Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[popeye1945]

People who believe in radical free will are usually more right wing. They show a complete lack of understanding for mitigating circumstances, and regard prison as a holding pen for willfully recidivistic criminals, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate and make corrections to behaviour for the benefit of society. THe implication of free will is that no matter the cause, not matter the experience a person has absolute free will to commit crimes by pure choice uninfluenced by deterrence, or necessity. SO prisons cannot be about reform, they can only be holding pens.
This is one reason why the US, a country obsessed with Free will, has the world's largest prison populations. and are more or less cages to incarcerate.

By contrast the Scandinavian model which is more about rehab, has some of the lowest repeat offenses

You're not completely wrong.

The free willist believes he is accountable for what he does. The buck stops with him (no matter his circumstance or his apparent lack of say-so in a circumstance). At his best he's just; at his worst he's compassionless.

Does the psychopath have free will, the psychopath does not have the emotional cognitive ability to show compassion or mercy. Unlike most people he does not identify himself with the self of others, thus he feels no compassion and feels superior to those hobbled by these restraints. Are we free will agents responsible for what we cannot feel and cannot experience or did not know? Why in the judicial system is intent taken into consideration, could circumstances beyond an agent's control account for behavior? Does the consideration of intent cover the proper reaction/s to be taken in given circumstances?

[BigMike]

Why in the judicial system is intent taken into consideration, could circumstances beyond an agent's control account for behavior?

If you are referring to the legal system in the United States, the answer can be found in a statement made by the Supreme Court, which states that "a deterministic view of human conduct ... is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system." In addition to this, they assert that "belief in freedom of the human will" is a "universal and persistent" component of their existing legal framework.

Does the consideration of intent cover the proper reaction/s to be taken in given circumstances?

At the core of every action is the drive to fulfill a need. Maslow (1943, 1954) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs and that some needs take precedence over others. In practice, however, we seek to meet many needs with a single action or a series of actions. We try to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Intentions are thus frequently intricate and entangled, yet they always boil down to a handful of basic needs for our physical and emotional health. Because of how our bodies work, we have these needs, and how we meet them depends on what resources are around us. Clearly, what matters are the criminals' intentions, as they do for everyone else.
But to answer your question, I think our "consideration of intent" is usually very shallow because we don't take the time to follow it all the way through. And if I'm right about this, it's clear that our "consideration" can't "cover the proper reaction/s to be taken in given circumstances".

[Belinda]

BigMike wrote:

If you are referring to the legal system in the United States, the answer can be found in a statement made by the Supreme Court, which states that "a deterministic view of human conduct ... is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system." In addition to this, they assert that "belief in freedom of the human will" is a "universal and persistent" component of their existing legal framework.

There has never been a society without a ruling elite. Hierarchical control which of necessity includes criminal justice, is ubiquitous. Total slavery is hard to maintain because slaves rebel and middlemen are needed, and slave owners damage their own psyches.The alternative to slavery is personal responsibility.

Elites, educated or not, don't need to believe in free will because elites are established in power .
So theoretically, sometimes actually ,they can do what they want. Thus the belief in free will supports social class systems.

While communism falls foul of the overarching need for controlling elites, socialism is a continual struggle to ameliorate the suffering involved in hierarchical governance.

[BigMike]

BigMike wrote:

If you are referring to the legal system in the United States, the answer can be found in a statement made by the Supreme Court, which states that "a deterministic view of human conduct ... is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system." In addition to this, they assert that "belief in freedom of the human will" is a "universal and persistent" component of their existing legal framework.

There has never been a society without a ruling elite. Hierarchical control which of necessity includes criminal justice, is ubiquitous. Total slavery is hard to maintain because slaves rebel and middlemen are needed, and slave owners damage their own psyches.The alternative to slavery is personal responsibility.

Elites, educated or not, don't need to believe in free will because elites are established in power .
So theoretically, sometimes actually ,they can do what they want. Thus the belief in free will supports social class systems.

While communism falls foul of the overarching need for controlling elites, socialism is a continual struggle to ameliorate the suffering involved in hierarchical governance.

This raises the question of whether it always has to be that way. For example, suppose the majority of people some time in the future realize that free will is an illusion and that they, therefore, demand legislative and judicial reforms on a grand scale. What would these proposed changes entail?

Or do you suppose that people will be satisfied with the current legal system, which lacks rationale in their minds?

[henry quirk]

That is the safest thing to do when one has no solid ground to stand on.

And my point is illustrated thusly...

You say I cut & ran. I reacted.

I say I considered my past experiences, weighed the pros & cons, and decided it wasn't worth the effort. I acted.

[Belinda]

BigMike wrote:

If you are referring to the legal system in the United States, the answer can be found in a statement made by the Supreme Court, which states that "a deterministic view of human conduct ... is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system." In addition to this, they assert that "belief in freedom of the human will" is a "universal and persistent" component of their existing legal framework.

There has never been a society without a ruling elite. Hierarchical control which of necessity includes criminal justice, is ubiquitous. Total slavery is hard to maintain because slaves rebel and middlemen are needed, and slave owners damage their own psyches.The alternative to slavery is personal responsibility.

Elites, educated or not, don't need to believe in free will because elites are established in power .
So theoretically, sometimes actually ,they can do what they want. Thus the belief in free will supports social class systems.

While communism falls foul of the overarching need for controlling elites, socialism is a continual struggle to ameliorate the suffering involved in hierarchical governance.

This raises the question of whether it always has to be that way. For example, suppose the majority of people some time in the future realize that free will is an illusion and that they, therefore, demand legislative and judicial reforms on a grand scale. What would these proposed changes entail?

Or do you suppose that people will be satisfied with the current legal system, which lacks rationale in their minds?

I think few are satisfied with current legal systems of any sort.
I also think it's unlikely that men will ever dispense with legal systems that are founded on free will. Even a strong determinist such as me has to live as if free will is possible; I am not omniscient and so I have to guess plus try to evaluate as well as I can.

I think the changes you propose entail either the New Jerusalem, or experience become absolute. The changes are aspirational. Socialists constantly exert their aspirational force against moral entropy.

[henry quirk]

Does the psychopath have free will

He is a free will, yes. Thing is: damage & illness can hobble a person. Stan, with late stage muscular dystrophy is not evidence walking is a fiction. Lou, with severe down's syndrome, is not an evidence high intelligence is impossible. Marc, with sociopathy, is not evidence that man is not a free will.

[Belinda]

Does the psychopath have free will

He is a free will, yes. Thing is: damage & illness can hobble a person. Stan, with late stage muscular dystrophy is not evidence walking is a fiction. Lou, with severe down's syndrome, is not an evidence high intelligence is impossible. Marc, with sociopathy, is not evidence that man is not a free will.

The newborn infant is evidence man is not a free will.

The deep sleeper is evidence man is not a free will.

[henry quirk]

The newborn infant is evidence man is not a free will. The deep sleeper is evidence man is not a free will.

Nope. A newborn is is incapable of sophisticated thinkin', is incapable of sexual congress: is this evidence sophisticated thinkin or sexual congress are fictions? The deep sleeper is asleep, not brain dead. His mind is turned inward, not turned off.

[phyllo]

Does the psychopath have free will

He is a free will, yes. Thing is: damage & illness can hobble a person. Stan, with late stage muscular dystrophy is not evidence walking is a fiction. Lou, with severe down's syndrome, is not an evidence high intelligence is impossible. Marc, with sociopathy, is not evidence that man is not a free will.

In those cases, there are examples of people who can walk and who have high intelligence.

You don't have any examples of people who have free-will.

Yeah, I know that you think you do.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I know that you think you do.

I know I do. I'm talkin' to one (you) right now.

[phyllo]

That is the safest thing to do when one has no solid ground to stand on.

And my point is illustrated thusly...

You say I cut & ran. I reacted.

I say I considered my past experiences, weighed the pros & cons, and decided it wasn't worth the effort. I acted.

You acted based on the current situation and your past experience. That's determinism in a nutshell.

[popeye1945]

Does the psychopath have free will

He is a free will, yes. Thing is: damage & illness can hobble a person. Stan, with late stage muscular dystrophy is not evidence walking is a fiction. Lou, with severe down's syndrome, is not an evidence high intelligence is impossible. Marc, with sociopathy, is not evidence that man is not a free will.

So, a person's mental or physical health has no bearing on their behaviors, most people at least would consider them limitations. Even in the prison system at present, someone doing time for say assault, when considered for parole would be kept in longer if they are deemed psychopathic. This is simply because they know they are more likely to re-offend. Would in your opinion someone guilty of mass murder should not be considered for a lighter sentence or even hospitalization if found to have a brain tumor? Psychopaths are mostly born like that, but according to mental health authorities psychopaths can be created through the repeated traumatizing of a child, in fact, they have impressive research to back it up. Personally, I have noticed with many criminals that their life experiences has stripped them of their humanity well before the charges of the crime they a facing came to be. Society cannot be entirely off the hook, for we know that the present society is not an entirely healthy one. Again I point out, all organisms are reactive creatures, reacting to the physical world, and society plays that part relative to its citizens. One needs when one is trying understand another behaviors to ask, what are they reacting to? Sometimes it's immediate and obvious, well at other times clouded in a long history of suffering on various levels. It seems to me a person who cannot have compassion for a psychopath or other unfortunate states of being then how is one different than a psychopath?

[popeye1945]

That is the safest thing to do when one has no solid ground to stand on.

And my point is illustrated thusly...

You say I cut & ran. I reacted.

I say I considered my past experiences, weighed the pros & cons, and decided it wasn't worth the effort. I acted.

You acted based on the current situation and your past experience. That's determinism in a nutshell.

Henry.
I think you may be in the wrong place if you think I am in error and yet do not wish to point out my faulty thinking processes.

[henry quirk]

You acted based on the current situation and your past experience. That's determinism in a nutshell.[/quote]

And my point is illustrated, again.

I say I, as a free will, considered my past experiences, weighed the pros & cons, and decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I'm not doin' this for the next 20 pages...it's a dance...I'm done dancin'.