We no more have a choice about whether to hold people accountable than we do for any other decision. — T Clark
If we have a choice in the matter, there is free will, and we can be “accountable”, if not, it seems we are determined to hold people accountable anyway. — Ennui Elucidator
accountable — T Clark
So, what’s the answer? Does it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions given that there is no free will? — T Clark
I hate discussions of free will. The same old arguments over and over and over with no resolution ever. — T Clark
If we come to a satisfactory conclusion, it may be possible to dispense with any future such discussions. Ha. — T Clark
it makes no sense to me as a judge to punish you, because what happened could not be avoided, and locking you up wouldn't would be unnecessary punishment for an unavoidable outcome, — Manuel
But these options don't really make sense, so the assumption of no free will has to be modified or admitted. — Manuel
If there is no free will, then this question is equally non answerable because what sense does it make to decide whether to hold someone accountable or not, if there is no free will?
Wouldn't answering that question imply free will? — SpaceDweller
In a generally civilized society, the members of it are already held accountable, by means of the tenets of an agreed upon administrative code. Such code, and the voluntary adherence to it, is predicated on the mutual desire to live under some set of conditions as a community, and has nothing to do with an individualized personal will. — Mww
The question as to whether or not the individual ought to conform to the code willingly, is irrelevant, when the only interest he has in it, relates to the mere desire for its benefits. There is no need to will himself to comply, when a want suffices for the same end. — Mww
people who take part in these discussions fail to do the most basic philosopher's due diligence, like asking themselves what free will is, why it is that and not something else, and how it is relevant to whatever they really want to talk about, because, as in your case, what they really want to talk about is something else. — SophistiCat
So, what’s the answer? Does it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions given that there is no free will? — T Clark
If a criminal can not avoid committing criminal acts (say, arson, rape, and bloody murder), would that not be a very good reason to lock him or her up? — Bitter Crank
If a criminal can not avoid committing criminal acts (say, arson, rape, and/or bloody murder), would that not be an excellent reason to lock him or her up? Call it punishment or prevention--some people should not be at large. — Bitter Crank
I would contend that in criminal law the absolute presupposition (in the sense of Collingwood) is made that we have free will. That it is such an assumption of criminal law is not uncontroversial, but I contend that it is, so will accept it for the purpose of this thread. — Tobias
Contast that with peretrators that plead an insanity defense. They contend that at that point they were not being themselves, they did not have control of their actions. An insanity defense is nothing else than a request to be treated as policy concern and to be absolved from moral blameworthiness. — Tobias
I think there are situations when people clearly are not in control of their actions, e.g. schizophrenia with delusions and hallucinations. — T Clark
I was thinking of this when I started this discussion - I've read about jurisdictions where mitigating factors; e.g. childhood abuse, poverty, hardship; can not be be brought up during the trail, but they can be considered during the penalty phase when punishment is determined. This would be especially applicable for cases where the death penalty is under consideration. — T Clark
The thing called "free will" is as deterministic as the cartoon safe plunging to the sidewalk. The source of our free will, whatever it is or is not, are the intricate and immensely complicated transactions of physics and chemistry within our brain cells--which are deterministic. — Bitter Crank
We still have to choose all sorts of things during the day: brown socks or black socks; broccoli or asparagus; robbery or burglary; put fake data in the report or let the facts show that one is a lazy bureaucrat; have sex with a stranger or not; read the New York Times or the Boston Globe; stop at Aldi's or Trader Joe's; watch another episode of the Sopranos or not. — Bitter Crank
Many people recognise that in some situations we are so pyschologically strained that we cannot think clearly. The problem is that it is not very consistent. — Tobias
What forces control us; gravity, the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism; evolutionary drives such as aggression and sex; medical factors such as brain damage or congenital defects; social forces such as childhood abuse; or some other types of forces. Which ones matter? Which ones count? — T Clark
I don't disagree. I do think that what I am trying to do in this discussion is just the kind of due diligence you are talking about. — T Clark
I don't see any evidence of that in your OP, nor in most of the discussion.The thread follows the dismal pattern of all such free will discussions, where the subject is obscure and people talk past each other. (@Tobias at least has a definite idea of the sense of "free will" that he is talking about, but is this what you had in mind? I don't know, and I get a sense that you don't know either.) — SophistiCat
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.