18-01-2003 18:59									#1
	Free will, morality and crime Support Apolyton

Assume that free will is 'proven' to be an illusion. That is, every act that we perform is not of conscious decision but determined by natural unchangeable progression of events.

This would mean your actions are as predetermined as night following day or a dropped object falling to the ground. There may be some random chance (i.e non-predetermination), such as with rolled die, but that is no more free will than predetermination.

In this world is there any real sense of morality? Everything we do is out of our control. Are we responsible for our actions?

If a person commits a crime are they to be held accountable? - they had no control over it. Accusing them of a crime is like accusing an hurricane of deliberate mass murder and wanton destruction.

You would want to take actions to prevent that crime, but would criminal detention as punishment be unjustifiable? What about the death penalty?

	18-01-2003 19:05									#2
	Tired of ads?

If there's no free will, then perhaps our handing our punishment is just as inevitable as the crime itself?

	18-01-2003 19:18									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Nice post SD (I am so happy that someone understands my posts!)

In my opinion, it would be like the hurricane - if I had no free-will, there would be no me to blame for my actions, so I would have no need for morality. Further, killing someone (or being nasty to someone) would ba as 'evil' as digging a hole in the ground since I would only be manipulating inanimate matter (even though it appears animated, it really is not).

	18-01-2003 21:07									#4
	Got spare money?

If there is free will, how does one explain the human need to invest selected people with authority to carry out actions or polices.
Authority is a finite resource. Give it to some and you would have to take it away from somebody else.
As such the issue of crime and punishment have less to do with free will or the lack thereof - and more to do with the authority-responsibility complex.
Free will depends on each individual having the authority to carry out their actions and accepting the responsibility for their consequences.
Once people have given authority to some one he is rid of responsibility, he cannot act according to free will, or he cannot be held accountable at least, because it was the people who choose him, or invested their trust in him. The person in charge is an institution, like being an executioner or president is an institution.
The person in charge hands over responsibility for his actions to the people - now they should theoretically be in possesion of free will. However the individual have no means of carrying out free will should he decide to do so - because that person lacks the authority to do so. Only the masses have the authority - but a mass must by definitian be incapable of acting according to free will, unless free will is simply instinct.

I think that is the fundamental fact of civilized society, namely that there is no free will.

	18-01-2003 21:14									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

As fear of punishment IS one of the factors that will determine whether or not a person will commit a crime: punishment is justifiable as a form of behavior modification.

SD, what you're talking about is the moral justification of punishment as revenge. This is arguably not the purpose of punishment in a civilized society anyhow, and has no bearing on the practical justification of punishment as prevention or deterrence.

	18-01-2003 21:34									#6
	Re: Free will, morality and crime Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin Assume that free will is 'proven' to be an illusion. That is, every act that we perform is not of conscious decision but determined by natural unchangeable progression of events. This would mean your actions are as predetermined as night following day or a dropped object falling to the ground. There may be some random chance (i.e non-predetermination), such as with rolled die, but that is no more free will than predetermination. In this world is there any real sense of morality? Everything we do is out of our control. Are we responsible for our actions? If a person commits a crime are they to be held accountable? - they had no control over it. Accusing them of a crime is like accusing an hurricane of deliberate mass murder and wanton destruction. You would want to take actions to prevent that crime, but would criminal detention as punishment be unjustifiable? What about the death penalty?

It could develope into a Scenario like Aldous Huxley described in "Brave new world" where People, i.e. especially workers are programmed from childhood on to like and dislike certain things (for example worker-babies are trained to dislike flowers by showing them Pictures of flowers and admitting electroshocks if the baby tries to grasp the flower) and to show special behaviours.


I think, like programs will be introduced into the treatment of criminals.
They won´t be locked away, but would undergo behaviour therapies with the aid of medicaments and reward/punishment-scenarios to reprogram them into showing the right behaviour.

Death penalty could under such circumstances appear more justified for cases such like Mass murder, because you could argue that the old programming which lead to the crime could sometimes break through again and the only other possibility is to lock those people away forever.

	18-01-2003 21:36									#7
	Re: Free will, morality and crime Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin Assume that free will is 'proven' to be an illusion. That is, every act that we perform is not of conscious decision but determined by natural unchangeable progression of events. This would mean your actions are as predetermined as night following day or a dropped object falling to the ground. There may be some random chance (i.e non-predetermination), such as with rolled die, but that is no more free will than predetermination. In this world is there any real sense of morality? Everything we do is out of our control. Are we responsible for our actions? If a person commits a crime are they to be held accountable? - they had no control over it. Accusing them of a crime is like accusing an hurricane of deliberate mass murder and wanton destruction. You would want to take actions to prevent that crime, but would criminal detention as punishment be unjustifiable? What about the death penalty?

You and RJ are right, there really is no such thing as morality, but rather a code of acceptable bahavior for whichever society you live in. But most of those are derived from some kind of religious belief, so unless you're religious and believe there will be eternal consequences for your actions, there's really no reason to do or not do anything.

But morality as humans have come to know it (which is pretty much universal across the globe) is the fabric that holds civilization together, and without it, life like we're living now would go right down the crapper pretty fast. So... what can we do?

Its one of those things that we need to suspend our disbelief about indefinately for civilization's sake.

	18-01-2003 21:44									#8
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Worrying about the existence of Free Will has always struck me as being about as useful as worrying about the existence of the Self -- I can't prove that I have free will any more than I can prove that I exist (and really, the two non-proofs are inextricably linked IMO), so in both cases I make certain Necessary Assumptions when conducting my life, e.g. assuming a lack of free will is every bit as non-functional of a worldview as assuming that I don't exist, thus I reject both non-functional worldviews as being useless and irrelevant.

My reaction to a proof demonstrating that I do not have free will would therefore be quite similar (perhaps identical) to my reaction to a proof demonstrating that I do not exist -- in both cases I might seek to further examine the proof in order to see where it may be flawed, but more likely I'd simply ignore the proof as being irrelevant.

	18-01-2003 21:50									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I don't deny the existence of self, but I have a hard time accepting the existence of free will. I don't see the two as linked.

"I think therefore I am" is enough for me to accept I exist and experience the world. There is no analagous explanation for free will.

	18-01-2003 21:54									#10
	Re: Re: Free will, morality and crime Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST It could develope into a Scenario like Aldous Huxley described in "Brave new world" where People, i.e. especially workers are programmed from childhood on to like and dislike certain things (for example worker-babies are trained to dislike flowers by showing them Pictures of flowers and admitting electroshocks if the baby tries to grasp the flower) and to show special behaviours. I think, like programs will be introduced into the treatment of criminals. They won´t be locked away, but would undergo behaviour therapies with the aid of medicaments and reward/punishment-scenarios to reprogram them into showing the right behaviour. Death penalty could under such circumstances appear more justified for cases such like Mass murder, because you could argue that the old programming which lead to the crime could sometimes break through again and the only other possibility is to lock those people away forever.

I don't think we need to go that far.

This is how I see it real simply.

What is law? Its the codification of an accepted set of learned behaviors for a society.

How are laws learned? They're taught to us by our parents... this is undeniable since we're born knowing only how to breath, cry and suckle our mothers teats, so everything else is enculturation (as in the process of learning behavior for our society). Parents are the foremost means of transfering culture to new humans, and by very very far.

On this note, you will find that the most well rounded humans will be the ones that have ingrained their society's customs at an early age... and these people are usually the ones that don't break those customs (laws).

So, assuming all this is true... what can we do? It would seem logical to me to conclude that parents and upbringing are the primary factors that determine lawfullness.

But now I've gone pretty offtopic...

	18-01-2003 22:02									#11
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin "I think therefore I am" is enough for me to accept I exist and experience the world.

But without free will you're not "thinking" as a conscious action on your part, you're merely under the illusion that you're thinking. Without free will your "I think therefore I am" is no more a proof of self than it would be a proof of self for a computer programmed to output the same phrase -- your own "programming" would certainly be a lot more complicated than [cout << "I think therefore I am";] or whatever, but nevertheless it would still just a programmed response devoid of reason (and thus of consciousness), no different than jerking your hand away from a hot stove or flinching when surprised.

	18-01-2003 22:10									#12
	Support Apolyton

quote: But without free will you're not "thinking" as a conscious action on your part

Thinking is perhaps the wrong word. Self-existence is known by the act of interacting with the world. A computer designed to say "I know I exist", is probably lying, but if it did not exist it would not be able to say it. Perhaps "I am speaking this sentence therefore I exist" is the more accurate and better proof.

	18-01-2003 22:22									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin Perhaps "I am speaking this sentence therefore I exist" is the more accurate and better proof.

That offers proof that SD the mindless automaton exists, but not that SD the rational agent exists. You'd still be no different than my pocket calculator, or my "speak and spell." (And who's to say that they don't share a similar illusion that their Selves exists?)

	18-01-2003 23:14									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by loinburger (And who's to say that they don't share a similar illusion that their Selves exists?)

If they did have a concept of self, would they be wrong? No.

If they also thought they had free will, would they be wrong? Yes.

Of cause if they were self aware I would want to find out how they became so endowed.

	18-01-2003 23:19									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov If there's no free will, then perhaps our handing our punishment is just as inevitable as the crime itself?

You beat me to it!

	18-01-2003 23:33									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: In this world is there any real sense of morality?

Is there really any sense of morality in our current world? It is simply what certain people decided was moral. Even in a world without free will, there will still be morality, but people will create it.

Also punishment isn't just for revenge or rehabilitation, it is also simply for incapacitation, keep the criminal behind bars so he can't commit any more crimes. Even if there was no free will you would still think that the person could commit future crimes (unless you could read the future).

	18-01-2003 23:36									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

no, because ultimately whatever happens would be predetermined, Imran

	18-01-2003 23:36									#18
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

whether you put him in jail or not, that would be predetermined in a world without free will, so if it was predetermined that he would commit more crimes, putting him in jail wouldn't change anything (as the act of putting him in jail, too, would be part of the predetermination)

	18-01-2003 23:41									#19
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: no, because ultimately whatever happens would be predetermined, Imran

Maybe, but how would ordinary people know what was going to be determined? They wouldn't. So punishment would still have to exist, and if it is predetermined or not, it still wouldn't matter.

	18-01-2003 23:51									#20
	Re: Free will, morality and crime Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin Assume that free will is 'proven' to be an illusion. That is, every act that we perform is not of conscious decision but determined by natural unchangeable progression of events. This would mean your actions are as predetermined as night following day or a dropped object falling to the ground. There may be some random chance (i.e non-predetermination), such as with rolled die, but that is no more free will than predetermination. In this world is there any real sense of morality? Everything we do is out of our control. Are we responsible for our actions? If a person commits a crime are they to be held accountable? - they had no control over it. Accusing them of a crime is like accusing an hurricane of deliberate mass murder and wanton destruction. You would want to take actions to prevent that crime, but would criminal detention as punishment be unjustifiable? What about the death penalty?

This truly sounds the core of the liberal view of responsibility. Society is the sole cause of all misbehavior.

	19-01-2003 00:28									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin If they did have a concept of self, would they be wrong? No.

Why wouldn't they be wrong? An illusion doesn't become real by being compounded by another illusion. The illusion of "self" does not cease to become an illusion just because it has been compounded by the illusion of "rational thought," and rationality cannot exist without some independent motive force (i.e. free will) -- without free will all "thought" is illusory, since it arises solely from the completely irrational process of one brain-state changing to another brain-state.

quote: Originally posted by Ned This truly sounds the core of the liberal view of responsibility. Society is the sole cause of all misbehavior.

Are you saying that society has free will even if people do not? What a novel suggestion.

	19-01-2003 00:31									#22
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If trying to prove free will exists is hard enough, trying to disprove that fate or predetermination does not exist is just as annoying.

If you like chocolate ice cream, you will buy one instead of vanilla, the one you hate... so it is predetermined. If you try to buy vanilla for sake for proving fate wrong, then it was predetermined at that point you had the desire to prove fate wrong, thus you were fated to buy vanilla...

	19-01-2003 00:37									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Why wouldn't they be wrong?

Because they exist. If a pocket calculator is self-aware (for whatever reason), or gives the illusion of self-awareness to everyone else, it is not wrong. It does exist whether its apparent "knowing" that it exists is illusary or not.

I think we are just using different definitions of self. I am saying that my 'self' is my existence. Whether it is rational or automated is not the issue (at least not to me).

	19-01-2003 00:42									#24
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Also punishment isn't just for revenge or rehabilitation, it is also simply for incapacitation, keep the criminal behind bars so he can't commit any more crimes. Even if there was no free will you would still think that the person could commit future crimes (unless you could read the future).

What's the laws position on arresting people because of a crime that they are going to commit, but don't because the police stop them?

I presume conspiracy or otherwise planning a crime is illegal. In such cases detention is 'acceptable'.

But what about arresting a person for a future crime that you are almost certain will happen, before the perpetrator even contemplated the crime?


Edit - My head hurts after thinking about some feedback problems on prediction. Maybe I'll post those thoughts later.

	19-01-2003 00:44									#25
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: no, because ultimately whatever happens would be predetermined, Imran Maybe, but how would ordinary people know what was going to be determined? They wouldn't. So punishment would still have to exist, and if it is predetermined or not, it still wouldn't matter.

Doesn't SD's scenario imply that everyone is aware of predetermination?

	19-01-2003 00:45									#26
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin But what about arresting a person for a future crime that you are almost certain will happen, before the perpetrator even contemplated the crime?

Thank you John Anderton

	19-01-2003 00:46									#27
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by orange Thank you John Anderton

Who's John Anderton?

	19-01-2003 00:47									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Doesn't SD's scenario imply that everyone is aware of predetermination?

Even if they are, they do not know which way that predetermination will lead. Maybe predetermination says they will punish people by putting them in jail. Maybe it doesn't.

See, the thing is if people do not know the determination they will have to continue to do what they are doing because that may be the predetermined path, no?

	19-01-2003 00:51									#29
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: You'd still be no different than my pocket calculator, or my "speak and spell." (And who's to say that they don't share a similar illusion that their Selves exists?)

A sentient speak and spell? There's a mind-bending concept...

Wutang, my friend. Wutang indeed.

	19-01-2003 00:53									#30
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin I think we are just using different definitions of self. I am saying that my 'self' is my existence. Whether it is rational or automated is not the issue (at least not to me).

By your "existence," do you mean your physical existence, or do you mean something else? F'rinstance, if doctors were somehow to remove your brain from your body, and hooked your brain up to one machine to keep it alive and hooked your body up to another, then which would be "you": the brain-plus-machine, or the body-plus-machine? (Or both? Or neither?) Why?

I agree that I as a body would still exist if there were no free will, but I don't believe that I as a conscious entity would exist, since consciousness cannot exist without rationality. Assuming free will, my answer to the above question would be that I would be the brain-plus-machine, since the brain's the thing that does the thinking. Assuming no free will, my answer to the above question would have to be either that both the brain-plus-machine and body-plus machine was me, or that neither was me -- similarly to how I would respond if somebody pulled the hands off of a clock, and asked me "Which is the clock -- the clockface, or the clock hands?"