DrZoidberg
Contributor
If it really was, why would you be chipping in? Let's not? Easy: then don't.
The topic was what is the meaning of life. You jumped in and treated it like a free will discussion. And said something silly. I helped out by setting your straight. That's why. I'm still interesting in discussing the actual topic.
Easy too because the reason is not specific to free will. To the extent that we are interested in exchanging ideas with other people, we will want to clarify what we mean by certain words whose meaning appears contentious. That's what people do and there's no good reason to leave free will out of the picture.Before you try to figure out if we have free will or not, perhaps you should start with establishing why you want to know it?
If I punch you in the face, does it matter if I have free will or not? If somebody lies bleeding on the street because of a traffic accident, does it matter if they have free will or not? In every case where you bring in free will, I can easily show how it's a redundant quality. Try me!
Not it's not but you've just provided your own very good example of why it's important to discuss the notion of free will. Anything that's important to the courts is important to any citizen susceptible of being brought in front of one. Or maybe you think you're immune to prosecution.For our court systems it's important because they treat intentional and unintentional crimes differently. They also care about if things are objectively true or not. They've decided to sacrifice accuracy for efficiency. If they would actually give a shit about philosophy they wouldn't bother. But they don't care. They just want to get beyond reasonable doubt. So it works for them. But this is not a court of law.
The point of our legal system is to make the world more safe and one that works. A world conducive to positive behaviours. Justice is just something we say. Nobody really believes in it, and it's not what the "justice" system is for.
If somebody is found guilty of a crime, is punishment a deterrent? Yes, or no. If yes, then continue. If no, tweak the punishment until we get the result we want. So easy. Free will is a non-factor.
Sentencing people on the basis of causing objective harm is already taken into account, I think, at least if you're suing for liabilities and damages, in civil courts. The question then is about whether you did the deed, not whether it's was intentional. Free will is more likely to become an issue in public prosecutions, although maybe there are substantial differences between countries.This is a heritage from Christian theology. Which in turn is inherited from Roman law. Assuming free will is actually unnecessary for our legal systems. It's just something that's lingered. But we could as well simply explore the various scenarios available in the court room, and if an action was taken that did unnecessary damage, then guilty. We actually don't need to get mired in the motivations of the accused. BTW, criminal courts usually don't do that all that much anyway. Today they usually just get on with it.
There's no such thing as objective harm. There is only subjective harm. Harm is fundamentally an emotional state. Measure that!
You are also giving another reason why it may be important to discuss free will, namely that, like it or not, it's a part of our culture. If you don't like it, the last thing to do would be to wait for other people to settle the issue of the reality and nature of free will.
The free will debate is older than the existence of God debate. Neither will ever get answered. Perhaps time to move on?
So if the courts are more sensible today, then why can't we be?
I'm quite sure my view of free will is perfectly sensible.
EB
I didn't say it wasn't. The problem that all the other definitions are just as sensible. That's the problem.