Legal systems are grounded on the notion that we are morally responsible, but under determinism we’re not. Yes, we can be responsible for an act, but “moral” responsibility is intimately connected with libertarian free will; it’s the idea that we have the ability, at any given time, to act either morally or immorally (or make any any other alternative decision, even if it doesn’t involve morality). Yes, I know there are some who think that the justice system already implicitly accepts determinism, but they are wrong. For if it did, we wouldn’t have any form of retributive punishment, including capital punishment.So the criminal does not deserve punishment, but it is good to punish him anyway to deter others. Likewise we reward do-gooders, not because they deserve it, but to provide an incentive for others.As for rewarding good behavior, well, yes, you couldn’t have done otherwise than, say, saved a drowning person. But rewarding people who do good is a spur for other people to do good. Even if the rewarded people don’t “deserve” plaudits in the sense that their accomplishments didn’t come from LFW, handing out rewards for things that society approves of is simply a good thing to do—for society.
Coyne says he is a hard determinist, who believes that everything people do is pre-determined.
I believet that some people have free will, and some do not. Those without free will are essentially slaves, or robots.
If a wild dog kills and eats your pet rabbit, then the dog does not deserve punishment. However I may forcibly separate it from my other pets. I can do this because I have free will.
If I do not have free will, then there is no sense is telling me what I ought to do, or what is moral to do. I will do whatever I have been programmed to do.
I am trying to make sense out of Coyne's position. I think it would make sense if many heroes and do-gooders have no free will, and our authorities and judges and morally conscious citizens do have free will. Then our leaders can make good decisions, and some citizens will respond to incentives. The others are slaves, and can be thrown in prison if they fail to follow orders.
Okay, but Coyne thinks that it is a law of physics that no one has free will. We are all automatons. It is no use trying to persuade anyone of anything. You cannot make a decision, and you cannot influence anyone else's.
As I always say, “It’s much harder to convince a free-willer of the truth of determinism than to convince a creationist of the truth of evolution.”Not surprising. Why does he even try, if he is a determinist?
2 comments:
One would ask:
How pray tell, does Mr. Coyne know he's right?
According to his own very constipated ideology, He can't know anything, as he's ALSO a deterministic robot that has no say or choice in what he believes or says. How is what he says even an informed argument at all and not a inevitable preprogrammed response? His own beliefs would make him about as aware as an micro cassette answering machine.
Oh. I see. Mr Coyne is a hypocrite to his own professed beliefs, and is thus miraculously exempted (like most arrogant like-minded scientists) from including himself among those pesky pre-programmed robotic meat puppets he would delude himself into believing he is advising. Like every other meat puppet, Mr. Coyne ALSO has no ability to determine anything he says or does, he's just following his programming.
It is a shame scientists are not required by law to swear an oath borrowing a line from the doctors: " I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage."
What Coyne is doing by undermining human accountability is very harmful and damaging, as it is an open license to commit any stupidity.
Yes, it is funny how these guys can reject free will, and yet be so opinionated about what everyone else should believe and do.
Post a Comment