Well, the simulation argument may not make a difference, but the free will one might. If nobody has the free will necessary for moral responsibility, then many of our punishment practices can’t be morally upheld. If nobody deserves punishment, we should only use it as a means of keeping social harmony, and that means we should do it a lot less and a lot differently.
That only follows if you believe that free will implies moral responsibility, and that moral responsibility means punishment must occur, and that that means more punishment must occur. Why doesn’t moral responsibility mean less punishment? What about the moral responsibility of those meting out punishment?
And in either case, both concepts are intangible and immeasurable, so using them as justification for something as consequential as imprisonment means something else much more tangible and measurable is being hidden behind those concepts.
I think it’s just the exercise of power. That’s why moral responsibility is only ever used to punish and never to stay punishment, because those wielding the argument aren’t interested in those arguments being used to limit their power, only to exercise it.
The only thing that matters is effectiveness to reduce harm, and that is basically never spoken about by those in favour of incarceration.
Lmao I realized after I posted that that it was gonna open a bit of a philosophical can of worms, and that I would quickly be neck deep. This is a very good point, and I only meant my statement to a certain extent. For the average human’s daily life, finding out that free will doesnt exist (to whichever extent you’d like to take an idea like that) wouldnt suddenly change their daily experience, and they would be able to continue to operate under the assumption that they are making meaningful choices with varied outcomes just like usual. They had this impression before the revelation that free will is not real, so their life experiences would not necessarily change after the fact (obviously it COULD change, but wouldnt as a necessity). As for the more nuanced moral implications of such a discovery/revelation, I shouldnt presume to know how that would impact the world.
This is a lot of philosophy. Pointless in the day to day. But the arguments and ideas eventually lead somewhere.
I do think the discussions of free will are important because it’s a major area that people take for granted. When you ask “what does free will really mean?” you can’t just come back from that.
But, why? Even if free will is proven, what value does punishment serve? And if all things are predetermined, then punishment itself is justified by predeterminism.
Literally anything that happens is “justified” or perhaps “explained” by predeterminism, but just because a system exists and is internally consistent and follows all of its rules doesn’t mean a better system can’t exist.
If everything and anything can be “justified” that “justice” isn’t useful to consider, and we should think about something like “utility” or “happiness” instead.
I agree. I just don’t think the answer to the question of free will alters (or should alter) our behaviors.
Although, internally it can help, as famously described by Einstein - there’s a helpful translation lower in the page, but it’s interesting to hear his voice whether or not you understand German. As a way of internalizing how people treat you, it’s sweet. I don’t buy it (the philosophy) for a second, but still.
I just don’t think the answer to the question of free will alters (or should alter) our behaviors.
I tend to agree, but the kind of people who believe it is just and good to punish others (as opposed to rehabilitate or something) tend to disagree with us.
Well, the simulation argument may not make a difference, but the free will one might. If nobody has the free will necessary for moral responsibility, then many of our punishment practices can’t be morally upheld. If nobody deserves punishment, we should only use it as a means of keeping social harmony, and that means we should do it a lot less and a lot differently.
That only follows if you believe that free will implies moral responsibility, and that moral responsibility means punishment must occur, and that that means more punishment must occur. Why doesn’t moral responsibility mean less punishment? What about the moral responsibility of those meting out punishment?
And in either case, both concepts are intangible and immeasurable, so using them as justification for something as consequential as imprisonment means something else much more tangible and measurable is being hidden behind those concepts.
I think it’s just the exercise of power. That’s why moral responsibility is only ever used to punish and never to stay punishment, because those wielding the argument aren’t interested in those arguments being used to limit their power, only to exercise it.
The only thing that matters is effectiveness to reduce harm, and that is basically never spoken about by those in favour of incarceration.
Lmao I realized after I posted that that it was gonna open a bit of a philosophical can of worms, and that I would quickly be neck deep. This is a very good point, and I only meant my statement to a certain extent. For the average human’s daily life, finding out that free will doesnt exist (to whichever extent you’d like to take an idea like that) wouldnt suddenly change their daily experience, and they would be able to continue to operate under the assumption that they are making meaningful choices with varied outcomes just like usual. They had this impression before the revelation that free will is not real, so their life experiences would not necessarily change after the fact (obviously it COULD change, but wouldnt as a necessity). As for the more nuanced moral implications of such a discovery/revelation, I shouldnt presume to know how that would impact the world.
This is a lot of philosophy. Pointless in the day to day. But the arguments and ideas eventually lead somewhere.
I do think the discussions of free will are important because it’s a major area that people take for granted. When you ask “what does free will really mean?” you can’t just come back from that.
But, why? Even if free will is proven, what value does punishment serve? And if all things are predetermined, then punishment itself is justified by predeterminism.
Literally anything that happens is “justified” or perhaps “explained” by predeterminism, but just because a system exists and is internally consistent and follows all of its rules doesn’t mean a better system can’t exist.
If everything and anything can be “justified” that “justice” isn’t useful to consider, and we should think about something like “utility” or “happiness” instead.
I agree. I just don’t think the answer to the question of free will alters (or should alter) our behaviors.
Although, internally it can help, as famously described by Einstein - there’s a helpful translation lower in the page, but it’s interesting to hear his voice whether or not you understand German. As a way of internalizing how people treat you, it’s sweet. I don’t buy it (the philosophy) for a second, but still.
I tend to agree, but the kind of people who believe it is just and good to punish others (as opposed to rehabilitate or something) tend to disagree with us.