/lit/ - Literature

Because we want to prevent that person or other people from acting in such a way again.

punish to force compliance

Because there is free will

that's a dumb way to argue for criminal irresponsibility. it'd be better to argue via biological determinism

Enough with these threads.

Because determinism is a hypothesis with no backing, and free will is real.

Even if free will isn't real, we must continue to act as if it is, and it is impossible to prove (instead of only hypothesizing or asserting) that our actions are purely deterministic anyway, or at least it's never been done.

If free will is real, there is no reason not to believe in a deity

>>4885911
biological determinism is fucking retarded

>>4885895
Because the illusion of a structured society is simply oppressing and punishing the societal or environmental affects that induce actions in human beings and this is the path that humans have taken for the sake of greed, consumption, consumerism, and comfort for a few.

>>4885978
sorry you were born retarded m8, not your fault.

>>4885944
Free will is effect with no cause. There's no reason to believe in some special kind of extraphysical force that acts independently from the laws of the universe.

>>4885983
you can't be born a thief or murderer due to principles of biology that exist on a lower level of complexity. your biological and social limitations are obstacles, but if free will doesn't exist, they're the LAST things to be the proof for that.

>>4885986
>Free will is effect with no cause
literally makes no sense

>>4885986
Wrong.

>Free will is effect with no cause.
No. Free will is not an effect. That doesn't even make sense.

>There's no reason to believe
Everyone is aware that they can make their own decisions. The onus here is on the determinist to prove that they cannot actually make these decisions.

has anyone in this thread considered that the threat of punishment might have factored into the deterministic outcome

>>4885944
>If the consciousness exists within the universe's boundaries, it must follow their laws.
The backing is that everything else physical follows the laws of the universe, and there's no reason to assume consciousness is any different. It would be the burden of free will to prove that it's a special case.

>>4885996
But it does. To say that there is free will is to say that it's a force that exerts itself upon the world without an external cause provoking it and shaping it.

>>4886000
>No. Free will is not an effect. That doesn't even make sense.
Does it affect things? Yes or no?

>Everyone is aware that they can make their own decisions. The onus here is on the determinist to prove that they cannot actually make these decisions.
No, it's on the concept of free will to explain why it's a special case from everything else physical in the universe and somehow doesn't have to follow the laws that everything else does, which has no real basis besides "our will feels free". Free will is an illusion, that's why people think they make their own decisions.

>>4885895
You're making the flawed assumption that the only virtue of punishment is punishment. You completely forget deterrence and rehabilitation.

>>4885895
>why should we
that would imply that you have the will to make that decision

>>4885895
Wow what groundbreaking philsophical inquiry. No undergrads here!

>>4886002
That the human brain should exist in accordance with laws of the universe does not mean that free will doesn't exist, only that free will is logically coherent with the universe. More importantly, there is no evidence that the consciousness and human action are held to or determined by things exterior to it.

You are saying everything from our past influences our future actions, even if we do not recognize this.

You are saying this makes us not responsible for out actions, due to past interactions influencing our future selves.

You are saying we are a different person, dates apart, different motivations, goals, you are not yourself one year ago, you iwll not be yourself one year from now.

You are saying that which gives no meanign to how one lives their life.

You are saying nothing.

Is this why philosophy is a wasted effort? What goal, or resolution can be obtained from this, other than pleasing the ego?

>>4886031
essential undergrad reading?

>>4886031

hahaha

this thread is shit, but thanks for that

This image is great. Free choice is only an illusion if you take things at face value, if you believe all you're told. The cow believes he can only go down the left or right path because that's what the signs say, but the reality of the image is that there's nothing forcing the cow to go down either of the two paths. He could choose instead to go backwards, he could choose to leave.

>>4886040
>More importantly, there is no evidence that the consciousness and human action are held to or determined by things exterior to it.
Why shouldn't they be? They're just automated responses, albeit extremely complex ones, no different from any other knee-jerk reaction. The burden is on the argument for free will. Prove that it's somehow independent of cause and effect.

define "free will"

>>4886021
>free will
>a force
No. You can't "apply" free will against an object. It's not a force.

>Free will is not an effect
>Does it affect things?
Well, 7/10, I thought you were serious up until you tried to pretend that you didn't know the difference between affect and effect, or that something affecting other things made it an effect. Nicely done.

>>4886057
>No. You can't "apply" free will against an object. It's not a force.
You come to the conclusion to make an action "out of free will" and exert yourself accordingly.

>Well, 7/10, I thought you were serious up until you tried to pretend that you didn't know the difference between affect and effect, or that something affecting other things made it an effect. Nicely done.

af·fect1 [v. uh-fekt; n. af-ekt]
verb (used with object)
1.
to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.

Something affecting something makes it a fucking effect.

Let's get one thing straight here:

Free will does not exist.

I will to fly.

...

Free agency, on the other hand...

>>4886067
>Free agency, on the other hand...
explain

>>4886071
agency is the capacity of an agent to act. "free" agency implies the ability to act intentionally

Stop the autism, please. Your actions are always your own, because it is you who made them. If you wanted to make a different choice, you would have, right? You're complaining that you don't have the ability to make free choices. Well, show me one choice you have ever made that was not your choice. No, a time you were forced to make a choice is not the same, that is not a choice at all. Determinism aside, the fact is, your brain is constantly calculating variables and moving based on those variables- you never would have calculated them differently, sure, but you also wouldn't want to calculate them differently because they are YOUR calculations, it was you who decided what variables mattered and why, so, regardless of if determinism is present or not, you make the exact same fucking choice.

Your will is necessarily free to follow itself because it is yours. Explain otherwise. Don't just tell me you couldn't have done otherwise-- newsflash, you didn't want to do otherwise, which is why you did it-- so what, pray tell, are you bitching about?

>>4886086
how is that different than free will?

>>4886055
>Why shouldn't they be?
Because there is no evidence to show that they are.

>I make my own decisions
>therefore, I am capable of making my own decisions
>"That's wrong, you cannot act at your own discretion"
>can you prove that I cannot, against the evidence that I can act at my own discretion?
>no, but I don't need to, you prove me wrong first
This is /b/-tier arguing and just begging the question, please stop.

>>4886050
so funneh

>>4886065
>if something produces an effect, it is an effect
Okay, well I'm just going to stop responding to you now, sorry to waste your time bro.

>>4886089
In the context of the thread, it doesn't. He's just being pedantic for funsies.

>>4886093
>Because there is no evidence to show that they are.
The logical presumption is that they follow the order of everything else, and the outstanding presumption is the one that needs to be backed up with evidence.

>This is /b/-tier arguing and just begging the question, please stop.
"burden of proof" is not /b/-tier arguing. You're making the arbitrary assumption that consciousness is somehow independent of physical laws even though it takes place within the physical universe, and THAT's what needs to be proved.

>>4886094

butthurt undergrad who flips burgers for a living

>>4886107

No one is saying consciousness is independent of physical laws, you naive McAssBurger, but how, exactly, does the fact that consciousness follows a logical path mean it is not free? Are you asking for freedom to be illogical? You're asking the freedom to be retarded? Well, in that case, I have great news. :^)

>>4886108
butthurt tim & eric fan

What is will?

>>4886112
No, but everything within the physical universe follows the laws of cause and effect - a rock tumbling down the mountain follows the path determined by the landscape. For will to be free, it needs to be an effect with no cause, which is outstanding from the nature of the universe.

>>4886114

Shit. You win.

>>4886097
>Okay, well I'm just going to stop responding to you now, sorry to waste your time bro.
Are you fucking telling me that something affecting something isn't causing an effect on that thing? Holy shit you're retarded.

>>4886116

>For will to be free, it needs to be an effect with no cause

According to who, fag lord? Your will simply is what you want to do- of course your will is going to follow the logically necessary path to get what you want, that's exactly why you have it in the first place, you douche cunt.

>>4886124
>According to who, fag lord? Your will simply is what you want to do- of course your will is going to follow the logically necessary path to get what you want, that's exactly why you have it in the first place, you douche cunt.
If will is determined completely by cause and effect, it's not free. Glad we can come to an agreement :^)

>>4886100
>it doesn't

who are you quoting?

anyway, agency implies a capacity to action, it accounts for constraining causes, whereas will negates this notion

"I will fly" - Flight must occur in the future
"I will to fly", by extension, means "I desire to partake in something that must occur in the future"

Constraining cause negated

>>4886107
>"burden of proof" is not /b/-tier arguing.
The burden of proof is on the determinist, who is arguing against the evidence of the ability of an agent to act at their own discretion and regularly seems to do so, and against the evidence of numerous indeterminacies in the material universe, and the fact that since the universe now contains more matter than it did at the beginning, it would have been impossible to determine the current state from the beginning of it. Even Hawking asserts that the universe could have, and likely did, come from a material nothingness. Given a state of material nothing or without matter, it is not possible to predict any future state of matter, because it's not there yet.

And yes, just saying "nuh uh burden of proof is on you no matter what" is shitty arguing. That's in addition to you going out of your way to try and misrepresent my argument, like saying that I'm somehow implying that consciousness is separate from the universe.

>>4886120
No, I'm saying there is a difference between an affect and an effect. Saying that something "is an effect" because it "has an effect" doesn't make sense. But it was nice of you to move those goalposts at the last moment, I agree with your current statement but not your previous ones, which were incoherent. I'm glad that you agree with me now, I guess?

>>4886129

>"If will is determined completely by cause and effect, it's not free."

[citation needed]

>>4886131
>The burden of proof is on the determinist, who is arguing against the evidence of the ability of an agent to act at their own discretion and regularly seems to do so, and against the evidence of numerous indeterminacies in the material universe, and the fact that since the universe now contains more matter than it did at the beginning, it would have been impossible to determine the current state from the beginning of it.
How the fuck is the burden of proof not on the outlandish claim that violates everything that we already know based on a hunch?

>Even Hawking asserts that the universe could have, and likely did, come from a material nothingness.
Nice appeal to authority.

>And yes, just saying "nuh uh burden of proof is on you no matter what" is shitty arguing. That's in addition to you going out of your way to try and misrepresent my argument, like saying that I'm somehow implying that consciousness is separate from the universe.
Something is necessarily separate from the physical universe if it contradicts the laws of it. I keep saying the burden of proof is on you because IT IS ON YOU.

>>4886137
It's not a fucking reference to a paper, it's extremely simple logic. There is no freedom if the outcome is determined 100% by the events that cause it and there is no other possible outcome.

>>4886140

Holy shit fuck off you're working on a completely obsolete and naive understanding of what the "will" is, just go to bed and accept the fact you'll never amount to anything because your thoughts are unoriginal and shit

>>4886144
Please inform this ignorant old fool of what free will is, Anon, instead of insulting me.

>>4886140
>not on the outlandish
Because it's not an outlandish claim. Seriously, at this point your argument is based solely around "no u", just blindly accusing me of fallacies, and saying that you don't have to prove anything to prove you're right. You've gone out of your way to avoid engaging at all with anything I've said.

Please respond to the actual arguments I have made whenever you're ready.

>>4885895
If there is no free will, does anything change? Nope

>>4886143

Freedom is the capacity to do that which you want to do. Why does it matter if that which you want to do is 100% caused by the past? Your so-called logic is dichotomous and childlike, please complete your fucking degree before opening your mouth ever again.

the story goes, zeno was flogging a slave "but i was fated to steal" said the slave. "and to be flogged" was zeno's reply. though one committing a crime is fated, it is partially fated by them being the type of person who would commit the crime. the crime still came of/from the criminal, thus it is right to punish him.
and yes, free will is bullshit

>>4886137
why? It's a valid argument

If I am directly the cause of you doing something, you are not, by definition, doing it freely

that isn't to say that your inevitable reply to this post occurs as a result of a lack of freedom, you "choose" to respond or not to respond, I am not the cause of your response therefore

the choice itself is a result of a cause however, so whether you reply or not, you (according to this side of the argument) are not doing so freely. So technically speaking I may as well be the cause of your choice.

>>4886148
>Because it's not an outlandish claim. Seriously, at this point your argument is based solely around "no u", just blindly accusing me of fallacies, and saying that you don't have to prove anything to prove you're right. You've gone out of your way to avoid engaging at all with anything I've said.
see
>I keep saying the burden of proof is on you because IT IS ON YOU.

>just blindly accusing me of fallacies
Appeal to authority:
"A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct"

>Please respond to the actual arguments I have made whenever you're ready.
What arguments? "prove that I'm wrong"?
Yes, it is different when I say it, because you're the one trying to contradict everything we know about the universe.

>>4886152
freedom implies the LACK of a capacity

holy fuck, who browses this fucking board?

>>4886152
But "what you want to do" is dictated entirely by external events.

>Your so-called logic is dichotomous and childlike, please complete your fucking degree before opening your mouth ever again.
Explain how it's poor reasoning instead of attacking my "lack of formal knowledge on logic".

>>4886157

>He still thinks causation is an empirically meaningful concept.

Do you use a tripcode because no one in real life gives a shit about what you have to say? Just so you know-- there's a reason for that, and everyone on the internet can still sense why that is. :^)

free will fags getting blown the fuck out

>>4886160

No one is denying this. But what is your god-damned point? Of course what you want to do is dictated by external events, that's because you're a rationally adaptive organism-- if you didn't use the past to influence your future decisions, you would be a complete retard.

You're asking to want what you don't want. Why the fuck would you want to want what you don't want? Again-- you're quite literally asking for the freedom to be retarded.

Regardless, it's analytically impossible to want what you don't want, because the two mutually exclude each other, as you should hopefully be able to tell at least that much.

>>4886158
>Appeal to authority:
No, there is nothing in that statement where I have claimed that is correct without doubt. You are more than welcome to show that he's wrong when he asserts that the material universe came from a material nothingness. It would have been a fallacy if I said "He is right and you cannot debate this" instead of simply proposing something you were welcome to argue against.

>What arguments?
Determinism is not provable because of the numerous indeterminacies in the physical universe, the fact that since the universe now contains more matter than it did at the beginning, it would have been impossible to determine the current state from the beginning of it, the universe coming from a state of material nothingness and therefore making it impossible to predict any future state of matter because there was no matter to base predictions off of, and the ability of agents to seemingly make decisions at their own discretion when combined with the above.

>because you're the one trying to contradict everything we know about the universe.
But that's wrong, all the evidence I've listed is knowledge about our universe. Geeze, man, I even listed a credible physicist who put forth some of this evidence. Are you just trolling here, or are you really this dense?

>>4886164
>implying I am arguing my own opinion

anyway, is this what every /lit/ debate degenerates into, presumptuous ad-hominem arguments?

>implying causation is NOT an empirically meaningful concept

this is a very bold claim, is there anything "meaningful" that you can say to back that up, or are you going to resort to your primal defense mechanisms again?

>>4886176
>No one is denying this. But what is your god-damned point? Of course what you want to do is dictated by external events, that's because you're a rationally adaptive organism-- if you didn't use the past to influence your future decisions, you would be a complete retard.

>You're asking to want what you don't want. Why the fuck would you want to want what you don't want? Again-- you're quite literally asking for the freedom to be retarded.

>Regardless, it's analytically impossible to want what you don't want, because the two mutually exclude each other, as you should hopefully be able to tell at least that much.
I'm not "asking for" the option to do what's unintuitive.

So, with all of this cleared up, we agree that will is entirely determined by external factors, and while the outcome our brain produces is typically the best possible, it is not by any means free? Good.

>>4886184

Life advice: go out and actually study analytic philosophy in a formal context if you want to have a worthwhile opinion, stop arguing with people who are both smarter and more knowledgeable than you, and stop masturbating all the time and go outside.

>>4886178
>No, there is nothing in that statement where I have claimed that is correct without doubt. You are more than welcome to show that he's wrong when he asserts that the material universe came from a material nothingness. It would have been a fallacy if I said "He is right and you cannot debate this" instead of simply proposing something you were welcome to argue against.
You're proposing that I argue with fucking Stephen Hawking, and if I refuse to argue his point then you're right? Appeal to authority.

>Determinism is not provable because of the numerous indeterminacies in the physical universe, the fact that since the universe now contains more matter than it did at the beginning, it would have been impossible to determine the current state from the beginning of it, the universe coming from a state of material nothingness and therefore making it impossible to predict any future state of matter because there was no matter to base predictions off of, and the ability of agents to seemingly make decisions at their own discretion when combined with the above.
I'm not a determinist. The laws of the universe change based on the effects of data we can't predict, nor could have anybody at any time. This doesn't change the fact that will is determined entirely by external causes.

>Geeze, man, I even listed a credible physicist who put forth some of this evidence.
appeal
to
authority

>>4885900
/thread

>>4886192
Oh, man...

Stop shaming yourself, will you?

>>4886193
>You're proposing that I argue with fucking Stephen Hawking, and if I refuse to argue his point then you're right? Appeal to authority.
No, I'm proposing that you argue against the specific statement I made, which is why I made it. That's not an appeal to authority.

>you're contradicting everything we know about the universe!
>actually, I'm not, what we know about the universe is "x", as given by example person who studies the universe "y"
>THAT'S AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
What do you want me to say here? You're claiming that I'm contradicting our knowledge of the universe, and when I show that what I'm saying is in agreement with what we know about the universe and citing a professional in the field of "studying the universe" who's work forms a part of our knowledge of the universe as an example, you just try to dismiss it as a fallacy! What I've stated is definitively not "contradicting everything we know about the universe".

>>4886208
>No, I'm proposing that you argue against the specific statement I made, which is why I made it. That's not an appeal to authority.
Well, I'm not arguing that point anyway.

>What do you want me to say here? You're claiming that I'm contradicting our knowledge of the universe, and when I show that what I'm saying is in agreement with what we know about the universe and citing a professional in the field of "studying the universe" who's work forms a part of our knowledge of the universe as an example, you just try to dismiss it as a fallacy! What I've stated is definitively not "contradicting everything we know about the universe".

>If I cite a credible scientist, my argument is valid.
Besides, I'm not arguing for determinism, I'm arguing against free will, so none of this even matters.

If there is no free will, we can't just stop punishing criminals.

>>4886147
...Damn, I really wanted to know :(

>>4886209
If you're not interested in discussing determinism, then why did you put in so much effort responding to posts that were explicitly discussing determinism?

I'm kind of bothered you're continuing to duck out of any argument, you're still going out of your way to avoid engaging with anything I've said.

>Besides, I'm not arguing for determinism
>This doesn't change the fact that will is determined entirely by external causes.
Are you sure? Because that latter statement is the definition of determinism.

>>4886229
I never argued that the entire order of the universe could be determined from the starting point. You mistakenly associated that with my arguing against free will.

>Are you sure? Because that latter statement is the definition of determinism.
Lack of free will =/= determinism, though determinists do not believe in free will either. The definition of determinism certainly is not "the lack of free will" though, and if you think it is, you need to pick up a dictionary before arguing.

>>4886233
Anyway, late as fuck, I've made my point, goodnight.

>>4886233
>I never argued that the entire order of the universe could be determined from the starting point.
If the state of the universe cannot be determined from its beginning point, it is not deterministic.

>The definition of determinism certainly is not "the lack of free will" though
The definition of determinism is that will is determined entirely by external causes.

>a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events
Unless the human mind has always existed, there will be something prior and therefore exterior to it in the causal chain.

Was there not some German study a few years ago that found our brain makes a decision four seconds before we consciously make that decision?

Sorry for english.
Lets presume absolute determinition - everything that happens is a cause of some effects (visible or invisible). This amounts also to your thoughts.
Then it's meaningless to ask "why do we punish criminals"? (Off course, the question is also pre-determined).
Because the punishment is ALSO pre-determined. And this reply. And wether or not someone else replyes.
So... "but human cannot live with such a philospphy". Or: "I cannot stand thinking like this". This is ALSO pre-determined. We just is, all our past, present and future actions and thoughts simply is.

>>4885895
Free will is the metaphorical interpretation of the conscious relationship between present internal and external influences on our being at a given moment. When we observe a decision with more internal influence, we feel as though it was caused our will rather than our biology. It does not literally exist, but what it references does exist, which are the chemical reactions and the electrical impulses within the brain that give rise to our actions.
To take free will literally would be to give validity to the unfalsifiable in that we have some magical ability to defy physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology whenever it is convenient for us despite the lack of scientific and logical evidence.
Once you realize that the arguments in favor of literal free will are no more than semantic word games, then we will be able to view reality as scientists, not poets.
Without free will, we will no longer be able to justify retribution and will have to use the more practical and efficient methods of conditioning, education, and rehabilitation to prevent further suffering.

>>4886257
I'd very much like some sauce.

>>4885895
Because we have no choice but to do so.

>>4886257
The study showed that we make a decision before we say we have or that we intend to do something before we do it, yes. Evidence of the decision-making process occurring doesn't mean there wasn't a decision made though. I kinda feel bad for those guys, their study was misrepresented a lot. A lot of people parading it as "proof free will isn't real" rely on weird dualistic ideas regarding the mind and brain, like "your brain" making a decision means "you" didn't, when there's no dichotomy between "you" and "your brain", because they're part of the same whole if not just the same thing, and your mind and body are not separable in that manner.

>>4885895
Because induction seems to work, people who have committed crimes in the past are more likely to do so in the future. We punish them to protect ourselves.

You might complain that's a post hoc justification, but if we really don't have free will then that's the only kind of justification anyone anywhere can give for anything.

>>4886272
The point of the study was that the process of hand pressing the "chosen" button begun before the subjects themselves knew it consciously.

>>4885900
/thread

Again: The reason/justification/point for punishing crime IS ALSO PRE-DETERMINED. If we believe everything that happens in the universe is cause/effect.

>>4885895
>implying the cow doesn't have the choice not to go in there

>>4885895
>If there is no free will, why should we punish criminals


the thief pleaded with the philosopher saying: "But it was fate that determined I would steal your bread!"
To which the philosopher replied:" and it is fate that determined my staff would hit you on the head for it." *Bonk*

>>4886351
this is basically what that asshole from into the wild was talking about

you can't will or choose your next thought.

the question of "free-will" should be solved once you realize this.

1. To keep them from committing more crime
2. To deter other people from committing crime
3. Because we don't have choice in the matter anyway lel

I have never seen "free-will" argued with sound logic.

Even quantum mechanics fags don't even come close with their cat in the box bullshit.

>>4885994
>you can't be born a thief or murderer
You certainly can if your genetics contain innate temperaments predisposed to anti-social risk-taking behaviour and violence.

>>4886351
>>4886442


>implying there isn't another pit just offscreen

But Ahab's glance was averted; like a blighted fruit tree he shook, and cast his last, cindered apple to the soil.
"What is it, what nameless, inscrutable, unearthly thing is it; what cozening, hidden lord and master, and cruel, remorseless emperor commands me; that against all natural lovings and longings, I so keep pushing, and crowding, and jamming myself on all the time; recklessly making me ready to do what in my own proper, natural heart, I durst not so much as dare? Is Ahab, Ahab? Is it I, God, or who, that lifts this arm? But if the great sun move not of himself; but is as an errand-boy in heaven; nor one single star can revolve, but by some invisible power; how then can this one small heart beat; this one small brain think thoughts; unless God does that beating, does that thinking, does that living, and not I. By heaven, man, we are turned round and round in this world, like yonder windlass, and Fate is the handspike. And all the time, lo! that smiling sky, and this unsounded sea! Look! see yon Albicore! who put it into him to chase and fang that flying-fish? Where do murderers go, man! Who's to doom, when the judge himself is dragged to the bar? But it is a mild, mild wind, and a mild looking sky; and the air smells now, as if it blew from a far-away meadow; they have been making hay somewhere under the slopes of the Andes, Starbuck, and the mowers are sleeping among the new-mown hay. Sleeping? Aye, toil we how we may, we all sleep at last on the field. Sleep? Aye, and rust amid greenness; as last year's scythes flung down, and left in the half-cut swaths—Starbuck!"
But blanched to a corpse's hue with despair, the Mate had stolen away.
Ahab crossed the deck to gaze over on the other side; but started at two reflected, fixed eyes in the water there. Fedallah was motionlessly leaning over the same rail.

>>4885900
Then why are they released and oft given short sentences?
Shouldn't we kill the murderers and rapists once we know who they are, weeding out the bad seeds so society can be left untainted by those preordained to ruin it?

Why do anything? It's all going to happen, anyway. Just sit back and wait.

>>4886419
nice

>>4887004
Could you explain what Schrodinger's Cat has to do with free will?

Also you should read more on free will before saying things like "I have never seen "free-will" argued with sound logic" cus it implies you've read a lot and that you saying that is something substantive rather than bs. One argument for it that I like is the attribution of Humean (although now better referred to as Reductionist because people differ on what Hume really meant) causation. In such an argument, the laws of nature that posit determinism are shown (if you agree) to be descriptive not prescriptive. Read Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, and for something recent arguing for Reductionism try an article by Schaffer 'Causation and The Laws of Nature'. Reductionism is quite popular and it removes the problem of free-will/determinism i.e. so to say something what you said is quite silly, especially as the principle argument for Reductionism is logically simple as fuck.

>>4885895
A) Because the punishments, also, are thermodynamically predetermined.

Alternatively,
B) Because punishments are not a priori moral judgments, but the result of these judgments about a category of behavior (rather than the moral character of the person receiving the punishment).

>>4885895
Because I have no free will so I can't not punish them, it's the only way I can act.

good book on this by saul smilansky, free will and illusion

advocates essentially hard determinism and then asks what the social/moral/legal implications are if it's true

highly recommend

>>4885895
We have no choice but to punish them

>>4885895
>If there is no free will, why should we fix water-pipes if the way they burst was the only way they could have acted?

Because we don't like having wet feet. And in this case, we have the bonus effect of fixing the pipe making the other pipes at least somewhat less likely to burst.

Because we don't have a workeable alternative and laws are basically just thinly veiled tools of class rule anyway.

>>4886351
>implying that i'm a cow

>>4887477
>Because we don't like having wet feet.
Proving we have free will.

>>4887906

Liking stuff proves we have free will?

>>4885895
Choosing left vs right and vice versa is literally an example of free will, even if the consequence for both is the same. Determinists are upset young nihilists that concluded that the best rationalization for the fact of their impending death is that they are just "along for the ride" and aren't active agents in the world. Transhumanists are from the same stock but have the fantasy that SCIENCE(tm) will somehow allow them to trade their fate (their body) while keeping themselves.

>>4887936
>rationalization
How is it a rationalization when every piece of empiric evidence we've gathered supports the claim?

>>4887948
How is it not a rationalization when every piece of empiric evidence we've gathered doesn't support the claim?

>>4887936
>bulverism

People whose primary mode of engagement is to offer a faux-analysis of their correspondents' unconscious motivations are all unconsciously motivated by their desire to be breastfed by their mothers while their fathers fellate them.

So, you know. I guess you'd better not do that, because of how embarrassing it would be for that to be true of you. As it unquestionably would be, on account of I just said so.

Well, what >>4885900 said. But, we can't just put the death penalty on everything because everyone would revolt. So, we have to half ass our punishment.

>>4887979
Hit a little close to home, huh?

>>4887987
>slurp, slurp

Your mother would be so disappointed.

>>4887363
Because if I got 15 years for something I probably wouldn't do it again, and I wouldn't need to be killed.

Thread's theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B2tyKfrChQ

>>4885895
Just because criminals don't freely choose to commit a crime doesn't mean that punishment can't serve as deterrent.

>>4885900
>Because we want to prevent that person
but that's impossible if there's no free will.

>>4888531
er
>that person or other people

>>4888531

Actually, it can only be truly impossible if there is free will.

If we posit that this guy wot we caught doin' a blaggin', guvnor, is possessed of an acausal, sui generis 'causality generator' tucked away in his soul somewhere, then we can have no guarantee, ever - not even any true confidence, in fact - of influencing his behaviour. No matter what incentives or disincentives, rewards or punishments, praise or blame we bring to bear, he can always - ALWAYS - simply choose to disregard them. His future behaviour is reduced to what he freely chooses it to be. It's only if we assume this person's behaviour can be influenced by external events that we begin to see the value of encouragement and deterrence - because we can be confident that they will, at least in some cases, produce a tangible effect.

Admittedly, the absence of free will doesn't give us perfect ability to influence people. But this is about whether or not it's POSSIBLE to influence their behaviour, not whether we can guarantee that we will do so, or do so successfully.

I consider myself a determinist, but what are good texts on the free will debate, one that ideally doesn't appeal overtly to either side, or if they do is informational rather than didactic

>>4887027

Thinking someone in specific, anon

>>4885895
because that's the only way we can act? maybe, duh

>>4885900
>>4887363
what if someone decides to take the law into their own hands? What if that person were to misinterpret it? It seems like you'd be creating more criminals by punishing as an example.