If science disproves free will, how will we reconcile holding criminals responsible for their actions?
We have debated the existence of free will here on many occasions. I doubt we will reconcile that debate, so for the moment, let us set that aside. There can be no question among those who believe the scientific method has any merit at all that science has slowly and steadily chipped away at the early idea that each of us has pure free will. True free will says that our every action is, from the standpoint of the causal physical universe, an uncaused cause. It posits that all human behavior springs from thoughts that flow from a soul or non-corporeal entity inhabiting every human heart or head or who cares where. A nothingness needs no somewhere, does it?
So what if tomorrow, science discovers conclusive proof that the Cartesian Duality is false, and that our “I“ness flows strictly from neural activity within our brain. Now we are left with 6 things that can motivate and control behavior.
1—Some human mental activity is hard-wired in our genes.
2—Some results from how we are reared by our parents.
3—Some is the result of how our brain develops (i.e., any of its “computer” architecture that is influenced by enzymes, chemistry and nutrition as we grow).
4—Some is the result the influences of the culture we grow up in.
5—Some is the result of the things we experience, the people we uniquely interact with and the things we learn.
6—Finally, what we ingest on a daily basis (knowingly or unwittingly) influences how we act, as the date-rape drug Rohypnol so amply demonstrates.
Now, if a man committed a murder because he was chained in a chair with his finger on the trigger of a gun, and that finger was wired up to a roulette wheel, we would not hold him guilty of murder. He had no will in committing the act. So, if we discover that in fact none of us have any free will, we are all wired to a roulette wheel, how do we change our view of ethics and morality to maintain a sane, safe society? In other words, should the famous Twinky Defense be considered a legitimate argument permitting murder, or should people who have a propensity to fly into violent rages due to excess sugar consumption be expected to realize that and refrain from eating too much sugar? How might society adjust if moral culpability is not vested in a free will at all?
Topics:
Composing members: 0
Answers
)“Great Answer”
(2)
)“Great Answer”
(2)
)“Great Answer”
(2)
)“Great Answer”
(6)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(2)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(2)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
