideas in the bible. God insists he's given mankind free will....yet the same people will believe everything happens according to god's "plan". Prophecy really wouldn't exist if free will existed. If someone is just now realizing these contradictions...then their faith has been getting along fine all this time while oblivious to these contradictions.

In short, the question is irrelevant. If that's not a satisfying answer though...I'd say that I think we have free will. For example, I bought eggs at the store today. There's definitely a reason why I bought them...there's also a reason why I bought eggs that expire 3 weeks from now. However, when we consider all the eggs I could have bought with the same expiration date....we hit a sort of rational brick wall. There's literally a dozen other eggs that I could have selected that had the same price, quality, expiration date, and were easily within reach. I can pretend there's a reason...but I would be pretending just to prop up the idea of determinism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you were implicity stipulating for the moment that free will wasnt real because you were extrapolating the implications of holo's no-agency worldview.

But for now I doubt anyone here thinks that the legal system should adopt a no-real-agency philosophy while the rest of the world holds that we do have agency. I certainly dont. But... if we ever get to the point where agency is widely and genuinely regarded as an illusion, then crime victims typically wont feel wronged when we dont "punish the (non-existent) agent".

I'm not as certain as you about the negation of personhood and humanity in a no-agency world. Would the recognition of the illusion destroy our subjective sense of individual identity and desire for life and happiness? I doubt it. And so those would remain as base values in any successful society.

As for me, I do believe that agency is real - even if somewhat less powerful than typically assumed.

I don't think determinism excuses responsibility in any way.

For example ,someone murders someone....and the reasons for why they did this existed before the murder was ever committed. We also have to consider that the murderer also had reason to not murder their victim...and while murder won out, the person committing the murder still bears responsibility for his actions.

 

[AvisG]

So are you an originating agent for any decision?

For any decision I make that isn't compelled by the will of another - yes, I am the originating agent.

For what it's worth in this discussion, I lean toward "open theism." I believe this universe and humanity are essentially an act of creativity by the Creator, not unlike a work of art. I believe humans have absolute libertarian free will, subject to genetics, rearing, circumstances and the other factors I mentioned.

 

[AvisG]

The question of free will and determinism strikes me as irrelevant. There are several reasons....but here's the main ones.

1. They're unprovable concepts. I can't prove anyone has free will...nor can I time travel to see if someone makes the same choice over and over.

2. They're irrelevant. Some people think determinism reduces morality and responsibility, but having a reason for doing something doesn't change the fact someone did something.

3. The nature of god. Some people think the question of free will changes the nature of their relationship with god...but it really doesn't. There's always been a contradiction between the two ideas in the bible. God insists he's given mankind free will....yet the same people will believe everything happens according to god's "plan". Prophecy really wouldn't exist if free will existed. If someone is just now realizing these contradictions...then their faith has been getting along fine all this time while oblivious to these contradictions.

In short, the question is irrelevant. If that's not a satisfying answer though...I'd say that I think we have free will. For example, I bought eggs at the store today. There's definitely a reason why I bought them...there's also a reason why I bought eggs that expire 3 weeks from now. However, when we consider all the eggs I could have bought with the same expiration date....we hit a sort of rational brick wall. There's literally a dozen other eggs that I could have selected that had the same price, quality, expiration date, and were easily within reach. I can pretend there's a reason...but I would be pretending just to prop up the idea of determinism.

To a large extent, you're making the same points as I. Intuitively, just as we know other minds exist, we know perfectly well we have free will. Any discussion beyond what I suggested - I have free will so long as my decisions aren't compelled by another will - just ends up being mental masturbation. If my will isn't "perfectly" free due to genetics, cultural conditioning, circumstances or other factors, this doesn't mean it isn't free - and the effect of those factors is so unknowable as to be not worth discussing.

The "problem" of human free will vis-à-vis God arises mostly out of Anselm's ontological "proof" of God's existence - God is the "greatest conceivable being." Even if I thought that argument were essential, I see no disconnect with a greatest conceivable being exercising his creativity to create a universe of creatures with genuine libertarian free will whose actions and decisions will be unknown to him until the occur.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Another thing to keep in mind, though, is the relation of the individual to society on different systems of justice. That is, how is the autonomy of the individual understood relative to the autonomy of the society? On a strong rehabilitative model the individual is ordered to the society, "societal autonomy" reigns supreme, and the freedoms of the individual are always subordinate to the values and goals of the society. On a strong retributive model the individual and society are more on par with one another, and if the individual breaks a societal law or norm he will need to pay a price, but his autonomy is respected insofar as he is not expected to conform wholesale to the societal will (or to be changed in a deep, internal way so as to be aligned with the societal will).

Obviously a balance needs to be struck, but there are some pretty serious dangers to wholesale rehabilitative systems, especially from an individualistic vantage point. Strangely enough, it is the secular parallel to the "religious" notion of inculcating morality via legislation. It is the secular exception to the claim that morality cannot be legislated. When I see such a strong emphasis on rehabilitation I cannot help but think that sociology has run amok, and that there is a basic transgression against individual autonomy.

I don't think a rehabilitative model need be as controlling as you suggest. The point is to decrease the likelihood of reoffending voluntarily, through education, not infringe their liberties or freedoms. If anything, the reduced rates of incarceration possible under such a system would mean greater overall potential for liberty.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't really think they speak for themselves in any meaningful sense. If the aim of a particular criminal justice system is primarily to reduce incarceration, then the fact that it does so doesn't prove that the underlying theory of justice is sound.

The goal is not to reduce incarceration per se, but to reduce (re)offending.

How would you explain movements like Black Lives Matter without any notion of retribution?

I don't know what you mean here... 'Black Lives Matter' campaigns against violence and systemic racism towards black people; their goal is to eliminate that discrimination. That doesn't imply retribution.

How about white collar crime where there is no danger of actual violence? There's really no reason to ever incarcerate corrupt officials or Ponzi schemers if we don't think they have a debt to repay to society. Let them stay in their mansions and have them attend regular therapy sessions and that ought to suffice.

Of course they have a debt to repay. Rehabilitation and reparation should go hand in hand, and the rehabilitation of victims - whether individual or collective - is part of the process. Incarceration removes the offender from general society while the process proceeds, and if they are cooperative in rehabilitation and make or agree to make whatever reparation the courts decide, they can be freed - if not, they remain incarcerated.

Personally, I find the idea of suffering, endorsed and facilitated by the state, for its own sake, or simply for the satisfaction of those harmed by the subject, to be mistaken, stoking resentment in the punished and encouraging a revenge mentality in the victim(s). OTOH, rehabilitation involving reparation, while it may involve a degree of discomfort, has potential benefits for all.

 

[zippy2006]

If the objective is to reduce the likelihood of them reoffending, to get reparation, and to rehabilitate them back into the community, I don't see the advantage of retribution. YMMV.

Of course they have a debt to repay. Rehabilitation and reparation should go hand in hand...

It's curious to me that you are lumping reparation with rehabilitation. Generally speaking it would be lumped with retribution.

Personally, I find the idea of suffering, endorsed and facilitated by the state, for its own sake, or simply for the satisfaction of those harmed by the subject, to be mistaken, stoking resentment in the punished and encouraging a revenge mentality in the victim(s). OTOH, rehabilitation involving reparation, while it may involve a degree of discomfort, has potential benefits for all.

Why would retribution be problematic but not reparation? Especially given the fact that retribution is often justified precisely on reparative grounds? Your argument here seems arbitrary.

 

[Silmarien]

The goal is not to reduce incarceration per se, but to reduce (re)offending.

Yes, but justice as a concept is far bigger than simply reducing recidivism. You seem to be focusing purely on one aspect of justice, to the exclusion of all others.

I don't know what you mean here... 'Black Lives Matter' campaigns against violence and systemic racism towards black people; their goal is to eliminate that discrimination. That doesn't imply retribution.

One of their grievances is that crimes against them committed by police officers are not taken seriously. This is an area where we can actually see the dark side of rehabilitative justice--if a person in power commits a crime against a disadvantaged person, it's fairly normal for them to not pay a genuine price for it.

This is a very serious problem in sexual abuse and rape cases as well, where there has long been the perception that the society does not take the crime seriously and does not punish perpetrators in an appropriate fashion. If society cannot say that a crime is serious enough that the attacker ought to fulfill a minimum sentence independently of whether they are rehabilitated, that sends the message that the crime itself didn't matter. Especially where young abusers are concerned, and society views them as going through a stage of development that they'll grow out of. Boys will be boys, etc.

I don't see how you can defend an exclusive focus on rehabilitative justice in any society that suffers from serious power imbalances. We already have too much of a problem with the powerful not being held accountable.

Of course they have a debt to repay. Rehabilitation and reparation should go hand in hand, and the rehabilitation of victims - whether individual or collective - is part of the process. Incarceration removes the offender from general society while the process proceeds, and if they are cooperative in rehabilitation and make or agree to make whatever reparation the courts decide, they can be freed - if not, they remain incarcerated.

Personally, I find the idea of suffering, endorsed and facilitated by the state, for its own sake, or simply for the satisfaction of those harmed by the subject, to be mistaken, stoking resentment in the punished and encouraging a revenge mentality in the victim(s). OTOH, rehabilitation involving reparation, while it may involve a degree of discomfort, has potential benefits for all.

If you think criminals have a debt to pay, then you might believe in retributive justice at some level. Unless you think that corrupt officials need only repay whatever they stole, and then attend court mandated classes from the comfort of their mansions, perhaps while under some form of house arrest, though even that strikes me as unnecessary. There is really no legitimate reason to incarcerate them except under a theory of retributive justice, because whatever danger they pose to society could be removed by disbarring them, not allowing them to run for office, etc. Incidentally, I think this also illustrates the problem with rehabilitation that Zippy mentioned: if a white collar criminal can be prevented from causing harm without incarceration, what right would the state have to attempt to rehabilitate them against their will?

A couple of other issues:

1) Retribution doesn't require suffering. We don't need deplorable prison conditions to make it clear that a wrong has been committed and needs to be atoned for.

2) Reparation isn't always possible. Honestly, the idea that a criminal can "restore" the damage done in crimes like rape and murder is more than a little chilling.

3) Revenge mentalities arise just as easily when the victims don't think the state has punished a crime appropriately as when the state goes overboard with excessive retribution. There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why would retribution be problematic but not reparation? Especially given the fact that retribution is often justified precisely on reparative grounds? Your argument here seems arbitrary.

Perhaps it's a question of definitions - my understanding of retribution is punishment inflicted as vengeance (revenge for a wrong); reparation is making amends, making good the damage (to the extent the relevant authorities feel appropriate).

 

[zippy2006]

Perhaps it's a question of definitions - my understanding of retribution is punishment inflicted as vengeance (revenge for a wrong); reparation is making amends, making good the damage (to the extent the relevant authorities feel appropriate).

As I understand it, retributive justice is the basic idea that a crime incurs a penalty; that a criminal deserves punishment. There are different theories as to why this is the case, but it seems to me that reparation falls much more under the notion of retribution than rehabilitation.

To repair a damage really has no necessary connection to rehabilitation. If a thief steals a carrot cake, then making him repay the lost property is not really aimed at rehabilitating his criminal character. On the other hand, reparation does have an affinity with retribution, for if the cake cost $7 the judge may make the criminal pay $9. This is because his act of theft incurs a penalty over and above the simple cost of the cake--the act of theft itself incurs a penalty. This is why the judge makes the fellow who steals a cake pay more than the fellow who accidentally destroys a cake by knocking it over.

(There is also the fact that many retributivists cite some form of payback as a justification for their view, whereas those arguing for rehabilitation do not.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, but justice as a concept is far bigger than simply reducing recidivism. You seem to be focusing purely on one aspect of justice, to the exclusion of all others.

I wasn't intending to present a full analysis of justice systems, just contrasting one important aspect of two different approaches.

One of their grievances is that crimes against them committed by police officers are not taken seriously. This is an area where we can actually see the dark side of rehabilitative justice--if a person in power commits a crime against a disadvantaged person, it's fairly normal for them to not pay a genuine price for it.

It seems to me that's not an implication of rehabilitative justice, but a result of an unjust system. But I guess it depends on what is considered a 'genuine price'.

This is a very serious problem in sexual abuse and rape cases as well, where there has long been the perception that the society does not take the crime seriously and does not punish perpetrators in an appropriate fashion. If society cannot say that a crime is serious enough that the attacker ought to fulfill a minimum sentence independently of whether they are rehabilitated, that sends the message that the crime itself didn't matter. Especially where young abusers are concerned, and society views them as going through a stage of development that they'll grow out of. Boys will be boys, etc.

I suspect this may be partly a case of 'how could we get there from here?', because it requires a change of attitude or view from crime & punishment to sickness & treatment in society as a whole.

The crime is seen to matter because the justice system is involved, the offender is removed from general society until considered fit to return, and both offender and victim(s) receive treatment - the former for their offending behaviour, the latter for the hurt they've suffered.

I don't see how you can defend an exclusive focus on rehabilitative justice in any society that suffers from serious power imbalances. We already have too much of a problem with the powerful not being held accountable.

I'm not doing that.

If you think criminals have a debt to pay, then you might believe in retributive justice at some level. Unless you think that corrupt officials need only repay whatever they stole, and then attend court mandated classes from the comfort of their mansions, perhaps while under some form of house arrest, though even that strikes me as unnecessary. There is really no legitimate reason to incarcerate them except under a theory of retributive justice, because whatever danger they pose to society could be removed by disbarring them, not allowing them to run for office, etc. Incidentally, I think this also illustrates the problem with rehabilitation that Zippy mentioned: if a white collar criminal can be prevented from causing harm without incarceration, what right would the state have to attempt to rehabilitate them against their will?

I'm not suggesting that incarceration isn't involved - if there was considered to be a risk of further offending, the offender would be incarcerated until deemed rehabilitated. If they could repay the theft and consequent damages without losing their legitimately obtained property, there would be no reason to stop them using it once they were no longer considered at further risk of offending.

1) Retribution doesn't require suffering. We don't need deplorable prison conditions to make it clear that a wrong has been committed and needs to be atoned for.

By my understanding, retribution involves punishment, and punishment generally involves the imposition of a penalty - something undesirable or unpleasant, i.e. suffering. We may be using slightly different definitions of these terms.

2) Reparation isn't always possible. Honestly, the idea that a criminal can "restore" the damage done in crimes like rape and murder is more than a little chilling.

Of course; if reparation is required and can't be made, the victim should get appropriate compensation as part of their rehabilitation. The exact process must depend on the circumstances.

3) Revenge mentalities arise just as easily when the victims don't think the state has punished a crime appropriately as when the state goes overboard with excessive retribution. There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

True; some societies appear to have managed it to some extent, but it does require a different view of criminal justice, which would take time to change - given typical short-term political cycles, it seems unlikely unless there is a general will to reform.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As I understand it, retributive justice is the basic idea that a crime incurs a penalty; that a criminal deserves punishment. There are different theories as to why this is the case, but it seems to me that reparation falls much more under the notion of retribution than rehabilitation.

Reparation by the offender (where possible) would be part of rehabilitation, to emphasise that if you are responsible for causing harm, you have a responsibility to make amends. In most cases, full reparation by the offender would probably not be possible, and the rest would be managed by the state or some form of insurance.

To repair a damage really has no necessary connection to rehabilitation. If a thief steals a carrot cake, then making him repay the lost property is not really aimed at rehabilitating his criminal character.

Reparation helps establish the principle that those that do harm will be expected to do what they can to correct that harm.

 

[zippy2006]

Reparation by the offender (where possible) would be part of rehabilitation, to emphasise that if you are responsible for causing harm, you have a responsibility to make amends. In most cases, full reparation by the offender would probably not be possible, and the rest would be managed by the state or some form of insurance.

Reparation helps establish the principle that those that do harm will be expected to do what they can to correct that harm.

I don't agree. Reparation requires that you pay back what you owe, not that you personally agree to the principle of reparation. Your justification is too barren. If we consistently followed your rationale then every act of the state toward the criminal would be a "teaching moment." I'm sure anyone who advocates a particular kind of justice hopes that the application of that kind of justice will shape thinking and habits, but if we defined each kind according to that principle then every act of the government towards the criminal--and even the citizen--would be "rehabilitative" (well technically, in the case of the citizen it would be instructive rather than rehabilitative).

But your point is interesting insofar as it is an example of the point I gave here (you are emphasizing conditioning).

 

[Silmarien]

It seems to me that's not an implication of rehabilitative justice, but a result of an unjust system. But I guess it depends on what is considered a 'genuine price'.

My point (or one of my points) is that an exclusively rehabilitative form of justice is impractical in an unjust system, and all systems are unjust.

I suspect this may be partly a case of 'how could we get there from here?', because it requires a change of attitude or view from crime & punishment to sickness & treatment in society as a whole.

The crime is seen to matter because the justice system is involved, the offender is removed from general society until considered fit to return, and both offender and victim(s) receive treatment - the former for their offending behaviour, the latter for the hurt they've suffered.

I would honestly rather not live in a society that viewed rapists as merely in need for treatment of underlying illnesses. I don't see how that's any different than the infamous claim that men just can't control themselves.

I think you've got some sort of collectivist dystopia underlying this approach to justice.

I'm not suggesting that incarceration isn't involved - if there was considered to be a risk of further offending, the offender would be incarcerated until deemed rehabilitated. If they could repay the theft and consequent damages without losing their legitimately obtained property, there would be no reason to stop them using it once they were no longer considered at further risk of offending.

But I'm speaking specifically about people who abuse power for personal gain. Remove them from office, and they no longer have the means to abuse power. Why incarcerate a corrupt official? Why not just strip them of their office, have them repay whatever they stole, and send them on their way? All you need to do to prevent them from reoffending is not let them run for office again. There's no need to attempt to rehabilitate them once the means of harming society is removed.

By my understanding, retribution involves punishment, and punishment generally involves the imposition of a penalty - something undesirable or unpleasant, i.e. suffering. We may be using slightly different definitions of these terms.

I wouldn't consider the imposition of a prison sentence cruel and unusual punishment. Granted, there are abuses that go on in prisons that ought to be addressed, but I don't think a humane prison environment is a source of suffering in any meaningful sense. Certainly not compared to what victims often have to deal with after the fact.

Of course; if reparation is required and can't be made, the victim should get appropriate compensation as part of their rehabilitation. The exact process must depend on the circumstances.

What would be appropriate compensation for raping someone?

True; some societies appear to have managed it to some extent, but it does require a different view of criminal justice, which would take time to change - given typical short-term political cycles, it seems unlikely unless there is a general will to reform.

If "reform" involves telling rape victims that they are wrong to wish to see their attackers penalized in any way whatsoever, I think we have a problem. That sounds much more like abuse to me, and it's stunning to me that anyone thinks this would be a good thing.