In my opinion (and was it determined from the moment of the Big Bang that I should hold it?) the belief in free will (or volition) encourages individualism and leadership. If I believed that I did not possess individual volition, I would be much more likely to seek out a low-paying, low-challenge job, where I can just go through the motions and get paid enough to live on.
Only someone with a belief that his decisions are real, and make a difference, would ever start his own business or strive to become a leader.
What you don’t have is free will because the concept is incoherent.
What we call a reasoned, willful action, is necessarily the product of past events and hard-wired affinities (if the latter did not exist we would have no basis for preferring one action over another).
Free will, as popularly imagined, is a reasoned, willful action that appears like a bolt out of the blue not based on past events or what kind of person you are. That doesn’t make any sense.
It’s a complete red herring to say we do not have free will in a deterministic universe; we don’t have free will in any self-consistent universe.
That is not my understanding of how the Justice system works at all. It may reflect what the justice system wants to say about itself, but tnot what the actuality is.
For instance there is very confusing evidence about the effect of variation in punishment levels, both over time and over different cultures. It seems that when ‘crimes’ are committed, ‘criminals’ rarely consider the level of potential punishment, but are more motivated by their current mental state, or (if thinking rationally at all) the potential likelihood of being caught!
Despite that extreme sanctions (the death penalty, life without parole) are used with little evidence that they are more effective than lesser sentences. Many Western countries have very limited resource to either judicial killing or lengthy imprisonment and do not seem to have any greater problem with recideivism than those cultures where vengenace via justic is more ingrained. Similarly there seems to be (particularly in the US and UK) a ratchet like effect where further and harder punishment seems to be the goal rather than the noble sentiments you cling to.
The history of State Justice shows that it has its origins in SOcial Control (whether Just or not) and the avoidance of consequent citizen vengeance. Vengeance is still sought by the common man and drives a good part of any Justice system that I know of.
I have nor problem with volition as it is described- an awareness of internal and external states by an organism, differentiating between possible behaviors that may be beneficial to the organism.
These could equally be determined completely by the physical structure of the brain. Possibly the best problem solving machines (computers) are denied ‘consciousness’ yet are better decision makers in most cases than humans.
What evidence do you have for that. If we deny higher animals free will (which I think we mostly do- I don’t see many in court of a Monday) then how do we explain their excellent fitness for purpose in decision making in their own social and ecological niche.
Let me propose and alternative to free will ina little thought experiment:
Those organisms who develop cognitive structures that permit complex consideration of many alternatives have an evolutionary advantage- they are more likely to make decisions that result in their and their offspring’s survival.
Those organisms that develop emotional structures that allow sudden and non-rational decision making that results in quantifiably better outcomes have a similar advantage.
Those organism that develop a belief structure that includes Free Will are similarly more able to make good decisions about the world.
This does not require that Free Will actually exists, only that it is believed in by the organism!
I’m obviously out of my depth here… But so long as you agree that there is volition, and that we do make decisions, then I’m fine.
If you want to distinguish this from some other kind of decision-making, call that other kind “free will,” and then dismiss it, I’m fine with that, too. You’re allowing the existence of volition and choice and decision and options. My choice whether to have rice or beans for dinner actually is a choice, actually is an option, and is not predestined by a lock-step billiards-table determination of the Newtonian variety.
And, yes, most certainly, being able to make useful decisions has been, in our species, richly rewarded by evolution.
So: volition yes, free will no, and… I don’t get it: where’s the beef?
I am capable of changing my mind… But I’d like the matter more clearly explained!
ETA: Oops, this really belongs in the other thread! Sorry!
Yes, perhaps it’s more accurate to say that a justice system with no element of retribution is an ideal that has not been quite achieved yet.
Nevertheless I think my point largely stands as what I’m saying is, contrary to popular belief, retribution is not the basis of the justice system. In most developed countries, the other reasons are either considered more important, or retribution is not supposed to be there at all. And the other reasons for incarceration make perfect sense even assuming no “free will”.
There’s quite a lot of discussion points there.
But I will say that even if there were a justice system without notion of punishment, and even if greater punishments have no effect on the incidence of crimes committed, it still might make sense to have such punitive levels. Because, for one thing, if you can’t rehabilitate a violent criminal, the least you can do is keep them from harming more innocent people.
Not exactly senseless. It had real economic value at the time. You just couldn’t get anyone except slave, prison, or other captive market labor* to produce it, at a viable economic price.