Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bradskii" data-source="post: 77661308" data-attributes="member: 412388"><p>I don't think that you even have to believe in free will to accept, at some level, one of the conclusions he comes to. That is, we should allow for extenuating circumstances when it comes to punishment a lot more than we do now.</p><p></p><p>The problem in that respect seems to be that when it's plainly obvious that there are such circumstances...we do. We allow for mental illness. We allow (in some cases) for crimes of passion. We allow for physiological problems such as the results of diabetes. But when it's hidden from us, then we don't. We blame the person and not what caused to the person to act as he did.</p><p></p><p>Someone like Sapolski is just waving a flag trying to catch our attention to tell us that there is a lot that we are unaware of which determine our actions. Should we treat someone who had the cards dealt against him literally before he was born exactly the same as someone who had all the benefits possible? It seems that some would say 'Hey, he should have just used his free will. His self control. It's his <em>fault</em>'.</p><p></p><p>If someone does have a psychological problem, through no fault of their own, then why shouldn't we take it into account?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bradskii, post: 77661308, member: 412388"] I don't think that you even have to believe in free will to accept, at some level, one of the conclusions he comes to. That is, we should allow for extenuating circumstances when it comes to punishment a lot more than we do now. The problem in that respect seems to be that when it's plainly obvious that there are such circumstances...we do. We allow for mental illness. We allow (in some cases) for crimes of passion. We allow for physiological problems such as the results of diabetes. But when it's hidden from us, then we don't. We blame the person and not what caused to the person to act as he did. Someone like Sapolski is just waving a flag trying to catch our attention to tell us that there is a lot that we are unaware of which determine our actions. Should we treat someone who had the cards dealt against him literally before he was born exactly the same as someone who had all the benefits possible? It seems that some would say 'Hey, he should have just used his free will. His self control. It's his [I]fault[/I]'. If someone does have a psychological problem, through no fault of their own, then why shouldn't we take it into account? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
Top
Bottom