If free will is an illusion… Better, if there is no free will, you are guilty because others condemn you. And they condemn you because they are not free. No justification needed.I have a new thread that I discussed that free will is an illusion. Here we discuss an important consequence of absence of free will. The main questions are as following: Why we should be guilty of our action if free will is an illusion? What is the purpose of Heaven and Hell? How judiciary system could be justified?..
Heaven and HellI have a new thread that I discussed that free will is an illusion. Here we discuss an important consequence of absence of free will. The main questions are as following: Why we should be guilty of our action if free will is an illusion? What is the purpose of Heaven and Hell? How judiciary system could be justified?..
The animal kingdom.do.not have rational minds or.moral consciences.Heaven and Hell
Why.is.there prison on earth?
Why is.there life.sentences given to.dangerous criminals?
Those who break the law grievously have lost.the.right to be.free men in society.
To deter people from crime there is a consequence.
The government does not want to put people in prison, it wants to deter people from living a life that would earn them prison.
God.is.the same with the Eternal Prison of Hell.
People choose by their lifestyles whether.they go to prison, or whether they eventually end up in Heaven or Hell.
Assuming that free-will is an illusion:I have a new thread that I discussed that free will is an illusion. Here we discuss an important consequence of absence of free will. The main questions are as following: Why we should be guilty of our action if free will is an illusion? What is the purpose of Heaven and Hell? How judiciary system could be justified?…
Of course a justification is needed.If free will is an illusion… Better, if there is no free will, you are guilty because others condemn you. And they condemn you because they are not free. No justification needed.
I don’t understand how. We don’t move at all if there is no purpose.Also, if there is no free will, there is no purpose at all.
That doesn’t make sense. Why should feel guilty if free will is an illusion?Even if as seems likely, free will is a mirage; we **perceive **ourselves as being free, and that gives us a measure of responsibility.
ICXC NIKA
Free will is the ability to choose freely between a set of options.What is guilt? What is free will?
Christi pax,
Lucretius
That is something that we learn in our childhood from our parents.Assuming that free-will is an illusion:
- We shouldn’t. (It’s seems strange, then, that we would “evolve” to have guilt).
The purpose of law should be to protect individuals rather than accusing individuals.
- No purpose. (Also, what is the purpose of law?)
I don’t understand you. Could you please elaborate?
- It can’t. (But what becomes of justification in an unfree world?)
What about the first parents? Is guilt merely an invention?That is something that we learn in our childhood from our parents.
If we lack free-will, the word “should” is meaningless in relation to human activity.The purpose of law should be to protect individuals rather than accusing individuals.
You asked how the judiciary system could be justified. I was asking how it makes sense to speak of justification if we are unfree. What is doing the justifying? Some chemicals in someone’s brain?I don’t understand you. Could you please elaborate?
I’m not sure Christians believe in the libertarian free will. As a Thomist, the will is bound to choosing between what it knows to be good: it’s choices are not arbitrary.Free will is the ability to choose freely between a set of options.
In this case, a person can be guilty regardless of whether they had any kind of free will or were entirely determined. If Bill kills Jane, it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t have free will or not, because he is still responsible for a specific wrongdoing.Guilty is defined as culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing.
That doesn’t make sense. Why should feel guilty if free will is an illusion?
“We”?Of course a justification is needed.
I don’t understand how. We don’t move at all if there is no purpose.
We have no first parents. The guilt together with all other concepts were invention of human beings as we evolved more and more.What about the first parents? Is guilt merely an invention?
It is not meaningless since “should” is required in any human activity which is rationalized.If we lack free-will, the word “should” is meaningless in relation to human activity.
Justification is needed as a matter of being rational.You asked how the judiciary system could be justified. I was asking how it makes sense to speak of justification if we are unfree. What is doing the justifying? Some chemicals in someone’s brain?
Reason does not go out of window as a matter of absence of freedom because reason is needed in any rational activity.Ultimately, reason itself goes out the window if we are not free; there would be no reason to trust that our thoughts correspond to reality, given that our beliefs would have no causal relation to reality. If they did, this would be only incidental.
How you could be free if your choices are bound to be good.I’m not sure Christians believe in the libertarian free will. As a Thomist, the will is bound to choosing between what it knows to be good: it’s choices are not arbitrary.
What I am arguing is why Bill should be guilty or responsible for his act?In this case, a person can be guilty regardless of whether they had any kind of free will or were entirely determined. If Bill kills Jane, it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t have free will or not, because he is still responsible for a specific wrongdoing.
Yes. I go even further. Why people should be guilty of their act?In this case, the question your discussing should be “should we punish people guilty of grave crimes, if they have no free will.”
The problem is that anybody as a rational being does the same action being in the same situation hence the act punishing is wrong when there is no free will.I would argue then that society punishes the guilty in order to protect the common good. So, since the guilty threaten the common good, they should be punished. This argument by itself works with any conception of free will or lack there of.
Yes. We are not allowed to punish people.If no kind of free will exists, then what we can’t do is try to rehabilitate criminals, making the death penalty the norm for capital crimes.
I am waiting to hear further.This argument though is a work in progress…
Christi pax,
Lucretius
We are not water. We are only rational being doing specific thing in a situation. The problem is that we , as a rational being, do the same thing if we are exactly in the same situation hence the act of punishing people or accusing them is wrong.“We”?
To “justify” an action is to show its justice, that is to say, it’s accordance to the moral law. But the moral law does not apply to beings which are not free. For example, an individual enters a swimming pool and he dies because water inundated his lungs. No one who is intelligent enough will request a justification to the water why it inundated the poor individual’s lungs. No justification will be needed. And you are right!: why should the water feel guilty if it is not free? Well, it doesn’t.
However, did the water have a purpose? You think that it must have had some purpose because it moved into the lungs. There is no movement if there is no purpose, right? Especially if there is no free will! We must wait until the water tells us, because our rationality does not suffice to find out the answer.
Don’t you see that, if you are right and there is no free will, those who punish people or accuse them cannot act otherwise, precisely because they are not free?We are not water. We are only rational being doing specific thing in a situation. The problem is that we , as a rational being, do the same thing if we are exactly in the same situation hence the act of punishing people or accusing them is wrong.
We have no first parents. The guilt together with all other concepts were invention of human beings as we evolved more and more.
If we lack free-will, we didn’t invent guilt; our human nature did. But how is this evolution? “Evolving” to have guilt makes no sense if we are not free (and therefore lack responsibility for our actions, which we have no control over).
It is not meaningless since “should” is required in any human activity which is rationalized.