You may think you chose to read this, but Stanford scientist Robert Sapolsky would disagree. He says virtually all human behavior is beyond our conscious control.
Yeah, that conclusion simply isn’t as self-evident as people like to believe. I guess the idea is that we punish people for their choices, and if they can’t actually make choices, then you can’t punish them.
The problem is, under this framework, there is no ‘they’ that’s making a choice at all, so all that follows is that we need another justification for punishment (or any other kind of differential treatment). The impact of those actions seems a pretty reasonable basis, as well as reinforcing the notion in that person’s brain (and in others) that the action is not tolerated or without consequences.
I disagree that that’s necessarily a problem and I believe the problem only arises when looking at the perspective of no free will from the basis of the opposite side. The colloquial idea of ‘punishment’ comes from most people’s current perspective of free will; if there’s no free will it isn’t punishment, it’s just solving a problem.
As an example of an analogous perspective irrespective of free will, take chemistry: Say you’re reacting two substances which oxidize when exposed to an atmosphere, if you want to react them in their non-oxidized state you have to do so in an oxygen free environment so you pump in pure nitrogen to displace all the air. The air has no free will to choose whether or not it’ll react with the substances and ruin your intended reaction so it’d be silly to say you’re punishing the air for something it has no choice in. You’re treating the air differently simply because it’s problematic, not because you’re trying to teach it a lesson.
It also says determinism means we can’t treat people differently based on their actions, which is just a complete non sequitur.
What’s the odds that this author is up to some heinous shit in his free time and this is just a philosophical cover?
Yeah, that conclusion simply isn’t as self-evident as people like to believe. I guess the idea is that we punish people for their choices, and if they can’t actually make choices, then you can’t punish them.
The problem is, under this framework, there is no ‘they’ that’s making a choice at all, so all that follows is that we need another justification for punishment (or any other kind of differential treatment). The impact of those actions seems a pretty reasonable basis, as well as reinforcing the notion in that person’s brain (and in others) that the action is not tolerated or without consequences.
I disagree that that’s necessarily a problem and I believe the problem only arises when looking at the perspective of no free will from the basis of the opposite side. The colloquial idea of ‘punishment’ comes from most people’s current perspective of free will; if there’s no free will it isn’t punishment, it’s just solving a problem.
As an example of an analogous perspective irrespective of free will, take chemistry: Say you’re reacting two substances which oxidize when exposed to an atmosphere, if you want to react them in their non-oxidized state you have to do so in an oxygen free environment so you pump in pure nitrogen to displace all the air. The air has no free will to choose whether or not it’ll react with the substances and ruin your intended reaction so it’d be silly to say you’re punishing the air for something it has no choice in. You’re treating the air differently simply because it’s problematic, not because you’re trying to teach it a lesson.