The Cats Venm
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 168
When discussions on free will come up, people often refer to jail. They say something like: How can you justify punishing someone if they don't have free will? Their actions were 'controlled', so they should be absolved of guilt.
This argument presents a false dilemma. People aren't (or shouldn't be) punished because they violated some absolute universal rule. We punish people because their actions had an undesirable effect on society and we want it to stop. The punishment is an attempt to influence their future behaviour so that they will not continue their unwanted actions. When people are not punished because they 'were not in control', it is because they are deemed unlikely to repeat the offensive action. None of this requires free will.
As I see it the only definition of free will that can exist is that it is the perceived weighing and choosing of options. Everyone knows only one option can be chosen, and that option will always be based purely on present conditions, experience, and maybe some random influence. Nobody can logically dispute this.
The problem with this definition is that it renders the term rather meaningless and misleading. There is nothing truly 'free' about it. The term 'choice' covers the topic just fine.
This can lead to other problems when people see the world in black and white. When divine judgement enters the discussion, then some sort of independent 'free will' is necessary or the whole thing falls apart. As this mystical 'free will' is ridiculous upon examination, the whole thing falls apart anyway.
There is no free will, there is only choice.
This argument presents a false dilemma. People aren't (or shouldn't be) punished because they violated some absolute universal rule. We punish people because their actions had an undesirable effect on society and we want it to stop. The punishment is an attempt to influence their future behaviour so that they will not continue their unwanted actions. When people are not punished because they 'were not in control', it is because they are deemed unlikely to repeat the offensive action. None of this requires free will.
As I see it the only definition of free will that can exist is that it is the perceived weighing and choosing of options. Everyone knows only one option can be chosen, and that option will always be based purely on present conditions, experience, and maybe some random influence. Nobody can logically dispute this.
The problem with this definition is that it renders the term rather meaningless and misleading. There is nothing truly 'free' about it. The term 'choice' covers the topic just fine.
This can lead to other problems when people see the world in black and white. When divine judgement enters the discussion, then some sort of independent 'free will' is necessary or the whole thing falls apart. As this mystical 'free will' is ridiculous upon examination, the whole thing falls apart anyway.
There is no free will, there is only choice.
