2 of 3
2
Sam Harris’ Book “Free Will”.
Posted: 21 March 2012 08:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2012-03-21
nonverbal - 21 March 2012 08:49 AM

No, we don’t lock them up. We medicate them and/or provide them with therapeutic environments.

That they can’t get out of. grin

[ Edited: 21 March 2012 08:57 AM by stephnlawrnce]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 08:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

No, we don’t lock them up. We medicate them and/or provide them with therapeutic environments.

>> As long as YOU personally pay for it and I’m not forced to contribute against my own values, I think that would be beautiful.

[ Edited: 21 March 2012 10:46 AM by mormovies]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2012-03-21
nonverbal - 21 March 2012 07:59 AM

We currently do not incarcerate or build prisons for people who act violently if they lack sufficient mental prowess to have done otherwise.


What could have done otherwise turns out to mean is would have if they were in appropriate and slightly different circumstances.


This makes sense of the practical justifications for punishment, whiich are there are others in similar circumstances who will be deterred by it and the punishment might correct their future behaviour.


But there can be no further justfication, they can’t deserve to suffer because they happened to have been closer to different circumstances in which they would have done otherwise than, say, the mentally ill.


Stephen

[ Edited: 21 March 2012 10:18 AM by stephnlawrnce]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 10:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

But there can be no further justfication, they can’t deserve to suffer because they happened to have been closer to different circumstances in which they would have done otherwise than, say, the mentally ill.

>> They already suffer due to causes beyond their control and they should rightfully suffer!  They are dangerous threats and that is how a rational human being who doesn’t rely on the afterlife and judgement before a god should perceive them.  Victims who randomly come into contact said beings don’t deserve to suffer and/or go out of existence just because they are ‘unlucky’ enough to cross the path of a violent psychopath.

[ Edited: 21 March 2012 10:47 AM by mormovies]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2012-03-21
mormovies - 21 March 2012 10:38 AM

But there can be no further justfication, they can’t deserve to suffer because they happened to have been closer to different circumstances in which they would have done otherwise than, say, the mentally ill.

>> They already suffer due to causes beyond their control and they should rightfully suffer!  They are dangerous threats and that is how a rational human being who doesn’t rely on the afterlife and judgement before a god should perceive them.  Victims who randomly come into contact said beings don’t deserve to suffer and/or go out of existence just because they are ‘unlucky’ enough to cross the path of a violent psychopath.

It might be necessary that they suffer to prevent other suffering, sadly, but I wouldn’t say they should rightly suffer, that seems to imply it’s just to them, which implies it’s fair to them that they suffer.


Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

They rightfully suffer due to bad genes and the non-existence of free will.  It can’t be any other way.  That’s the cosmic law- reality- regardless of what we think or wish.  No other individual should suffer because of their suffering.  I’m against shared, collective suffering as suggested by Jesus and other mystics (both secular and religious).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 11:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29
mormovies - 21 March 2012 10:38 AM

They already suffer due to causes beyond their control and they should rightfully suffer!  They are dangerous threats.

You are mistaken, though some parts of the world have not caught up with social ways of California, admittedly. The state of the art is to provide community-based residence to mentally handicapped people who in previous times were incarcerated. One of my residents, who’d disabled his speech therapist trying to strangle her just prior to being referred to my program, stayed with me for 8 years and now, at age 31, lives a happy and productive life. It’s all about least restrictive environments and other Lanterman-Act stuff. Google if you doubt me rather than speaking out of perverse hope and ignorance.


Today’s post-Lanterman world costs a small fraction of what it used to cost taxpayers to house thousands of mentally handicapped people in institutional settings. Maybe that will warm your heart a little.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

That’s a totally different situation that you cite.  I’m only talking about cases where the result is death or disfigurement where I believe all consideration for the perpetrator is out the window unless the predator can resurrect or restore the victim to the previous condition of life or limb.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 01:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2012-03-21
mormovies - 21 March 2012 11:57 AM

That’s a totally different situation that you cite.  I’m only talking about cases where the result is death or disfigurement where I believe all consideration for the perpetrator is out the window unless the predator can resurrect or restore the victim to the previous condition of life or limb.

What if the suffering of the perpetrator could be prevented without that resulting in any further suffering?

Would it be best to make the perpetrator suffer or not?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 01:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Nobody should suffer for the sake of suffering.  I’m not advocating symbolic or vengeful sacrifice in any way.  The less suffering the better.  If a person takes a life and even gets ‘cured’ of his/her murderous tendencies, they should still remain confined and locked away from society.  Or they can have limited freedom and less rights for the rest of their life.  Nothing can erase or reverse their murderous act.

AND, this is a BIG ‘AND’- we have and will always have limited resources both human and financial.  The criminal’s well being should not be a priority in any situation.  I’d rather contribute money to a poor musical genius who needs to buy a piano to enhance our existence!

[ Edited: 21 March 2012 01:41 PM by mormovies]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2012-03-21
mormovies - 21 March 2012 01:37 PM

Nobody should suffer for the sake of suffering.  I’m not advocating symbolic or vengeful sacrifice in any way.  The less suffering the better.

Then perhaps we agree.

What many of us think is belief in libertarian free will is contrary to this, which is what the fuss is about.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2012 04:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2011-10-21
stephnlawrnce - 21 March 2012 01:40 PM

What many of us think is belief in libertarian free will is contrary to this, which is what the fuss is about.

Stephen

Interesting discussion you all had here, but the fuss in this topic is about Sam Harris’ latest book “Free Will”.


Just to pick nits.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2012 10:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2012-03-21
Daniel OMalley - 22 March 2012 04:02 AM
stephnlawrnce - 21 March 2012 01:40 PM

What many of us think is belief in libertarian free will is contrary to this, which is what the fuss is about.

Stephen

Interesting discussion you all had here, but the fuss in this topic is about Sam Harris’ latest book “Free Will”.


Just to pick nits.

We have seperate points to make Daniel. Yours is about conscious control, I think.

In the book Sam does argue against could have done otherwise in the actual situation and it’s this that I’m pleased he is doing.

Stephen

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 March 2012 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2011-10-21

http://youtu.be/pCofmZlC72g

Here’s Sam Harris on his book “Free Will” - Haven’t watched it yet, it’s 78min

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 07:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2012-03-30

Christianity claims that Man has free will. Yet I believe Sam Harris is right in suggesting we lack free will

I believe Christianity and Sam Harris are both right. The reason is that as fallen man, we lack free will and are creatures of reaction. Free will is a quality of conscious self awareness which we lack in the darkness of Plato’s cave. What we call free will is really just the result of conflicting conditioned desires. When a lion in the jungle decides to get up, it isn’t an action of free will.  It is a reaction resulting from conflicting desires. It is the same for us even though we dislike admitting it.,

Man has free will but we are fallen man. We are creatures of desire with intervals of consciousness wand the potential for sustained consciousness and free will to once again become Man or the “New Man.”

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed