Hello.Free will, which is nonsensically defined anyway (free from what?), plays no role in this. — SolarWind
Hello.If you justify an action before committing it, doesn’t that imply free will? If you cannot justify it, you act in a different manner. — NOS4A2
I don't think it matters to punish or to treat offenders. The only important thing is that offenders never harm society again, if possible. — SolarWind
what I mean by justified is that there are sufficient reasons to perform that action. For example, some people say that killing is wrong because you shouldn't kill other people. — Hello Human
But to propose what reasons are sufficient would be doing normative ethics, a consequentialist would say that an action is justified because it causes more utility, a Kantian would something else, and all the others too. This discussion is focused on metaethics. — Hello Human
free will is presupposed by our justice systems — Hello Human
then your (any!) argument is merely determined — 180 Proof
Sure. I have attempted to answer this question here.Talking about normative ethics cannot be done until we have established whether it is possible or not to even do normative ethics — Hello Human
Of course, this would be circular. But that was not my point. My point here was that we cannot have a justification without first having a normative ethics.using normative ethics to establish whether normative ethics are possible is a fundamentally flawed way to approach the problem. — Hello Human
I think deterrent and rehabilitative are still applicable without free will. Most of us would agree that a dog does not have free will; yet we can use processes to deter and rehabilitate.In the absence of free will, retributive, deterrent, and rehabilitative arms of justice don't make sense — TheMadFool
Of course, if everything is determined, then everything is determined. But we can still talk about things being true or false, and good or bad. E.g. Even if I am forced to state that "2+2=3", it is still a false statement. Likewise, even if I am forced to kill an innocent man, it is still a wrongful act (according to most ethics).You can tell me why you're a determinist all day long, but the real reason you are is because you lacked the power not to be. — Hanover
↪TheMadFool Hello.
This is close to my view. I would however correct you here:
In the absence of free will, retributive, deterrent, and rehabilitative arms of justice don't make sense
— TheMadFool
I think deterrent and rehabilitative are still applicable without free will. Most of us would agree that a dog does not have free will; yet we can use processes to deter and rehabilitate. — Samuel Lacrampe
I see free will as a necessary precondition for any human understanding consistent with a Kantian pure intuition (...) which I'd be grateful if someone could confirm or deny. — Hanover
Freedom of the will is a necessary precondition of some human understanding, but not any human understanding consistent with pure intuitions. That which takes the place of pure intuitions operating under speculative empirical conditions, are the so-called hypothetical or categorical imperatives, which legislate in the same manner but under practical moral conditions alone. The former has to do with what is, the latter what ought to be. — Mww
Do you take this to mean that free will is required for all knowledge other than moral? — Hanover
Freedom of the will is a necessary precondition of some human understanding, but not any human understanding consistent with pure intuitions. — Mww
where he specifically asserts that the "speculative cognition of freedom" is required for judgment or something along those lines? — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.