hey gnostic, I wanted to add that I personally don't see the clergy as confolk (or mal-intentioned in general) , but misguided themselves, with a strong passion to continue a work they see as bigger than themselves and which has urged them to accept truths via faith instead of science.
can a misguided individual still act intelligently? in my opinion, yes, insofar as any of us do when we leverage axiomatic logic in our reasoning. but to be honest, it is seems ignorant of me to judge their intellectual capacity, I just haven't experience their perspectives personally.

oh okay, perhaps utilitarian is too specific a term for what I'm advocating. malign and praise the actions, not the actors, in accordance with what we feel will best promote our collective well being (including promotion of our intrinsic ideals). I wouldn't say our justice system is much different from this, but that our treatment of those who have committed crimes or performed great works is.

The problem with basing your system of legal accountability purely on it's effect on other poeple is that it ends up treating the actual criminals merely as examples - means to an end. — Echarmion

could you elaborate on this? I would think we are treating their actions as examples, and their punishment as the deterrent, but I'm not sure I quite understand what you meant

Is that vat piping-hot yet? :yikes: — THX1138

dude. we all belong in the vat (maybe we are? lol)
but seriously you seem to have a healthy respect for your own feelings and when acting on your own urges would cross the legal boundary, so as long as you aren't beating yourself up over being human which is self destructive, or doing harm to others, I'd say you are just fine.

I guess I should be boiled in a vat then. I am who I am. Guess my discipline isn't sufficient to excuse my nature. — THX1138

wait what did you do? what are you planning to do? vat boiling can be effective in extreme circumstances :D

i wondered, but I agree with your options, so I truly would say both. honestly I don't see it as much different from what we do today, just without the guilt factor lol

Without the restraints that the notion of individual guilt establishes, it's easy to see everyone as a cog in the machine of society. And what happens to broken cogs? — Echarmion

I believe I see your point, could it be that a punishment as a deterrent to others resulting from one's actions (even if we don't believe the individual will repeat those actions and aren't a major threat) would also serve as a risk mitigation for the future actions of others? what I'm really trying to imply is a utilitarian approach to a legal response, but there are likely problems with that I haven't thought of

Should the "risk" be assessed by mis-actions, nature, maybe even both, would you say? — THX1138

yes! agreed.

I don't think we need it per say- it probably depends on how you frame free will. if you mean the ability to choose between a number of options without that choice being pre-determined or 100% causal, it gives us a way to isolate blame and responsibility to an individual (or their soul if you believe in that).

hard determinists claim there is no free will, while compatiblists would reframe free will as more of a 'free necessity', where even though no alternate choices could be made, the freedom to affect and make that choice stems from the unencumbered mind (and not external forces/confusion/chemical imbalances)

even though the idea of free will allows us to dictate morality or blame, I think that treating our actions by the effects they have, as well as treating individuals by the risks they pose to the rest of us, still allows for the same level of legal accountability, just without labeling individuals as having 'good' or 'evil' intentions/actions.

so to sum it up: I don't believe we need free will, what we really seem to need is a way to justify restraint or consequence for individuals when their actions or risk are a danger to the rest of us.